Better home for a climber: SF Bay or Seattle?

I have the opportunity to start my next job in either the SF Bay area or in Seattle, and I'm curious what folks think will be the better location for a climber. I've loved having options for great sport, trad, and ice in NH the last year or two, and I would like to continue to grow as a well-rounded climber, with an emphasis on alpine.

What are everyone's thoughts on these two options as far as climbing goes? While I've done some reading myself, I haven't done any climbing in the Sierras or the Cascades, so any and all comments are welcome!

I'm cross-posting this in both the Northern CA and PNW forums for balanced feedback.

- Kevin

SF

End thread.

Somewhat dependent upon what you are into.

Good weather, clean rock, and year-round climbing? Straight to the Bay.

Brutal approaches and more "alpine" climbing and lots of rain, head on up to Seattle.

Take your schedule into account.
If you're going to be doing the weekend warrior thing, think again about SF. Also remember it's a long drive to the climbing and there isn't much to do climbing wise mid week aside from the gym.
If those things don't bother you, the climbing is rather good.

Can't speak to Seattle, but the Bay Area can be a bit of a tease. Best real climbing is either South Lake Tahoe (~3 hours), Yosemite (~4-5 hours), and of course the Eastern Sierras (5-9 hours, depending on destination.)

On one hand, I feel privileged to get to climb in some of the best trad/(fair weather, low altitude) alpine destinations in the world. OTOH, "climbing" to me pretty much means fighting god awful traffic, and giving up my entire weekend. The latter is fine, but usually means it's either my climbing friends, or "normal" friends. I'd contrast this to any place that lets you get in satisfying climbing with a sub-2 hour drive, which i'd consider a lot more reasonable for a day trip. The 3-4 hour commute also wears on you, and after a while, I was doing the drive home, and just said "F this, why do I keep driving away from my home every weekend to be where I really want to be, doing what I want to do?" I quit my job for the summer to try and get it out of my system a bit before resigning myself back to warrior status again.

I think a place like Colorado might be a relief from that, not sure about Seattle. True, the gyms are stellar around here, but if it's real rock you really enjoy, get used to a lot of driving.

On the driving note, is also feels very hypocritical to enjoy the outdoors as much as I (and many people I know) do, and yet burn all that gas weekend after weekend driving to our various destinations.

Sorry I can't give a more straightforward yay or nay on my usual place of abode.

I lived in the Bay Area for a year. It can be difficult to get to the climbing, but it is just as difficult to get to the climbing from Seattle, and the roads are worse, and it rains so much that you either need to be proficient at climbing in permanently wet conditions or limit yourself to one month of climbing per year. The Bay Area is your best bet given your two options.

Telecommute from Bishop?

jack s. wrote:I lived in the Bay Area for a year. It can be difficult to get to the climbing, but it is just as difficult to get to the climbing from Seattle, and the roads are worse, and it rains so much that you either need to be proficient at climbing in permanently wet conditions or limit yourself to one month of climbing per year.

The hate on Seattle in this thread is killing me. I lived in LA for about 2 years and moved back to Seattle about 8 months ago. From being spoiled with all of the climbing around LA, I do have to say this winter was a little tought. Seattle is blessed with a few really great gyms, and Jtree is pretty easy to jet to in the winter.

That being said this time of year is a little more rainy than I was expecting. The east side of the mountains definitely see ALOT less rain that here in Seattle. I have gone to Leavenworth probably three times this season and got to climb in the sun, while I had to drive in the rain to get there. There are also a lot more options close to the city. For instance, I'm leaving work today at 3:00 to drive 30 minutes to exit 32 to do some pretty sweet sport climbing. The last few times I've been to Index this season, I have spent about one hour in the car too, which definitely in the category of "close" when you live in the city. I have also made a few weekend trips to Squamish this season which has been sweet. I think I made it in 3 hours last time I went. The cool thing about squamish is that it is at sea level, so it is still climbable in the winter if you get a nice patch of weather. As for the comment above about the roads, this couldn't be farther from the truth. The roads here are very nice and traffic once out of the city normally isn't that bad.

Climbing aside, I have spent some time in SF as well, and Seattle is less crowded, cleaner, has better coffee and micro brews, better skiing/snowboarding (I know Tahoe is sweet, but Mount Baker is better!!!!).

One thing that I will give to SF, and this is a huge thing that I have considered moving there for is the Valley. Pretty unbeatable if that is the climbing you want to do.

Golden Co.