Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am considering moving and am an active person. I like backpacking, rock climbing, sightseeing (both natural beauty and man made), and am an avid runner/biker. I grew up in the Midwest, Ohio actually, and to put it bluntly the flat land and lack of activities is slightly disappointing. We do what we can but I am looking for more. I like the feel of big cities and the culture and sports that comes with it, and I like mountains for the scenery and outdoor activities that they provide (snowboarding, rock climbing, and trail running and biking). My question to the form is what CITY provides the best of both worlds (for this question I am suggesting that a CITY has at least one professional sports team, or maybe a good public transport system, just something to separate it from smaller cities)?
From what I can see so far it looks like maybe Boston, Seattle, or Denver would be the main competitors. But how much does Boston have in terms of rock climbing and backpacking close by (within 30-45 min), how much historical buildings and places are around Seattle, and how much culture is there in Denver?
Thanks for any help!
edit: another point that I think worth mentioning is that Boston has a true fall (hardwood trees), and I'm not sure what fall is like on the west coast, but I do like the four seasons!
I am considering moving and am an active person. I like backpacking, rock climbing, sightseeing (both natural beauty and man made), and am an avid runner/biker. I grew up in the Midwest, Ohio actually, and to put it bluntly the flat land and lack of activities is slightly disappointing. We do what we can but I am looking for more. I like the feel of big cities and the culture and sports that comes with it, and I like mountains for the scenery and outdoor activities that they provide (snowboarding, rock climbing, and trail running and biking). My question to the form is what CITY provides the best of both worlds (for this question I am suggesting that a CITY has at least one professional sports team, or maybe a good public transport system, just something to separate it from smaller cities)?
From what I can see so far it looks like maybe Boston, Seattle, or Denver would be the main competitors. But how much does Boston have in terms of rock climbing and backpacking close by (within 30-45 min), how much historical buildings and places are around Seattle, and how much culture is there in Denver?
Thanks for any help!
Boston, being the "capital" of New England is going to be a little better in terms of outdoor pursuits than any midwest city/metro area, but if you are looking for a city that has a lot of outdoor activities available, I would stick to western metro areas. (And actually I personally think the Appalachian foothills of SE Ohio are actually very beautiful, as well as a few areas of Lake Erie) Boston, not going to be THAT much better than the midwest in terms of outdoor actitivities.
Colrodo is amazing in terms of outdoor pursuits. But Denver itself, is kind of anywhere America city. Frankly, I really think that the three C-cities of Ohio are better than Denver in terms of culture.
Seattle I'm sure would be beautiful, but to me the Pacific-Northwest is not really my personality.
Honestly, I would say: if you can afford and have a decent job, there simply is no beating California.
Both the greater LA and the SF Bay area are among Americas top premier cities. And the state has so much geographical, and natural landscape diversity its unreal.
California cities have the culture and history that is tops amongst American cities, as well as access to nature and the outdoors. Its the best of both worlds.
Oh, and LAs transportation system is better these days than what most people sterotype it as being.
Boston, being the "capital" of New England is going to be a little better in terms of outdoor pursuits than any midwest city/metro area, but if you are looking for a city that has a lot of outdoor activities available, I would stick to western metro areas. (And actually I personally think the Appalachian foothills of SE Ohio are actually very beautiful, as well as a few areas of Lake Erie) Boston, not going to be THAT much better than the midwest in terms of outdoor actitivities.
Colrodo is amazing in terms of outdoor pursuits. But Denver itself, is kind of anywhere America city. Frankly, I really think that the three C-cities of Ohio are better than Denver in terms of culture.
Seattle I'm sure would be beautiful, but to me the Pacific-Northwest is not really my personality.
Honestly, I would say: if you can afford and have a decent job, there simply is no beating California.
Both the greater LA and the SF Bay area are among Americas top premier cities. And the state has so much geographical, and natural landscape diversity its unreal.
California cities have the culture and history that is tops amongst American cities, as well as access to nature and the outdoors. Its the best of both worlds.
Oh, and LAs transportation system is better these days than what most people sterotype it as being.
Boston is far superior to the Midwest we have the ocean, skiing and White water rafting within 25 miles of Boston city hall.
Boston, being the "capital" of New England is going to be a little better in terms of outdoor pursuits than any midwest city/metro area, but if you are looking for a city that has a lot of outdoor activities available, I would stick to western metro areas. (And actually I personally think the Appalachian foothills of SE Ohio are actually very beautiful, as well as a few areas of Lake Erie) Boston, not going to be THAT much better than the midwest in terms of outdoor actitivities.
Colrodo is amazing in terms of outdoor pursuits. But Denver itself, is kind of anywhere America city. Frankly, I really think that the three C-cities of Ohio are better than Denver in terms of culture.
Seattle I'm sure would be beautiful, but to me the Pacific-Northwest is not really my personality.
Honestly, I would say: if you can afford and have a decent job, there simply is no beating California.
Both the greater LA and the SF Bay area are among Americas top premier cities. And the state has so much geographical, and natural landscape diversity its unreal.
California cities have the culture and history that is tops amongst American cities, as well as access to nature and the outdoors. Its the best of both worlds.
Oh, and LAs transportation system is better these days than what most people sterotype it as being.
Seattle is a great place to look if your looking for world-class amenities as well as outdoor activities. If you live Downtown you easily walk to many places, for it's almost a slice of Manhattan. The job market is also pretty good, mostly tech jobs though.
Based on your outdoor activities (sans snow sports), I think you would love the Chattanooga area....but it doesn't fulfill your "city" requirements (it's about 170k city/500k metro).
It's about 2 hours from both Atlanta and Nashville, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
