Yet another “Where do I move?!?!?” Thread (solved)

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

Instagram would beg to differ regarding Roy….

Roy IS pretty decent, but really, along with Socorro, it is just a stop on the “Boulder to Hueco Pipeline.” If Roy stood by itself, it would be just another pretty cool bouldering area. 

ryan climbs sometimes wrote:

glowering calling nevada city rural is kind of a joke. 

Huh? I said Grass Valley is more rural than Auburn. 

J E wrote:

in a swamp hell scape like florida, I’m unhappy.

Being young and unencumbered I think it's fine for climbing to be your #1 priority. As a matter of fact I'd prioritize getting a job that allows you solid chunks of time off so you can spend a season or more in Yosemite, or at least tell them you can start X date and make sure you've got a month ahead of that to climb and explore. As you get older other things will become more important to you so you have to find balance. And there's plenty of other fun things to do besides climbing. Being in Florida I'd be scuba diving, surfing, maybe kite surfing, etc. Even when you move away if you have family there and come back to visit take advantage of what it has to offer. One of the big advantages of the Sacramento/Tahoe area for me is the world class skiing/snowboarding which I enjoy just as much as climbing. 

Frank Stein wrote:

Roy IS pretty decent, but really, along with Socorro, it is just a stop on the “Boulder to Hueco Pipeline.” If Roy stood by itself, it would be just another pretty cool bouldering area. 

Ah yes, because the majority of the crowds at Roy are just passerby’s   

All joking aside, Roy is certainly still great. Unfortunate that the entire city of Boulder decided to descend upon it all at once. Would have been nice to not have done Owen dirty to the point of never releasing another guidebook. 

OP: come to Sac. I need partners!

To all Sac regional climbers: I need partners!

Timothy Carlson wrote:

OP: come to Sac. I need partners!

To all Sac regional climbers: I need partners!

If you're willing to come down to Arnold or Jamestown PM me 

Is finding partners out that way really so difficult? I mean I could be surrounded by the best climbing ever but I guess that doesn’t matter so much if there’s so few people to link up with.

J E wrote:

Is finding partners out that way really so difficult? I mean I could be surrounded by the best climbing ever but I guess that doesn’t matter so much if there’s so few people to link up with.

Finding partners is no issue in places like Sac, ABQ, Tucson etc - anywhere with enough of a population to support a major climbing gym. Its also easy to find partners in a mountain town with a climbing scene (like Truckee or Bishop); even if the population is smaller it makes up for it with density of climbers.  An inability to find partners would say more about the person than about the place. However, in a tiny town with no major climbing scene (presumably Ricky's situation in Angel's Camp), finding local partners is a lot harder. 

In Grass Valley you'd probably be fine. Some local climbers (and a new gym in construction to help you meet them), plus close enough to the Sac and North Tahoe communities to climb with people from there also. That new gym being built looks nice - will be a great asset to those living there.

Thanks for the info JCM! Looks like the foothills remain at the top of my list

J E wrote:

Reviving the discussion: I have a potential job opportunity in the ABQ. I’m a bit hesitant as there doesn’t seem to be as much of a wealth of climbing out there compared to CO/CA. Anyone with experience in this region?

Returning to this: ABQ would be an entirely reasonable option, given the parameters laid out in the original post. Good access to a variety of climbing,  good year round climate, good gyms, large enough city to offer the expected urban amenities, low cost of living (especially compared to most other cities with good climbing access) . I don't think anyone would claim it to be the ultimate climbing town, but if you have good job opportunities there and everything else lines up, it should be entirely acceptable from a climbing perspective. 

---

---

Remind me: why did you write off Reno? It's a good town and worth reconsidering. Lots of climbers live there. Good climbing access, good climbing gym, interesting landscape, lots of other outdoor sports to do in the area also. Local to north Tahoe, and easy weekend access down the eastern Sierra. Access to major popular areas and also to empty/uncrowded obscure spots.  Good weekend access options for the long alpine rock routes you seem interested in. Large enough city to offer all the urban amenities, but not so big to have big traffic issues. Every time I visit Reno it reminds me a lot of the Front Range (in terms of landscape, weather, mountain access, suburban layout of the city), just with substantially less people, development, and traffic. Downside: has gotten hammered by wildfire smoke in recent summers (downwind of Tahoe fire); generally smokier than Sac has been.

I guess it comes down to how big a town/city you are looking for. A lot of the criteria you suggested in the original post (job opportunities; dating; a good ropes gym) are amenities generally better found in a larger town like Reno (or Sac, or ABQ, etc), versus a small foothills town.  There are certain upsides to the smaller towns, of course, they are just different and it depends on priorities. Things to think about.

JCM wrote:

Remind me: why did you write off Reno? It's a good town and worth reconsidering. Lots of climbers live there. Good climbing access, good climbing gym, interesting landscape, lots of other outdoor sports to do in the area also. Local to north Tahoe, and easy weekend access down the eastern Sierra. Access to major popular areas and also to empty/uncrowded obscure spots.  Good weekend access options for the long alpine rock routes you seem interested in. Large enough city to offer all the urban amenities, but not so big to have big traffic issues. Every time I visit Reno it reminds me a lot of the Front Range (in terms of landscape, weather, mountain access, suburban layout of the city), just with substantially less people, development, and traffic. Downside: has gotten hammered by wildfire smoke in recent summers (downwind of Tahoe fire); generally smokier than Sac has been.

I guess it comes down to how big a town/city you are looking for. A lot of the criteria you suggested in the original post (job opportunities; dating; a good ropes gym) are amenities generally better found in a larger town like Reno (or Sac, or ABQ, etc), versus a small foothills town.  There are certain upsides to the smaller towns, of course, they are just different and it depends on priorities. Things to think about.

At the moment, Job opportunities are a little dry in Reno. To make the amount I quoted above, I’d also need to work in CA; those jobs are, atm, closer to sac than Reno. The immediate area isn’t so inspiring to me and it seems a little harder to find good winter climbing compared to the sac area (climbing is my primary sport, with hiking being a distant second, so the ‘winter sports’ like skiing aren’t much of a selling point for me). Sac also has a better airport for both domestic and international compared to Reno, and while I haven’t yet visited either I think the culture and politics of the sac area is probably more in line with what I’m looking for. Was also a bit scared off by the horrible air quality comments. Sounds like the foothills have their own problem with that, though not quite as bad.

J E wrote:

At the moment, Job opportunities are a little dry in Reno. To make the amount I quoted above, I’d also need to work in CA; those jobs are, atm, closer to sac than Reno. The immediate area isn’t so inspiring to me and it seems a little harder to find good winter climbing compared to the sac area (climbing is my primary sport, with hiking being a distant second, so the ‘winter sports’ like skiing aren’t much of a selling point for me). Sac also has a better airport for both domestic and international compared to Reno, and while I haven’t yet visited either I think the culture and politics of the sac area is probably more in line with what I’m looking for. Was also a bit scared off by the horrible air quality comments. Sounds like the foothills have their own problem with that, though not quite as bad.

Makes sense. Seems like you have a good sense overall of the differences and tradeoffs between those two locations. Reno is a good spot, but those are all good reasons to exclude it and/or consider Sac metro instead. 

It is interesting on this site, and in the general climbing community, Reno is considered a highly desirable climbing location, and Sac isn't so much. I don't necessarily agree with that though. Both are pretty good spots and there's reasonable tradeoffs between them. I live in Sac currently. If given the opportunity to move to Reno vs. stay in Sac, not sure which I'd choose. Probably stay in Sac actually.

On the topic of larger cities vs smaller towns: Don't write off the option of living in the city in Sacramento, if that is where you find good job options. Its pretty nice in the city proper. It doesn't have any one super-close local crag, but it is centrally located to have reasonable access to a lot of areas. City vs foothills are both reasonable options, with their own tradeoffs.

My only reservation with Sac is it's a lot farther from the stuff that grabs my interest the most (sierras, ORG) compared to the foothills. Also higher CoL. I'd also like to be able to hit some of the trails between sac-reno after work, which might be a little harder if living in sac (unless I'm way east like I think you or someone else mentioned before)

I only just now looked at where Angel's Camp is. I'm kind of shocked at its lack of a climbing scene. It's got a healthy amount of sport climbing right outside its borders with yosemite just a stone's throw away. Is it just a case of being overshadowed by a bigger, better town?

J E wrote:

My only reservation with Sac is it's a lot farther from the stuff that grabs my interest the most (sierras, ORG) compared to the foothills. Also higher CoL. I'd also like to be able to hit some of the trails between sac-reno after work, which might be a little harder if living in sac (unless I'm way east like I think you or someone else mentioned before)

I only just now looked at where Angel's Camp is. I'm kind of shocked at its lack of a climbing scene. It's got a healthy amount of sport climbing right outside its borders with yosemite just a stone's throw away. Is it just a case of being overshadowed by a bigger, better town?

Sonora has a climbing scene but you can't talk about it on the internet. Only kinda sorta joking. Angels is 15 minutes from Columbia, 20 minutes from table mountain, and day access to both Tahoe and Yosemite. And a ludicrous amount of potential within half an hour but you have to DM me to get the deets on that. =)

Everything near Tahoe and Yosemite that isn't Tahoe or Yosemite is extremely quiet. 

FYI Sierra means mountain range so it’s the Sierra. Not the Sierras. If course you’re welcome to speak however you want but just in case you want to say it the correct way. 

Ricky Harline wrote:

Sonora has a climbing scene but you can't talk about it on the internet. Only kinda sorta joking. Angels is 15 minutes from Columbia, 20 minutes from table mountain, and day access to both Tahoe and Yosemite. And a ludicrous amount of potential within half an hour but you have to DM me to get the deets on that. =)

Everything near Tahoe and Yosemite that isn't Tahoe or Yosemite is extremely quiet. 

Is the Sonora scene secretive because it's awesome or because the boogeyman/bigfoot/chupacabra/aliens might attack you in the middle of the night. Only sorta joking. 

Glowering wrote:

FYI Sierra means mountain range so it’s the Sierra. Not the Sierras. If course you’re welcome to speak however you want but just in case you want to say it the correct way. 

Well, better start saying it right if I’m going to fit in lol 

Jared, you mentioned air quality somewhere in this epic, lol. Just keep in mind, the west likes to burn pretty regularly, sadly. It's hit and miss who gets torched, and where the smoke ends up, but it's now a fact of life for summers here.

If that's a big issue for you, the only way out is to stay where the wind always moves smoke out and fresh air in.

Best, H.

Old lady H wrote:

Jared, you mentioned air quality somewhere in this epic, lol. Just keep in mind, the west likes to burn pretty regularly, sadly. It's hit and miss who gets torched, and where the smoke ends up, but it's now a fact of life for summers here.

If that's a big issue for you, the only way out is to stay where the wind always moves smoke out and fresh air in.

Best, H.

I guess I'm not entirely sure; having lived only in RI and FL (fml) I've never really had to deal with that kind of thing. Only one way to find out