Towns at "altitude" in AK? (Fairbanks, Homer: houses, camps)

[FreedomThroughAnarchism]

Here's a bizarre sort of trivia question that probably rarely gets asked, but since I had a pretty hard time doing research on this myself which I've been at for some time, I need to see if I can cast my net a little bit wider by getting help from others who might be more in-the-know.

What I am trying to find out is basically this:

(a) Are there any towns in Alaska that are located at reasonably high altitudes, and if so,

(b) what are some names of these towns.

Given that Alaskas mean altitude is pretty low 1700 feet, I'm not expecting there would every be any really high towns like there are in the rocky mountain and southwest states (which have the highest mean altitudes between about 3000 to 6800 feet - and where towns can often be between 8000 - 10000 feet like Leadville, CO).... but let's say.... are there any towns in the more reasonable 2000 - 4500 foot elevation range?

** Note: I'm kind of flexible on what is meant by "town." It definitely need not be a big town. Small towns are fine.... or for that matter, even towns that are towns in-name-only and have few, if any residents. Just looking for some jumping off points for research.

[AKStafford]

Maybe the climbing camps on Denali? SummitPost : Hiking, Climbing and Mountaineering

[heathen]

There are very few towns in AK above about 1500 feet. This whole part of the continent is pretty much on the edge of what is really inhabitable, climate wise, so people don't generally feel the need to be too much higher up.

I can only think of two actual towns off the top of my head over 2000 feet: Cantwell, and Anaktuvuk Pass. Paxson too, but that's only debatably a town. There's a string of cabins/houses and a gas station around Tahneta Pass (Eureka Summit) along the Glenn Highway, a bit above 3000 feet, which is right at treeline in that area.

[Chilkoot]

Tok 1600 feet
Glennallen 1412 feet
Homer sea level-1200 feet

[ShipOfFools42]

From everything I have learned, Alaska doesn't really have "mountain towns" like we do in the lower 48, especially here in Appalachia where I live and out in the southern Rockies. I know in the interior they have temperature inversions which cause the mountains (or "hills" as some locals seem to call them) to be actually warmer than the areas down below, which is wicked strange to me, because I have always associated altitude with colder weather. I live at about 2600 feet and it's about 10˚F cooler than surrounding low-lying areas. The lucky guys who live at 3500 feet and higher really get awesome weather, but that's here.

I think in Alaska, you think about how cold it is already, and then think about trying to live in a town at, oh say, 4118 feet, the elevation of Highlands, NC. I imagine that much altitude would make it super cold, plus you're way above treeline so there's no protection from the straight-line winds and big storms. There's no soil, really, because the mountains in Alaska amount to enormous rocks that are covered in a LOT of snow for most of the year. So really, high altitude Alaska would not even be a very good place to live, logistically. It would be incredible to be up high and have views like that of the most beautiful state in the country, but alas, you gotta look at the mountains from down below and remark about how pretty they are.

Your post brings up a particularly difficult part of my search for the perfect place in Alaska. See, ideally, I would be in the interior, right at the base of the Brooks Range, somewhere with river and lake access in addition to some birch and aspen, just south of treeline so that I could have some wood to burn. But the problem with that location description is that there aren't any towns or anything there, and I'm not hardcore enough to homestead that far from a city at least Fairbanks-sized. Up there all you have is Fort Yukon, which isn't much if you've got a medical emergency or some such. But to have the Brooks Range for a backyard, oh man... And see, I want to be in the interior, but I really really need (want) mountains near me that I can see, so I have quite the conundrum. Unless I could land a job in Healy or Cantwell, which would be unreal.

[Moose Whisperer]

My house is at 1275ft MSL.

[starlite9]

There is a lot of nasty passes to fly though, but very few people live above a couple thousand feet, there are exceptions, but that isn't the norm.

Alaska has the 9 highest Mountains in North America out of the top twenty

Mountain peaks of North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But because of the extreme weather and winds up high, nobody really came up with a town that took that much effort to get up to, there were/are a few mines that sat up pretty high, but that was for the big bucks...

[warptman]

AirNav: PAOR - Northway Airport

[warptman]

Lake Louise, 2450ft.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by ShipOfFools42

From everything I have learned, Alaska doesn't really have "mountain towns" like we do in the lower 48, especially here in Appalachia where I live and out in the southern Rockies. I know in the interior they have temperature inversions which cause the mountains (or "hills" as some locals seem to call them) to be actually warmer than the areas down below, which is wicked strange to me, because I have always associated altitude with colder weather. I live at about 2600 feet and it's about 10˚F cooler than surrounding low-lying areas. The lucky guys who live at 3500 feet and higher really get awesome weather, but that's here.

Warm air rises, cold air sinks. During the winter it is often warmer on the mountainside than it is in the valley. Animals also know this, and will move from the valley towards the mountains during the winter.

Originally Posted by ShipOfFools42

I think in Alaska, you think about how cold it is already, and then think about trying to live in a town at, oh say, 4118 feet, the elevation of Highlands, NC. I imagine that much altitude would make it super cold, plus you're way above treeline so there's no protection from the straight-line winds and big storms. There's no soil, really, because the mountains in Alaska amount to enormous rocks that are covered in a LOT of snow for most of the year. So really, high altitude Alaska would not even be a very good place to live, logistically. It would be incredible to be up high and have views like that of the most beautiful state in the country, but alas, you gotta look at the mountains from down below and remark about how pretty they are.

It would have exactly the opposite effect during the winter. The air that is warmed up during the day in the valley would begin to rise up the mountainside in the evening. The cold air would sink, replacing the warm air in the valley.

Originally Posted by ShipOfFools42

Your post brings up a particularly difficult part of my search for the perfect place in Alaska. See, ideally, I would be in the interior, right at the base of the Brooks Range, somewhere with river and lake access in addition to some birch and aspen, just south of treeline so that I could have some wood to burn. But the problem with that location description is that there aren't any towns or anything there, and I'm not hardcore enough to homestead that far from a city at least Fairbanks-sized. Up there all you have is Fort Yukon, which isn't much if you've got a medical emergency or some such. But to have the Brooks Range for a backyard, oh man... And see, I want to be in the interior, but I really really need (want) mountains near me that I can see, so I have quite the conundrum. Unless I could land a job in Healy or Cantwell, which would be unreal.

One of the reasons Alaskan towns are not located in any mountain range is because those mountains are much younger (except for the Brooks Range) than any mountain range in the lower-48. As a result, they are much steeper and more precarious than lower-48 mountains.