where to retire

L Kap wrote:

For sure there are colder towns, but compared to Boulder, Mammoth and Lander are coooooold.

i have a spreadsheet with weather data for a bunch of climbing towns.  it is really hard to find a place that is within (my) climbing temperature range year round.  when i look at the plots, boulder stands out as having the best temperature/precipitation year round.  when you look at number of climbable days, shear quantity of climbing, etc, it is pretty hard to beat.

slim wrote:

i have a spreadsheet with weather data for a bunch of climbing towns.  it is really hard to find a place that is within (my) climbing temperature range year round.  when i look at the plots, boulder stands out as having the best temperature/precipitation year round.  when you look at number of climbable days, shear quantity of climbing, etc, it is pretty hard to beat.

Yep. Year-round climbing and quantity/variety of climbing are big among the reasons why I'm still here. It's also why I suggested the OP look into smaller towns in this area. Although the trade-off there is that anything up a canyon is much more susceptible to flood and fire. 

Your spreadsheet sounds cool. Can you share it? 

I was the one who brought snow sports into it. Just to clarify the factors I was looking at and why I've looked at the towns I have. If you don't need that it opens up the options a lot. And yeah why deal with snow and cold if you don't need to.

If you want snow occasionally places like Boulder or east of Sacramento are great because you can live mostly snow free and travel 1 hour and be at world class skiing.

If you want it all there are people there already and real estate ain't cheap.

Your peace is inside you (or not) and wherever you go, there you are. You can make your own private Idaho wherever you live balancing the inevitable trade offs.

Henry Lester wrote:

I am looking for thoughts on where to live that gives me most of the benefits of living in Boulder, which is where I am) but without the increasing congestion and crowds. 

we were in that same planning stage about a decade ago and settled on the sierra eastside.  the emphasis is on sierra eastside, vs. bishop or mammoth, which both have downsides (bishop is super hot in summer and mammoth is a shit show in winter on multiple levels).  that said there are numerous other communities on the eastside that are not as hot and crowded.

the climbing on the eastside is as good as most of the better places in the US.  we're 15 minutes from the gorge, 20 minutes from pine creek, and an hour from tuolumne.  rock creek is the 10 minute backyard, june is 30 minutes, lee vining ice is 45 minutes to an hour.  lone pine is 1.5 hours.  the sierra backcountry has many lifetimes worth of exploration in terms of climbing, skiing, hiking, and backpacking.

while you could say that the buttermilks, the happies, and the gorge are overrun (and they are), you can climb quality lines on the eastside any time of year without another party around.

Henry Lester wrote:

I am looking for thoughts on where to live that gives me most of the benefits of living in Boulder, which is where I am) but without the increasing congestion and crowds. 

You could just stay in Boulder and make longer, more distant trips to places you want to climb/ski/eat/etc.   Now that time isn't a limiting factor, month-long or longer trips are feasible.   

And you can keep wearing your Lycra and driving your Prius when you're home. 

The big problem right now is the COVID tax on housing prices. People who can work remotely are exiting the big cities and moving to many of the places folks have listed. Even midsize and small cities are seeing an influx. 

Matt Kelly wrote:

Grand Junction, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Tucson (no summer climbing), St. George, Lander, Pagosa Springs, Idaho Falls (or any cities in ID/MT), Chattanooga

EDIT: Also consider Rapid City, Burlington (VT, cold), Huntington (WV)

Not many folks recognize Huntington, WV... Moved here for short term about 5 years ago, and now still love it. Its amazing how dead the climbing culture is here though with < 2 hrs to either the New or the Red.

Connor Moynihan wrote:

Canon City. 

Canon City could indeed become the next Salida. Get your property down there now, ya'll. It does need a few dozen more coffee and bike shops, however. 

Cocoapuffs 1000 wrote:

Unfortunately that problem isn't likely to go away when COVID dies down.  Remote work is going to be much more common after the pandemic, and the only thing that was keeping many of these cool mountain towns from being completely overrun is a lack of local jobs.  However bad things have gotten in the last 10 years, they are likely to get worse at an even higher rate post-COVID.  This is why we can't have nice things :/

Living in Ohio, I have naturally thought about moving west into the mountains.  But watching everywhere that is remotely desirable be overrun with transplants from flyover states has long discouraged me.  A win for you guys out west I guess...

Naw dude, there is tons of space out here @$250+ a square foot lol.

Seriously tho, anyone crying about crowds is just lazy...tons of unclimbed or rarely visited climbing areas. Not at all far from easy access.

Parma, Majorca.

caughtinside wrote:

Are you complaining about people... just like you?  

I agree with Hillbilly... there's always more places to go. 

I think he said that he *didn't* move out west, so you should thank him. There's always more everything, until there's not. 

Prescott Arizona,

Poster above is wrong about Tucson, at 9000 feet on Lemmon summer climbing abounds

Idaho falls blows, I lived there five years. Don’t even think about it.  Too many church goers. Good climbing is 2.5 hours away. Although I had some great friends there.

Victor and driggs Idaho are nice, but small and cold

at 9000 feet on Lemmon summer climbing abounds

Yeah. I've got to think for retirement and climbing the SW would be hard to beat. Tons of sunshine. You've got to pick an elevation to live at but you can go up or down to climb all year. It's about 3 degrees per 1,000 feet. So from Tucson at 2400' to 9,000' is about 20 degrees cooler. Biggest drawback for me personally it's it's dry and desert like. But that comes with the low rain.

Glowering.... remember this is for Retirement you will be old and feeble- sort of.

Ice, cold places are out. A slip n fall has ended it for many.

The sun belt- Sun City, AZ ... Alive Female to Alive Male ratio is about 5:1..... as a climber you will probably be in good shape. I usta go visit Glen Dawson at his Retirement Home in Pasadena. Even though he was in his 90’s he would run up and down the stairs. He had many Girl Friends, who sadly he outlived, but there always was another one, much younger and ready for adventure. Makes getting old seem like fun. 

Guy Keesee wrote:

The sun belt- Sun City, AZ ... Alive Female to Alive Male ratio is about 5:1..... as a climber you will probably be in good shape. I usta go visit Glen Dawson at his Retirement Home in Pasadena. Even though he was in his 90’s he would run up and down the stairs. He had many Girl Friends, who sadly he outlived, but there always was another one, much younger and ready for adventure. Makes getting old seem like fun. 

Because women are interchangeable commodities.   

Matt Kelly wrote:

... Tucson (no summer climbing), ...

Incorrect!  Tucson is a great spot for year-round climbing.  A lot of the climbing is up near the summit of Mt. Lemmon in the neighborhood of 9000ft.  In the summer, you climb around the summit, then as the seasons change you migrate to the lower mountain (more like 4000ft)

Not a great skiing town of you're looking for that though. 

Ezra Ellis wrote:

Poster above is wrong about Tucson, at 9000 feet on Lemmon summer climbing abounds

But when not climbing at 9000K during the summer Tucson is hot, damn hot, real hot.  But at least not as hot as Phoenix.

 Tucson summer day at 2500 feet or so 107 degrees Temp at 9000 feet 90 degrees. Still pretty goddamn hot.

No mentions of Flagstaff??? I has to be one of Flagstaff, Lander or Bishop depending on ones preferences?  Or are these all to small to be considered relative to Boulder?  Climbing is arguably better in all three depending on your preferred style. Maybe not as many climbable days but all of them do have long seasons and basically no traffic...