The “mountains” in Phoenix don’t really feel like mountains to me (Northern Arizona native perspective) (Flagstaff: dangerous, safer)

[ajonesaz]

Originally Posted by KurtAZ

Just saying..12,633' doesn't even put it in the top 55 in Colorado:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ks_of_Colorado

Elevation is a poor measure, some on that list are high elevation hills. Prominence is a much better measure, the height from the base to the top. With that measurement, Humphries is only second to one mountain in Colorado, Elbert.

[KurtAZ]

Originally Posted by ajonesaz

Elevation is a poor measure, some on that list are high elevation hills. Prominence is a much better measure, the height from the base to the top. With that measurement, Humphries is only second to one mountain in Colorado, Elbert.

Look at it how you will...after a road trip last year to Durango, up to Silverton and Ouray and back through Telluride to get home, driving through Flagstaff didn't quite hold the awe that it once did driving past the Peaks. Not saying they aren't a welcome sight when visiting Flagstaff...and going up the backside of Mt. Elden is fun...but the Million Dollar Highway was breathtaking.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by I Love Arizona .

I’m from Flagstaff and never visited Phoenix until last week for the holidays. For some reason i was expecting mountains like Colorado but without the lushness. I was very wrong. The mountains in the Phoenix metro look like giant rocks piled ontop of eachother sprinkled with sand on top. Kinda like Riverside County in California but uglier and more barren. Even after a good rain fall i hear they still stay arid brown.

I’m not dissing the area because i still prefer it over a flat city like Houston or Dallas, but i guess the mountains are still small lumpy hills in my standard. My cousin who lives in Phoenix recommends me to hike around the Fountain Hills (suburb) mountains.

Why would you think a city that's barely over 1,000 feet in elevation would have tall majestic mountains? Fact is: most of the so called "mountains" that are in or around the Phoenix area are really low elevation brown hills. With that said, Camelback Mountain and the Superstitions are pretty fascinating to look at, especially close up ... however, other than that, you are correct that most others aren't that pretty, and in fact it's actually kind of laughable how some people here become so passionate about mountain views.

Originally Posted by locolife

We have better access to mountains then most major cities in the US, that’s a big reason I love living here. Even working in downtown Denver I wouldn’t have nearly the same ease of access as I do here. I don’t know many cities where you can put together a 3,000-4,000 vert off road mountain bike ride pedaling from downtown after work.

Phoenix- this can be done at south mountain or Phoenix mountain preserve

Salt Lake for sure, is it a major city?
Portland I don’t think so but maybe
LA probably
San Diego I don’t think so
San Fran maybe
Memphis maybe I don’t know the area
Denver, mountains are too far from the city core
Seattle, mountains are too far from downtown
Vancouver, BC absolutely
Winnipeg/Calgary- probably
Chicago and the entire Midwest no way
Florida, no way
Texas, not a chance
Northeast, too flat near all the major cities
Charlotte, too flat
Atlanta, too flat

Please, give it a rest. You know very well that the Catalinas near Tucson, the Spring Mountains near Las Vegas, and the ranges in the L.A. area are much taller, prettier, and majestic than anything in or around Phoenix. Have you really looked at South Mountain at a close view, especially from the south Phoenix angle? It's nothing close to attractive or impressive at all. And what is so great about mountains being so close to downtown anyway? Shouldn't the nation's 5th largest city concentrate on building up the skyline, bringing in competitive jobs, and attempting to be more world class, instead of promoting silly things like hiking the trails?

Seriously, if you want some truly good nature hikes, go to northern AZ, the White Mountains, or up into CO. These so called mountain trails around here are a joke. Besides, I'm sick of hearing about all these wimpy little snowflakes having to be rescued, wasting paramedics' time (not to mention our tax dollars). Anybody who is stupid enough to hike unprepared doesn't even deserve to be rescued as far as I'm concerned.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by locolife

We have better access to mountains then most major cities in the US, that’s a big reason I love living here. Even working in downtown Denver I wouldn’t have nearly the same ease of access as I do here. I don’t know many cities where you can put together a 3,000-4,000 vert off road mountain bike ride pedaling from downtown after work.

Phoenix- this can be done at south mountain or Phoenix mountain preserve

Salt Lake for sure, is it a major city?
Portland I don’t think so but maybe
LA probably
San Diego I don’t think so
San Fran maybe
Memphis maybe I don’t know the area
Denver, mountains are too far from the city core
Seattle, mountains are too far from downtown
Vancouver, BC absolutely
Winnipeg/Calgary- probably
Chicago and the entire Midwest no way
Florida, no way
Texas, not a chance
Northeast, too flat near all the major cities
Charlotte, too flat
Atlanta, too flat

Not sure why you lumped Winnipeg and Calgary together, They are 1,326 kilometres apart, or 824 miles.

Calgary, Alberta is just an hour away from the foothill of the Rockies, so yes, easy access.

Winnipeg, Manitoba, really has nothing that I would call ( even though they do) mountains. The highest is
Minnedosa Ski Valley which is nearly a 3 hour drive from Winnipeg and is 600 metres elevation. A big hill for sure, but no one talks about the mountains of Manitoba.

[BIG CATS]

Originally Posted by locolife

What are you talking about?

Two-bit has >700’ in vertical
Shaw Butte has about 1,000
Piestewa Peak is about 1,200

South Mountain alone has 9 trails that gain over 1,000 on the way up (Pyramid, Alta, Lost Mine, Geronimo, Corona de Loma, Holbert, Ranger, National, Old Man, Young Man)

McDowells has at least 5 I’ve personally done (Thompson peak is over 2000, Toms Thumb from the West is almost 3000, Sunrise is over 1000, East End is over 1000, Bell Pass, Windgate...)

The white tanks have at least 3 1,000+ big hikes Ford Canyon, Goat Camp and mesquite
Estrellas have the quartz peak trail that’ll get you over 2,000 as well
Head to the Supes and now you’re hitting multiple 3,000+ vert trails
Four Peaks will get you closer to 5,000 of vert

Who the hell cares about the sears tower? It’s not a hike and it’s man made.

I said MOST mountains in the PHX Mts are hills. Not all. Read carefully.


Toms Thumb from the west? There's only one trail up that way, and Id be VERY hard pressed to believe its 3K', considering the trailhead entrance to summit gain is only 1,300' or so. The rest of the McDowells are easy to climb, nothing big there, either. I did Toms Thumb, East End Trail, and Windgate Pass (big loop, basically) in one afternoon.


The Superstitions are too remote to hike, IMO, unless you plan on spending a day or two back there (Flat Iron excluded).


Four Peaks is also remote, dangerous, and extremely tough. That's not for the average hiker.


And I only mentioned the Sears Tower because our "mountains" are smaller than skyscrapers.

[hikernut]

Camelback Mountain is a far cry from the San Francisco peaks or the San Juans. I wouldn't drive hundreds of miles to see/climb Camelback, but it sure is nice having something like so close by.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Please, give it a rest. You know very well that the Catalinas near Tucson, the Spring Mountains near Las Vegas, and the ranges in the L.A. area are much taller, prettier, and majestic than anything in or around Phoenix. Have you really looked at South Mountain at a close view, especially from the south Phoenix angle? It's nothing close to attractive or impressive at all. And what is so great about mountains being so close to downtown anyway? Shouldn't the nation's 5th largest city concentrate on building up the skyline, bringing in competitive jobs, and attempting to be more world class, instead of promoting silly things like hiking the trails?

Seriously, if you want some truly good nature hikes, go to northern AZ, the White Mountains, or up into CO. These so called mountain trails around here are a joke. Besides, I'm sick of hearing about all these wimpy little snowflakes having to be rescued, wasting paramedics' time (not to mention our tax dollars). Anybody who is stupid enough to hike unprepared doesn't even deserve to be rescued as far as I'm concerned.

I log over 2,000 miles a year on our trails and volunteer to help maintain them regularly, I’m willing to bet I know our local mountains better than most.

[BIG CATS]

Originally Posted by locolife

I log over 2,000 miles a year on our trails

How the heck is that possible?


I try to hike every weekend (when its not blazing hot out) and only managed 400 miles last year. Granted 95% of that is vertical, but still.


And when are the parks gonna ban dogs like they FINALLY did on Camelback? I'm sick of seeing dog crap, or dog crap bags left all over by lazy dog owners. And they rarely heed the signs that clearly state dogs need to be kept on leashes.

[GSR13]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Why would you think a city that's barely over 1,000 feet in elevation would have tall majestic mountains? Fact is: most of the so called "mountains" that are in or around the Phoenix area are really low elevation brown hills. With that said, Camelback Mountain and the Superstitions are pretty fascinating to look at, especially close up ... however, other than that, you are correct that most others aren't that pretty, and in fact it's actually kind of laughable how some people here become so passionate about mountain views.

Because the OP is from the Coachella Valley with it's 10,000 foot mountain prominences. Same guy who started this thread:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/phoen...ocated-la.html

[cjseliga]

Obviously there are proper definitions for what mountains and hills are, but isn't it really relative to what someone is used to (their perspective)?

I'm sure if you dropped someone who grew up and lived their whole life in the Himalayas in Nepal onto the Rockies in Colorado, the might laugh at all those 14ers, likewise if someone grew up on the Great Plains in say, Iowa, Nebraska or Kansas and you placed them in Phoenix, they might think, wow those mountains are huge.