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.
Adventure towns, sure we argue about those all the time. Moab, Boulder, San Luis Obispo, take your pick. But what about the big cities?
Photo: Mike D
Geneva
Geneva, New York. At least there’s the lakefront bike path!
Ithaca/Trumansburg is the only place I’d live if I moved back to the Northeast.
I hope this comment section becomes active with everyone debating/telling why their city is an ideal ‘launching point’ for outdoor activities. I’m currently prepping to move from a mid-Atlantic city to either SLC/Portland/Denver, predominately for this reason – tired of flying to these cities whenever I need some big outdoor time. So I’m interested to see where this goes…
…and since this list is strictly Western cities, let me add some East Coast love – Boston. I spent a summer there and I think it more than packs a punch IF you have a car. A couple hours and you can be in The Whites in New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, the Berkshires in Western Mass and, obviously, the ocean. For my time there, it provided more than enough opportunity to send on some incredible times.
You’re moving from a southeast city to a middle of the country mountain town. You are gonna end up hating winter, be forewarned.
If I were you, I’d look at a place like Reno, which allows a winter escape with a short drive over the hill.’
Mid-Atlantic is not SE…DC and northward have legit winters. I live in CLT, my GF is currently working in AK, she’s not having a problem. It was -50 last week + it sounds as though DL knows what they are getting themselves into. As noted by someone else, many of the West Coast cities noted are VERY $$$.
If we are going European – Prague, Munich or Split.
Portland Maine
I will second that. Maine has any western state beat. Rugged coastline, limitless forest, wild mountain wilderness, affordable and no crowds, no traffic. Every time I go to Denver and gaze at the mountains from the middle of a traffic jam I wonder why anyone lives there?
I’m pretty biased but I think Phoenix/Flagstaff are underrated. Denver, SLC, Seattle and Vancouver limit you to snow in the winter. SF is great but you still have to get out of the city. Phoenix and Flag you got options year round or get two hours out and you are in a different world.
No I trail run and surf within SF city limits almost every day
SLC’s proximity to YEAR ROUND wilderness has made it my new home base. I can hike into the Uintas and fish for trout in the high Alpine lakes, I’m a scenic 3 hour drive away from amazing experiences, in ID, CO, WY, NV and within UT, or I can catch a direct flight to Amsterdam or Anchorage. C’mon, with adventure so close you can get in a mountain bike trail or a backcountry ski lap before work and an easy airport to get you anywhere else, SLC area rocks.
115 degrees may be limiting to some folks, more so than winter snow.
I can’t imagine having to ride my mountain bike in the dark all summer because it’s to hot to ride during the day.
Flag is fine, but it’s the same as all the other “winter” destinations.
When I lived in SF, I could ride my bike across the Golden Gate Bridge and do a 60+ mile road bike ride anytime I want. That ride would take me through redwoods, down to the beach, and occasionally involve a whale sighting. No car required.
San Francisco, used to live outside the city there and I really miss it.
The proximity to adventure from SLC is unreal
Oslo… lived there 5 years – amazing. subway from middle of town… last stop is literally in the forest (frognersetern). lit cross country ski trails, amazing city walkability, kayaking and boating in the fjords, easy public access to big mountains and cabins. And an overall culture where everyone is outside.
San Francisco is very good, but I have to say Oakland has it beat. Redwoods are right there, and there’s always the danger factor lurking in town.
I want to say Portland, but I’m pretty sure Seattle or Vancouver takes the cake.
I live in the SF Bay area, and I’m supremely happy, in no small part because I live in a community surrounded by redwood-forested open space. But I’m also fortunate enough to be able to afford to live here. That’s out of reach for many, many people. I can’t overstate that problem. It’s hard for the anyone to recreate when they’re constantly trying to make rent.
Tie between Seattle and Vancouver, BC given both offer varying degrees of similar amenities. (And good call leaving off Seattle’s hipster little sister, Portland).
None of the other cities on this list come close to offering the PNW’s diversity of outdoor opportunity within a 3 hour radius. From kayaking and SUP-crabbing (seriously, it’s a thing) right in the city, to the rainforests, rivers and secluded beach breaks of the Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver Island, to mountaineering, backpacking, trailrunning and skiing in the Cascades and Coast Range, to desert crags, blue ribbon trout streams and sprawling singletrack in the shrub-steppe of the Columbia Basin and the pine-dotted foothills of the Rocky Mountains.
All of the above is within day trip range of Seattle and Vancouver. When it comes to quantity and breadth of outdoor experiences, the PNW reigns supreme.
But are the above opportunities the best in terms of consistent quality? No, probably not. Especially when we just endured 80 straight days of rain and gloom.
All of those things apply to the Bay Area too, minus the 80 straight days of gloom.
Love the Bay Area. But comparing OP and Van Island rainforest with Nor Cal woods? Or the North Cascades with the Sierras?
Both are surely good, but they’re apples to oranges.
Sorry but SF/NorCal has PNW beat. Morning hike in Yosemite Valley and sunset surf in Santa Cruz in the same day is easily doable. And the sun will most likely be shining.
Seattle has access to serious sailing and kayaking, plus hiking, mountaineering, skiing and biking. Vancouver is about the same.
I don’t think big city and adventure go together. It’s those communities that you travel to from the cities that get the love. Now if the title said, “best big city as a basecamp”, then that would be different…………..
nah, remove phoenix from your radar. we have nearly a dozen species of rattlesnakes, thermal heat, and some very wacko republicans running the show……plus we’re getting overrun with californicators………
The mayor of Phoenix, Kate Gallego, is a Democrat and the city council is majority Democrat.
Boise, Idaho
Isn’t there adventure to be found wherever you live?
I love Portland. The backpacking and trail running in the Oregon Cascades is fantastic. We have all kinds of rivers from the Deschutes and White Salmon to the Columbia. The road biking and mountain biking is amazing. Smith Rock is just 2.5 hours away for the best climbing in the PNW. It’s 90 minutes to the ski areas and 90 minutes in the other direction to some of the best coastline in the country with some awesome surf spots. We have a 30-mile-long trail that winds through old growth forests *in the city limits*. They may have us beat for big mountains in Seattle or Denver, but I prefer it here.
Milwaukee, because you make your own adventure.
Agreed. Portland is amazing for adventure.
Don’t forget, an hour down the road to some of the world’s best windsurfing/kiting.
I moved to SLC from SoCal a couple of decades ago for school, and have absolutely fallen in love since. Last week I spent one day in Moab, one day skiing, and one sunny afternoon road biking in just a fleece. In February.
From my front door, I am an eight hour drive from FIFTEEN national parks. (OK, two of them are 8:15, but I also drive a teensy bit over the speed limit, so I’m still counting them.) I haven’t bothered to count the number of monuments/BLM areas. I don’t think that there’s any spot in the country with more access to more protected public land that SLC.
Ditto. I moved to SLC in 2003 for school (and also met my better half on a flight through here from the PNW) and can’t imagine living anywhere else now. There is more to do just on the Wasatch front that I can fit in the next 40 years.
I’m surprised and disappointed there’s no acknowledgement of the vast disparity in economic inequality in the cities listed. SF is among the most expensive cities in country with rents and homeownership way out of reach for most folks. SLC not cheap but not close to the crazy town prices of SF or NYC…
There are plenty of dirtbags still in SF. Your humble author among them.
As a Seattlite the answer depends on who I’m talking to. To Californians the answer is Denver, to locals Seattle.
Reno, NV. Skiing, hundreds of miles of mountaing biking and hiking. Public lands. Ocean is 4 hours away. Desert + Sierras and most of it a very short drive.
Psh, screw Portland. Methland’s overrated beyond definition. Definitely Vancouver, or really anywhere in Clark County, for that matter. Bumland knows what it can do with itself.
Full disclosure: I live in Battle Ground, 8 or so miles north of Vancouver (and 12 or so miles north of Potheadland) so I am blatantly and totally biased.
Yes SLC wins, partly because you can access a great deal with pretty user-friendly public transportation. Also bless Mitt Romney for voting his conscience and being about the only Republican with any morals whatsoever. Downside? Don’t breathe the air.
Oh, right: the inversions. The air quality on the Wasatch Front is the one strike against it. This year’s been pretty good, and I’d kinda forgotten just how bad it can get.
Anchorage!
The problem with the PNW is the endless gloom that can go on for months at a time without sunshine.
I’m voting for central coast CA, SLO or thereabouts. easy access both north and south, depending on season, adventure desired and weather.
Of course, the other problem is the soul crushing cost of living/housing in any of the desirable west coast locations.
Sssshhhhhhhhhh
That list is a little west coast biased. Portland, ME and Boston have already been listed. How about some other eastern cities. NYC? 90 minutes to climbing at the gunks. Skiing in the catskills. Surfing, sailing and kayaking right in town. Class III-IV less than 2 hours away. If that’s not enough, 4 hours puts you in the Adirondacks; the continental US’s largest park. NYC just a little too urban for you, move north up the Hudson to Montreal. The kayaking/rafting and skiing are closer and the Daks are under 2 hours.
NYC is in the article! Also, Portland Maine is not a big city by any stretch of the imagination.
Raleigh, NC! We’re in a great central location in the state. Right around us, there’s tons of opportunities for mountain biking, paddling, rock climbing, backpacking, camping, and hiking. They’re also adding more options every day it seems!
Then, within a few hours drive in either direction, you can access the world-class beaches and the amazing Appalachian mountains with all the adventures associated with them! People come from around the world to the Outer Banks to kiteboard, windsurf, fish, and surf on the sounds and beaches. The Appalachian Mountains in the state are home to world-renowned rock climbing, hiking/camping in national forests and parks, and flatwater/whitewater paddling not found anywhere else.
Albuquerque
I haven’t had many opportunities to travel, so my opinion doesn’t carry much weight. However, I really like SLC over Denver. Driving to the mountains is much more convenient than it is in Denver and I prefer the terrain. You’ve got Ogden a short drive away as well. And if you’re into fly fishing SLC is underrated imo.
Hands down, the best adventure city that everyone needs to check out is the one I don’t live in. I’ve been meaning to check it out for myself, but I have so many choices where I live it’s hard to pry myself away. But I hear they have great skiing, biking, running, whatever those ski-bike machines are called, and the best beer around. The lighting for selfies is always good, from what I’ve heard. Also parking there is much easier than the trail heads where I live, they’re so crowded these days, so people definitely need to head there asap.
Los Angeles
San Diego. If you don’t know, now you know.
I don’t necessarily think it the best, or even a ‘big city’ but I would be remiss to not mention Asheville, NC. I currently reside in NC, but Raleigh…?!? not so much, unless you include a 2 hour drive to anything acceptable…
While Washington, DC is by no means an adventure town, it has a few (minor) redeeming qualities for adventure types. We have really good whitewater that is accessible within the beltway, and really world class stuff just outside it (seriously, search for Great Falls of the Potomac) and rock climbing with in a reasonable drive to the Shenandoahs and West Virginia. There is also gravel riding not far from the city, and the ocean isn’t too far off. I wouldn’t move here for the adventure, but its doable if you find yourself stuck here.
This survey and the comments highlight the fact that there is no best, no one place that has it all–thankfully. Even places that have similar access and opportunities (Seattle and Vancouver, or Seattle and SF, for example), have unique characteristics that can be learned and appreciated only through time and exploration. Cities are, in many ways, like people. Who is the best person? Hard to say. But my friends and spouse are pretty rad, and so are SCL, San Francisco, and Denver. But let’s be clear–I voted for Seattle.
This might be the most active comments section in months.
SF because of the surf, running and biking all within the city limits.
Credit card biking the SF neighborhoods, through the park and to the beach is epic.
End your day w a surf at OB and wake up the next morning for a run at fort funston.
Then vacay the next week and ski Tahoe powder and shoot down to Yosemite for a climb. Yes. You can climb el cap in the winter…
I’m just outside Sacramento so I’m partial to that city. Not sure if it qualifies for this list as it’s not as big as the others mentioned. It’s half the distance to the Sierras that Justin and the other Bay Area drivers have to travel. So thanks for bringing the traffic, Justin 😉 Locals know better than to go near I-80 or US 50 on Sunday nights.
Is Boise a big city?
Ymir, British Columbia.
Driggs, Idaho.
Silverton, British Columbia (or in Colorado but not in Idaho)
Hmmm…. Burlington VT is getting overlooked.