Worst destination climbing area to be a local?

Then, why'd you comment, rockstar?

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Then, why'd you comment, rockstar?

Considering I’m still looking for an answer to my original question, it should be fairly obvious why I’m commenting, cupcake.

Although I haven’t actually lived there, I suspect that Arapiles might be a grim place to be a local. It’s surrounded by the industrially farmed and rather unscenic Wimmera Plains, the summers are brutal, and Natimuck is not exactly a cosmopolitan town, unless you count the septuagenarian brass band that plays at Christmas (the local gear shop, however, is world class).

On the other hand, it is possible to climb year round if you’re a lizard (like the local stumpies) or chase shade, and the Grampians are close by and offer many lifetimes of adventure notwithstanding the recent closures. If you’re stoked on hard trad, Natty may actually be a great base, but good luck finding local work or having much of a life outside of climbing. 

David Jefferson wrote:

Although I haven’t actually lived there, I suspect that Arapiles might be a grim place to be a local. It’s surrounded by the industrially farmed and rather unscenic Wimmera Plains, the summers are brutal, and Natimuck is not exactly a cosmopolitan town, unless you count the septuagenarian brass band that plays at Christmas (the local gear shop, however, is world class).

On the other hand, it is possible to climb year round if you’re a lizard (like the local stumpies) or chase shade, and the Grampians are close by and offer many lifetimes of adventure notwithstanding the recent closures. If you’re stoked on hard trad, Natty may actually be a great base, but good luck finding local work or having much of a life outside of climbing. 

What!? Natimuk is freaking Paris compared to the other similar sized towns in western Victoria.

(I see you're in Christchurch - do you usually drive from Melbourne? When you drive from Sydney you go through some serious two horse towns coming in to Horsham from the north-east, St Arnaud, Rupanyup, Murtoa)

I mean yes you won't have much life outside of climbing, but thats exactly why people move there? It's only 4 hours drive from Melbourne.

The access situation at Dyurrite/Arapiles is better than the Grampians, I think partly because the non-climbing locals know exactly what will happen to them without the climbing tourism - they'd be a dead ghost town like any number of other similar rural towns within 2 hours radius of Horsham.

Previously I would have suggested Nowra, it's really not so bad anymore. South-east Australia as a whole is so damn gentrified, I'd live in any climbing-adjacent town in the south east. Not Queensland though - it has the opposite problem to Squamish, it's a sauna for ten months of the year, I'd melt.

Ohhh I forget northern NSW.

Coonabarabran (Warrumbungles) or Narrabri (Kaputar) would be hard. But I guess they're not as big destinations, certainly not international destinations. I think I'd have to say one of those two would be the worst in Australia. I mean look at the name, it's like something out of Mad Max or Wake In Fright.

As well, there's no cragging (nothing but serious multipitches on bad gear and long access for you) and a short season (you think the Wimmera gets hot and dry!?)

Fred Nicole visited Armidale for bouldering so I guess it counts. It's a university town though, it's livable. There used to be a climbing festival as well.

"The origin of the name 'Coonabarabran' is unconfirmed. It may derive from the Kamilaroi word 'gunbaraaybaa' meaning 'excrement', translated earlier as 'peculiar odor'"

Yeah...I think we found the worst destination area in Australia to be a local.

Ellen S wrote:

• There aren't really population centers with jobs that are close to the climbing. Even if you managed to live or dirtbag in a more ideal location, there's still problems. 
  • I pretty much ran out of interesting moderates to do (incl other places like the Leap) already. Yeah my fault for being weak but I'm also weak in CO and I didn't run out of stuff to do in 4x as long. So to some extent, a visitor can get almost as much value out of NorCal climbing as a local can. 

Ever heard of Sacramento or Fresno? They're population centers. They've got jobs. Maybe not fancy enough, though!

There is just absolutely no way that Colorado has more interesting moderate climbing than the state of CA or even Northern CA - the sierra alone has more rock than the entirety of Colorado. You just have to look for it and be willing to climb moderates that aren't documented as extensively as your average BoCan 5.8... Colorado has great access, but that doesn't make your claim true!

I assert that BOULDER is the WORST climbing destination to be a local! Tech bros..pit vipers...2023 4-runners...the stuff of my nightmares! Probably the closest Whole Foods to great cragging, though...

And the crowds!

It is far better to be a disgruntled local than to drive a minimum of 4 hours to any decent climbing area.

Ryan Kennedy wrote:

I live about 2 hours south of Atlanta. Yonah was the first place I went as it was the closest sitting 3 hours away. For my very first trip it was awesome. After seeing pictures of western climbing, I quickly realized my 3 (at most) pitch tall granite dome was not worth the drive. After talking to those at the gym, they led me to Sandrock. So, we took off probably a week later. After just over 3 hours of driving, the experience was well enough that I have been back over 10 times. Now, I feel there is not much left in my grade range worth doing that I havent already sent. What do I do now? Drive further of course! Chattanooga holds very good climbing, so good that I could see it as a destination for some. After the 4 hour drive, why not just double it and go to The Red. Now, The Red is AMAZING. I’d like to go back for as long as I can. Unfortunately, all the big, scenic, multipitches are on the other side of the country. Luckily, two and a half years into my climbing journey, we are officially going to Indian Creek and Zion next May. The only place I could see being more inconvenient to live in is probably Florida. But we will make the most of what we can!

In 5 hours you could be at looking glass with some pretty sick climbs. Great free and aid climbing multi pitch routes. And in 4 hours you could be in cashiers. Long and scary routes over there for all to enjoy. Although the areas out west are hard to compete with for sure 

JCM wrote:

I think people keep missing the point of the thread - places that are great destinations to visit, but would not be great to live full time. 

Saying "weather is what it is" is kind of silly - the weather is precisely the biggest issue with living there. Weather is inherently one of the most important factors in climbing. Have you spent a winter in the PNW? All that impeccable climbing doesn't mean much when it's been raining every day for a month.

I lived in NY for 27 years, and lived through 300+ precipitous days per year. I’m well aware of weather impacts. I also had to travel 5+ hours to get outside. IMO most climbing destinations are better to visit during peak weather seasons than living in full time; there’s really only a handful of places that are good to climb in year round, that aren’t impacted by weather.

All I’m getting at, is that if you have access to climbing in your back yard, and the weather is cooperating, and you can get out with a negligible approach every chance you get, and you can travel in the winter when things are at their worst. It can be so much worse!

I’m just trying to help you PNWers be less depressed about your situation. I’ll comment back next year when I’m living in NY again and can’t get out every weekend, and my mental state is more fried from seasonal depression.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

When Kings Bluff is local, ALL climbing crags are a destination.

That good enough for you, Boss?

You're totally misunderstanding the question.

Sam M wrote:

What!? Natimuk is freaking Paris compared to the other similar sized towns in western Victoria.

(I see you're in Christchurch - do you usually drive from Melbourne? When you drive from Sydney you go through some serious two horse towns coming in to Horsham from the north-east, St Arnaud, Rupanyup, Murtoa)

I mean yes you won't have much life outside of climbing, but thats exactly why people move there? It's only 4 hours drive from Melbourne.

The access situation at Dyurrite/Arapiles is better than the Grampians, I think partly because the non-climbing locals know exactly what will happen to them without the climbing tourism - they'd be a dead ghost town like any number of other similar rural towns within 2 hours radius of Horsham.

Previously I would have suggested Nowra, it's really not so bad anymore. South-east Australia as a whole is so damn gentrified, I'd live in any climbing-adjacent town in the south east. Not Queensland though - it has the opposite problem to Squamish, it's a sauna for ten months of the year, I'd melt.

Fair points, I just mentioned Natty as it’s the closest town to Dyurrite. Personally I wouldn’t want to live full time anywhere within a 2 hour radius of the Mount or Gariwerd, much as I love them. But I accept that others enjoy the rural Aussie lifestyle more than me.

I moved to Chch from Brisbane a few years ago, so I’m well versed in SEQ conditions. They’re really not as bad as people like to say. I always climbed year round there, with some of my hardest sends during summer at Flinders and Coolum. Just gotta chase shade and SE breezes. That said, I do prefer the climate over here in Waitaha, much more comfortable in general.

Oh, and I actually rate Nowra as a place to live (though I haven’t actually lived there), even with its bogan vibe. Hard to beat for the climbing and surfing convenience and quality combo. 

You're totally misunderstanding the question.

Ut oh! The Thread Popo are gonna read me my rights now.

What’s a local? 

I love people talking up the Sierra Westside.  Soon, Fresno will be the new Boulder and your parking areas full of sprinter vans!

PNW discussions are entertaining...outside of a Red Rocks trip, we used to just not climb all winter...until we got Vertical World.  And Amazonia and the Actual Cave were not seepy summer spots, they were where you could still climb in the rain.  Or coming back from an April trip to Vantage with a sunburn, and people were like, "Where the hell have you been?"

p hodges wrote:

I love people talking up the Sierra Westside.  Soon, Fresno will be the new Boulder and your parking areas full of sprinter vans!

PNW discussions are entertaining...outside of a Red Rocks trip, we used to just not climb all winter...until we got Vertical World.  And Amazonia and the Actual Cave were not seepy summer spots, they were where you could still climb in the rain.  Or coming back from an April trip to Vantage with a sunburn, and people were like, "Where the hell have you been?"

Culverts need to be rerouted.

The eastern side of the cascades is a desert, so everyone is being dramatic. There are at least 5 days every month where you can climb in west cascades without too much discomfort. At every notable climbing area there are walls with minimal to no seepage. The feeling of being one of the only hardcore people going out when it’s absolutely horrific and having a whole climbing area to yourself is bliss. If it’s actually to terrible to climb have a bonfire. But sometimes the weather is even great and everyone got scared off.

T Taylor wrote:

But sometimes the weather is even great and everyone got scared off.

Or maybe they had to work?

IJMayer wrote:

Or maybe they had to work?

It’s 2024, nobody works anymore bruh 

M M wrote:

Acadia NP/MDI, unless you got here before affordable housing disappeared. 

You mean before the Rockafellers owned it all?

caesar.salad wrote:

You mean before the Rockafellers owned it all?

You mean the philanthropic Rockefellers that gave up all the land to the NPS or some other family with a similar name?