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.
For access I’d go with Denver. The mountains near the city are commercialized and easy to get to in a way I don’t think the other options are (Except LA). Seattle for quantity of ranges nearby
SLC would run away with this and I think it’s worth mentioning even though it doesn’t make the cut
Looking at a map, Seattle looks like the best answer.
Seattle (and also Portland) have major mountain ranges on BOTH the east and west sides of their metros. This puts Seattle ahead of most of the other cities on the list.
But what I really like about Seattle is the access to three great National Parks - Olympic NP, Mount Rainier NP and North Cascades NP. There are also several National Recreation Areas and the area is covered with National Forests. I do not think any of the cities come close, probably after Seattle would be Portland or Denver.
Looking at a map, Seattle looks like the best answer.
Seattle (and also Portland) have major mountain ranges on BOTH the east and west sides of their metros. This puts Seattle ahead of most of the other cities on the list.
But what I really like about Seattle is the access to three great National Parks - Olympic NP, Mount Rainier NP and North Cascades NP. There are also several National Recreation Areas and the area is covered with National Forests. I do not think any of the cities come close, probably after Seattle would be Portland or Denver.
Interesting fact: Nisqually Entrance, by far the most common entrance to Mt. Rainier National Park and the only year round vehicle entrance to the park, is often times equally close (in terms of timing) to downtown Portland as it is to downtown Seattle. If you look on Google Maps right now, Seattle is 2 hr, 23 mins from Nisqually while Portland is 2 hr, 28 mins away.
There's quite a few vantage points around Portland where you can see Rainier, it's just not super common because it's often blocked by Mt. St. Helens.
Looking at a map, Seattle looks like the best answer.
Seattle (and also Portland) have major mountain ranges on BOTH the east and west sides of their metros. This puts Seattle ahead of most of the other cities on the list.
But what I really like about Seattle is the access to three great National Parks - Olympic NP, Mount Rainier NP and North Cascades NP. There are also several National Recreation Areas and the area is covered with National Forests. I do not think any of the cities come close, probably after Seattle would be Portland or Denver.
Ya PDX is not bad either. Quick access to the Cascades. If this list included all of North America, I would also include Vancouver BC and Calgary.
For a major city. One thing I like about the Seattle location is easy access to the North Cascades, which is the most rugged and glaciated alpine range in the lower 48. Plus very close to Olympic National Park and Mount Rainier National Park.
Great access to the Coastal Ranges of British Columbia including the Waddington Range as well, which is probably has some of the most rugged terrain in North America outside of Alaska. Most people have never been there, but the vast size of the wilderness is well illustrated in the Satellite images below.
And of course you are a quick flight to some of the best ranges in the world in SE Alaska. In terms of access you can't beat Seattle for a major city if you really love mountains.
The public satellite image below shows you how massive British Columbia and the coastal mountain ranges really are. You can also see the Canadian Rockies to the east:
Denver is great as well for your average hiker, but it does not have access to the diversity of ranges that exist in the PNW.
I give an Honorable mention to Salt Lake City, especially if you like skiing close to the city. The snow is dry and the Wasatch are beautiful. Boise is not bad either.
BTW I am not including smaller cities like Bozeman, Anchorage (although amazing), etc.....
Last edited by Thealpinist; 11-12-2021 at 04:37 PM..
One nice thing also about the mountains in Seattle is you really don't have the winter inversions and the "brown cloud" that you have in SLC or Denver.
One nice thing also about the mountains in Seattle is you really don't have the winter inversions and the "brown cloud" that you have in SLC or Denver.
True. The PNW is blessed in that regard. Generally the progressive flow from
the Gulf of Alaska prevents any type of prolonged inversion season. The brown inversion of SLC and Denver gets old.
On the contrary, SLC and Denver are much sunnier most of the year. The PNW is so gloomy and the only time you really get to see the mountains consistently is in Summer. That gets old.
The LA-area mountains don't get enough respect, IMO.
They begin right behind the metro area, they go up to 10,000 feet
(11,500 counting the San Gorgonio Mountains), they're easy to reach,
offer a big selection of trails, and are accessible for a greater part of the year
than the Rockies.
They don't feature the classic beauty of the Rockies or Cascades,
but there's a variety of landscapes and (on clear days) far-ranging views.
Although Seattle is my favorite big city, I was a bit disappointed with
a couple of the nearby hiking options (Mt Si and Mailbox Peak).
I like the So Cal mountains better.
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.
