Best cities to live in for no access to climbing, terrible jobs, expensive housing and poor nightlife?

I've been to Williston, North Dakota. Can confirm it's a horrible oil boom town.

McMurdo Station

Wilmington, North Carolina might be a good bet. 

Bend. Massively overrated, getting out of here ASAP

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

edit: Oh bummer, forgot to check out the horrible job prospect metric. Hmmm

Here's the worst places for jobs so we want to hit that sweet beige area

You have it backwards. Red states are the worst for jobs in that chart.

climbs sometimes wrote:

bakersfield 

All true but the sierras are right there, just an hour to kern slabs

Eric Engbergwrote:

Houston?

I was going to say that, being from there, but it has good jobs and nightlife, and probably OK housing options. Abilene is more like it, or Odessa.

Wasilla

Yeah true about Bako.  Terrible dump of a town but world class climbing isn't that far away. The town itself has some of the worst air quality in the country and lots of crime.  What's not to like?

The housing is probably cheap but Dry Prong, Louisiana sounds painful.

Missoula, Montana. Checks all the boxes here.

 Mars

Surprised the Rust Belt hasn't been mentioned:

Cleveland, Ohio Tourism Ad.

The only box missing is the lack of expensive housing. However, you may find most properties to be so dilapidated, a small fortune must be spent renovating and heating them for survival through the 8-months-long no-sun season.

P.S. I feel comfortable throwing Cleveland under the bus, as it's basically identical to my hometown of Milwaukee, WI. #homesweethome

Not sure how to quote with the new format, but Mars was mentioned. Idk, it looks like a sandstone paradise that could have ample splitters. Haven't quite yet sent up the cragging robot. On top of that  its lower gravity? You come back to the boyz boasting the first 5.15 gear FA? Well, 5.15 on my planet. 

jt newgardwrote:

Surprised the Rust Belt hasn't been mentioned:

Cleveland, Ohio Tourism Ad.

The only box missing is the lack of expensive housing. However, you may find most properties to be so dilapidated, a small fortune must be spent renovating and heating them for survival through the 8-months-long no-sun season.

P.S. I feel comfortable throwing Cleveland under the bus, as it's basically identical to my hometown of Milwaukee, WI. #homesweethome

I say all this having decided to not move back to Cleveland, but having grown up in the area I feel obligated to defend it slightly. It’s certainly not a mecca of anything listed in the title, but there are enough jobs and breweries that it doesn’t feel completely desolate. Climbing wise, the gym scene is huge in NEO and the outdoor bouldering is pretty good at Chippewa- enough to get strong with after-work sessions. The New being four hours away is solid for weekend trips, and the Red is still doable at 5:30 hours. The winters are indeed god awful though

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Darn it, true. Well that gets rid of Midnight, Idaho. 

You have an interesting understanding of "city".

Pretty sure housing cost in Midnight would be whatever you paid at Walmart for your tent. Or the blue tarp to roll up in. Hard to beat that!

Idaho is 48 on your list. I gotta assume that means just about everywhere scores as more desirable for whatever. Usually all that keeps us from scoring most pitiful in the country is Alabama or Mississippi or something. 

And how the heck did you come up with a place name with no population?? There is some fun climbing up that way, kinda. So maybe a "fail" for the terrible climbing metric.

H.

EDIT to add, shouldn't Oakland be on the list??   

"Living in Williston offers residents a dense suburban feel..."

Mmmmm. Gotta love "dense" suburbia.

Live in the one of the better places for climbing and living expenses, but spend most of your time on MP - that would be the same.

York Pennsylvania 

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Oakland has too much good climbing within an hour or two's drive and pretty good job prospects unless you want to work at Twitter 

Oakland, while far from perfect, has too much good stuff going on to make this list. 

Livermore, though, could have a spot on this list. Nothing to speak of for cultural interest or nightlife. While there are good jobs at the Lab, that's super specialized and not available to most - otherwise you're commuting a long way into the Bay for work. I.e. if you don't have a PhD, job options aren't great. Climbing access is pretty meh. Still pretty far from the Sierra climbing, but also pretty far from most of the local Bay Area or coastal climbing. No gym. The climate is more Central Valley than Bay Area.   But despite all this... housing costs are still pretty high. 

Its not the absolute worst on any one metric. Cheaper than the Bay proper. Still weekend distance from the good climbing, Jobs available...for some. Overall though seems like an expensive and boring place to live.