where to retire

Eric8 wrote:

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...

Yeah, there’s a reason nobody’s mentioned those places, and it’s not because they suck. It’s because overcrowding sucks. 

Guy Keesee wrote:

I have been driving my Wife crazy by getting real estate information for deserted western mining towns. Some excellent values to be had!

Had I been heads up enough I would have put in a bid for Cerro Gordo.   

I know, but I'm not telling!

Pnelson wrote:

Yeah, there’s a reason nobody’s mentioned those places, and it’s not because they suck. It’s because overcrowding sucks. 

As a person who has been retired for 8 years, I will say that I don't find Bishop, or for that matter, Mammoth or any of the areas on the East side, or Tuolumne or Red Rocks or Joshua Tree to be crowded.  When you are retired, you climb during the week and avoid the crowds, which are mostly present on weekends and Holidays. 

I owned property in Swall Meadows (near Bishop) and was going to build a house and retire there but had second thoughts.  Personally, I needed a big city closer by.

Our criteria:  not too far from a major airport to make travel easy.  Not too far from a big city with good health care options/excellent hospitals accessible, good ethnic food of all varieties, and good art museums.  Good climbing within day trip distances and great climbing within 4-6 hrs drive, beach access for day trips for me, good road biking for him, no really cold weather (for me).  Before we moved from the San Francisco area and ended up in the "Inland Empire" of southern California, and before our criteria really gelled, we looked at Sonoma, Reno, Las Vegas, Bend, Prescott, and a couple other places.  You might not get a house for under $500k in our particular town, but nearby you can.  J Tree is 2 hrs, other local climbing places are closer and those are day trips.  Red Rock is 4 Hrs, Bishop is 5 Hrs and those are road trips.

My solution to not having climbing outside my door is to own an RV and do road trips, to a variety of places.  If your idea of retirement is that you are going to be a climber and skier first and other stuff isn't as important to you, yes, it's better to live in a place with immediate access.  

Logan sucks tell your friends.... don’t come here it’s fir sure washed up.

Henry Lester wrote:

Thanks for the ideas. I want to avoid both forms of congestion. I drove through Grand Junction yesterday - ugly and no charm; ditto for Canon City.  Pagosa/Durango may be worth a second look, although Durango (and maybe Bend, OR) feel like they may have passed their peak. Lander may be interesting, although it has been awhile since I have been there. 

Any thoughts on Logan, UT?

Van

Cortina, Italy (Dolomites)

Steve Sangdahl wrote:

Cortina, Italy (Dolomites)

That’s really funny, as I was reading thru I was thinking the same thing ......

Less than 3 hours to Zion, 3 hours to Joshua Tree, less than an hour to a ski resort, less than an hour to 5.14 sport climbing in the summer (even a 5.15b nearby), hundreds of multi-pitch trad, bouldering to v16, cheap air fare in and out, great mountain biking,....     Figure it out.  Downside - our house has gone up almost 100k since we left 3 years ago and it's getting crowded at the crags.  (only left for family reasons but it was perfect for this retired grandpa)  True year round, high quality climbing of every type.

I guess it depends on your priorities and if you do or do-not want to live in California. . I will weigh on the Eastside.  I grew up in LA and the Bay Area, climbed a lot all over the Southwest and currently live in Bishop. The Bishop/Eastside of the Sierra Nevada is by far the most varied and least crowded (excluding the Buttermilks)  place for climbing I have ever lived.  You can always find quality climbing with no crowds here once you know your way around.  Skiing is less than an hour away with the added bonus of not having to live in snow... and trust me- the older you get - the less you will be able to cope with living in snow.     The downside of Bishop is the overpriced and limited housing and sucky- shopping and medical care .  The medical care issue here has shut down a couple of my retired  friends with certain medical conditions from moving here.  

Where Phyl lives in the "Inland Empire" actually was the perfect choice given her requirements and she is 1-4 hours from a good variety of year round climbing with a bit less traffic than living in LA proper.

My personal observations:  Remote locations will become increasingly problematic as you age.  Flagstaff is locked down with shitty cold weather and monsoons half the year. Bend is limited basically to one climbing area which is insanely overcrowded a lot of the time. Can't speak for UT.  Boulder- a lot of overcrowded climbing areas.  Las Vegas- hot summers, and very overcrowded , but if you are willing to venture out a bit you can definitely avoid it.  Tuscon- hot in the summer but there is a ton of climbing in AZ available if you are willing travel a a few hours.  

When I was moving out LA - Gardnerville NV ( south of Reno) was a blip on my radar at one point.  Gardnerville has more charm than Carson or Reno IMPO and has easy access to Sonora Pass, Lovers Leap , Woodfords , Tahoe, Eastside Climbing and the Bay Area (where I work seasonally) . Closer proximity to LA is better for me since I have family, friends and a rental there and the local climbing in Bishop is far superior.

Yea, but town is gross (Las Vegas) and the skiing terrible.

L Kap wrote:

Because women are interchangeable commodities.   

Please do not be angry.... to be able to socialize with whoever you wish is a big plus in life. And yes I much prefer women. 

Taos, NM

I really like the replies that suggest an area and/or list pros and cons of places. There’s no perfect place, and everyone’s priorities are different so it’s great to have this megamind exploration of many places and what people’s research and experience show.

I currently live in Tucson, here for grad school, and will be sorry to leave next year. The climbing here is fantastic! Mount Lemmon has more climbing than you will ever be able to do, albeit some is of lesser quality, but sill really amazing and very spread out so you can always pick what you want. In the summer you can still climb near the summit and chase shade, the winters are glorious. Mostly sport or mixed on Lemmon. Mostly 1-3 pitch cragging, but there are a few longer trad lines that can be found at the summit or on Table Mountain or in nearby ranges.

The Cochise Stronghold is a gem. Opposite in many ways to Lemmon and incredibly beautiful. Awesome routes up incredible domes, some are clip ups and many are bolt run out classic out.

Is the climbing here as good as Colorado? No. But it’s still good and accessible and there is a lot. And it’s varied. Good scene too I think. Easy to meet people but also easy to be the only one you see all day.

I learned to climb in the Gunks and miss that dearly. I also climbed as a kid with my dad in Tahquitz where he climbed with the RCS as a teen. Is Tucson as a great as Tahquitz, no. But few places are.

The upside to Tucson is it’s a really nice city that is very affordable. For example, gas prices in Tucson are very low, currently 1.92/gallon. Good infrastructure. Liberal. People are friendly. Way less ritzy than Boulder. Way less. There is ample desert land you can find for cheep and build if you are into that.

Driving from Tucson to Joshua Tree or Tahquitz is about 6 hours.

The big downside is the summer is very very hot. 105-110 every day for 2-3 months. You can escape it by going high on Mount Lemmon (9,000 ft). But it still blows day to day. 

I hope to be back east next year, miss that scene.

In many ways I wish I could live in Southenr California, so close to so much, but I grew up there and it’s a ZOO. I never want to have to commute in LA traffic again.

Jeff Young wrote:

Taos, NM

I'm surprised at the lack of NM mentions given the criteria. Seems like a good set of attributes:

- Sparsely populated and uncrowded compared to CA, CO, etc, but still some large enough towns and cites to have the amenities you need

- Generally low cost of living (at least compared to other mountainous areas of the west)

- Generally warm and sunny weather, but opportunities to get up to elevation to avoid the heat

- Good climbing - not major destinations necessarily, but plenty of decent uncrowded local crags. Skiing available also.

Los Alamos seems cool also. Small town in the mountains with good outdoor access, but close enough to Santa Fe and Albuquerque for urban amenities. The influence of the National Lab has some beneficial effects on the local culture. Its somewhere I'd consider moving, though it would not be the best choice if access to the most and best climbing is your highest priority.

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. 

Boulder is probably what you are looking for. Only half-joking. There's a reason it's so popular. It checks a lot of boxes, especially for serious climbers.

JCM wrote:

I'm surprised at the lack of NM mentions given the criteria. Seems like a good set of attributes:

- Sparsely populated and uncrowded compared to CA, CO, etc, but still some large enough towns and cites to have the amenities you need

- Generally low cost of living (at least compared to other mountainous areas of the west)

- Generally warm and sunny weather, but opportunities to get up to elevation to avoid the heat

- Good climbing - not major destinations necessarily, but plenty of decent uncrowded local crags. Skiing available also.

- Blue meth.

JCM wrote:

I'm surprised at the lack of NM mentions given the criteria. Seems like a good set of attributes:

- Sparsely populated and uncrowded compared to CA, CO, etc, but still some large enough towns and cites to have the amenities you need

- Generally low cost of living (at least compared to other mountainous areas of the west)

- Generally warm and sunny weather, but opportunities to get up to elevation to avoid the heat

- Good climbing - not major destinations necessarily, but plenty of decent uncrowded local crags. Skiing available also.

Los Alamos seems cool also. Small town in the mountains with good outdoor access, but close enough to Santa Fe and Albuquerque for urban amenities. The influence of the National Lab has some beneficial effects on the local culture. Its somewhere I'd consider moving, though it would not be the best choice if access to the most and best climbing is your highest priority.

 

50 shades of brown, Depressed petro-state economy, high crime rate, insular locals, shortage of water, hotter than hades in the summer, freezing in the winter, windy as hell in the spring, ski season is two months long, and all the climbing is choss.

...and yes, paradise for meth enthusiasts. 

Steve Sangdahl wrote:

Cortina, Italy (Dolomites)

I live in Cortina and wouldn't call the climbing quieter than the Front Range...That said, it would be a great place to retire.