facebookpixel

I write about living in San Francisco often. Not the city itself, but the proximity to amazing outdoor thrills. This afternoon I’ll hop in the water for a quick surf. Probably squeeze in a mountain bike ride in the early evening across the bridge in Marin County. World-class trail running abounds in redwood forests just north and south of here. Salmon are running in local streams. If my family decides to play in the snow, that’s three hours away. All great stuff.

But even I don’t think San Francisco is the best major city to live in for adventure seekers. That’s clearly Denver. The Rockies, the skiing, the hiking, the riding, the outdoor industry, I mean, come on.

Or maybe it’s Salt Lake City, actually. Or, crap, Seattle. Shoot, Portland is pretty great. And Vancouver, my goodness. Heck, Los Angeles is holding in ways most people don’t realize. Even NYC is closer to bonafide outdoor fun than many think.

ADVERTISEMENT

Adventure towns, sure we argue about those all the time. Moab, Boulder, San Luis Obispo, take your pick. But what about the big cities?


As an incentive for conversation, we’re giving away a copy of Adventure Journal to one commenter chosen at random. You can choose any issue we have in stock, and if you’re already a subscriber we can extend your sub by an issue, send you an issue you don’t have, or give one to a friend. Just include your email when you post your comment so we can get in touch.

Photo: Mike D

Pin It on Pinterest