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

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. 

Technically sierra means saw in Spanish but has been used to mean mountain sange because of their  sawtooth look.

JCM wrote:

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.

I'm in Reno currently. I agree, the winter climbing opportunities are often better over there. However, Reno is hard to beat for summer climbing. I can climb at donner on weekday summer mornings and be back in Reno to work at 10am, after a dip in the lake. Or head up for evenings. Pretty amazing. Sac doesnt have such weekday climbing, correct me if I'm wrong. Plus easier to eastside and everything else for weekends. Of course, the skiing access is incredible and is a big reason why I think a lot of people, including me, love it here.

Having said all that,  my partner and I both see ourselves moving to the westside eventually. For me, I'm a sucker for the climbing (weekend style) over there - valley, seki, etc. For her, she loves the foothills and rivers. So this conversation has been really interesting to me. We'll end up in the foothills (vs. city) if we get out choice, but it's cool to get your take on Sac. 

And it's super fascinating to me that a where-do-I-move thread settles on Sierra foothills out of the whole nation. Although, if I had the freedom to move wherever, that's probably where I'd go. We also have family close by so that helps, but I still can't imagine anywhere else that could theoretically work with jobs, affordability, etc. that I'd pick over the Sierra westside. 

Re: east vs west of Sierra crest, there's been some mention of smoke already but I haven't seen the prospect of direct wildfire threat raised yet. Western slope is such a sketchy and worsening tinderbox, the only spots that seem to be taking the risk seriously and redesigning around fire resistance/resilience are ones that have been badly burned already (e.g. Paradise). Driving through Grass Valley strip recently it's hard not to get foreshadowing of inevitable disaster in the near term. East side scrublands can and do burn, but seems like population centers are much less likely to combust? Maybe less of a concern if you rent and can head for the exit quickly, but still. If you haven't been through a fire or near miss, it'll shake you.

J E wrote:

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

EDIT to add: ^^^^post just mine above mine is too sadly true. Do take heed, don't worry overly, but don't blow it off, either. Residential areas, downtowns, and even whole little towns have been taken out in recent years. And watching the flames isn't unheard of, for most of us.

Wow! So this move will be a huge change. I'm excited for ya! Post back when/if/as things progress??

The other thing I'd add, re west vs east, is everything is a long ways from everything else, and there's still a lot of big empty spaces. People get it, intellectually, but it doesn't hit until you're out here. If you do think to get back to see family, anything like that, it might mean multiple airports, and all that entails. If you don't wanna drive multiple hours, you'll also not be climbing much of what the west has to offer, either.

Re Reno, it's kinda all by itself (I like that, personally, that's even more the case for Boise), but it's also a decent base to jump off to other destination climbing.

Best, Helen

My wife’s sister keeps critical documents in storage in Sacramento…Just in case Nevada City goes up in flames. She also had some difficulty selling property in Grass Valley because fire insurance was a challenge if one is not grandfathered in.

That said, don’t underestimate brush fires encroaching into suburban areas. Just look at the fire that tore through Louisville, CO recently. Nobody thought that place would burn. 

Hmmmm

East vs west...

We don't have hurricanes.

We don't have humidity.

But, I'll see the wildfires and raise with....

Earthquakes!

And volcanoes!

Old lady H wrote:

Hmmmm

East vs west...

We don't have hurricanes.

We don't have humidity.

But, I'll see the wildfires and raise with....

Earthquakes!

And volcanoes!

 

You ( west) have poison oak, we have poison ivy.

You have rattlesnakes, we have copperheads ( and rattlers).

We have blizzards, you have——blizzards.

Yeah, it’s a ‘wash’.

Hi Helen.

Alan Rubin wrote:

You ( west) have poison oak, we have poison ivy.

You have rattlesnakes, we have copperheads ( and rattlers).

We have blizzards, you have——blizzards.

Yeah, it’s a ‘wash’.

Hi Helen.

You have green.

Kevinmurray wrote:

Technically sierra means saw in Spanish but has been used to mean mountain sange because of their  sawtooth look.

Yes, and nevada means snowfall, snowstorm, snowy. In the context of Sierra Nevada it means snow covered mountain range.

And to me it just sounds better. The High Sierra. vs. the High Sierras. The Sierra Nevada vs. The Sierra Nevadas, The Sierra Club vs. The Sierras Club.

ben brownell wrote:

Re: east vs west of Sierra crest, there's been some mention of smoke already but I haven't seen the prospect of direct wildfire threat raised yet. Western slope is such a sketchy and worsening tinderbox, the only spots that seem to be taking the risk seriously and redesigning around fire resistance/resilience are ones that have been badly burned already (e.g. Paradise). Driving through Grass Valley strip recently it's hard not to get foreshadowing of inevitable disaster in the near term. East side scrublands can and do burn, but seems like population centers are much less likely to combust? Maybe less of a concern if you rent and can head for the exit quickly, but still. If you haven't been through a fire or near miss, it'll shake you.

Really good point. If my partner and I were to move, it would probably be lower elevation foothills, i.e. oak trees and grass, maybe safer. Our family is higher up on the 50 and the calder and 2014 king fire were insanely stressful, obivously. Luckily for them, all ended well. And hopefully, now they are at least safe for a while, but as someone said fire insurance is still a major crux.

Another point for sac: Healthcare workers are better compensated in the Bay Area-Sacramento metro regions that perhaps anywhere else in the nation.

Source: it’s why I moved here. 

Old lady H wrote:

You have green.

We have green. It's just a lot more subtle in some areas.