Best located city in the American west

[Nomayoplease]

Based on the following:
Proximity to national parks
Proximity to the most varied geographical features, mountains deserts, volcanos, mesas, canyons
road connectivity

My pick and recent trip of mine. Bend, Oregon. High desert, close to a variety of mountains, got a few volcanos and somewhat close to the coast

[SIGSEGV]

Reno is in a pretty good location, minus the wild fires, floods, and droughts...

[homebucket]

For California probably Fresno. It’s the most central to redwoods, Big Sur and the coast, Tahoe, the Sierras, Yosemite, Death Valley, Mojave, and Joshua Tree.

[craigs]

Sacramento has Interstates emanating from the city in all four cardinal directions (ditto for mainline railroads), is on an extensive and navigable waterway, and within three hours or less, there are volcanoes, mountains and canyons, forests, the Pacific coast, etc.

[Quixote]

Greater LA is the only metropolitan area in the world that has miles of decent coastal beaches, snow-capped mountains, sprawling deserts, and semi-remote islands in its backyard. And if your definition of amazing weather is low humidity and temperatures (usually) not exceeding 75° F (23.9° C) degrees during the hottest summer months, then Oxnard/Ventura have the best weather in the world.

With that said, our beaches aren't on the level of South Florida, mountains the Rockies, deserts northern Arizona, and islands Hawaii. That wouldn't be very fair.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Greater LA is the only metropolitan area in the world that has miles of decent coastal beaches, snow-capped mountains, sprawling deserts, and semi-remote islands in its backyard. And if your definition of amazing weather is low humidity and temperatures (usually) not exceeding 75° F (23.9° C) degrees during the hottest summer months, then Oxnard/Ventura have the best weather in the world.

With that said, our beaches aren't on the level of South Florida, mountains the Rockies, deserts northern Arizona, and islands Hawaii. That wouldn't be very fair.

It takey da cakey.

[xzmattzx]

Denver is where the prairies meet the mountains. Rocky Mountain National Park in about an hour away. The one major thing lacking is a major body of water, like an ocean or lake, for recreational purposes.

[SFBruin]

On the Pacific Coast, probably either San Francisco or Seattle.

San Francisco has a coastline, and is near Yosemite.

Seattle has an inland waterfront, and is surrounded on all sides by mountains.

[TWAK]

Sacramento for sure and many other of the valley cities (like Fresno), but Sac gets it for having two rivers and the deep water channel. It's also basically 2 hours or less from everything.

[pj3000]

There’s not a helluva lot that’s appealing (at least to me) about deserts and prairies.

So proximity to those isn’t an attribute that I would consider to tout as a reason for the “best” location.

I’d have to go with the two best cities of the west, LA (SoCal incl. SD) and SF.

[strongbad635]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Denver is where the prairies meet the mountains. Rocky Mountain National Park in about an hour away. The one major thing lacking is a major body of water, like an ocean or lake, for recreational purposes.

The winters also leave much to be desired compared to areas further west with a more Mediterranean climate. Hell, even Salt Lake City has milder winters with less snow or blizzard conditions.

[Steely Dan]

Seems to me that a plentiful and reliable source of freshwater might be an important consideration for locational advantage in the (mostly) drier American west, especially these days with disruptive climate changes.

In that regard, the wetter PNW probably has a leg up on the rest.

[Atlas]

SLC is 3-5 hours drive from Yellowstone+Tetons, the 5 Utah national parks, Great Basin, and Black Canyon. There are multiple large lakes, mountain ranges, deserts, forests, and the Bonneville Salt Flats closer than that. In terms of proximity to a variety of natural landscapes, I don't think there's any other US city like it. Basically anything you can think of except the ocean.

Water is a more complicated issue but it helps that Northern Utah has total control over the areas that produce its fresh water. The GSL is low but we had a terrific winter so drought conditions have abated for now.

[iheartthed]

How is it not San Francisco?

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Greater LA is the only metropolitan area in the world that has miles of decent coastal beaches, snow-capped mountains, sprawling deserts, and semi-remote islands in its backyard. And if your definition of amazing weather is low humidity and temperatures (usually) not exceeding 75° F (23.9° C) degrees during the hottest summer months, then Oxnard/Ventura have the best weather in the world.

With that said, our beaches aren't on the level of South Florida, mountains the Rockies, deserts northern Arizona, and islands Hawaii. That wouldn't be very fair.

In the world? You must have been to a lot of places.

Frankly, the same can be said about coastal Spain and France. And the islands there (the Balearic) and the water put the Pacific to shame.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Greater LA is the only metropolitan area in the world that has miles of decent coastal beaches, snow-capped mountains, sprawling deserts, and semi-remote islands in its backyard. And if your definition of amazing weather is low humidity and temperatures (usually) not exceeding 75° F (23.9° C) degrees during the hottest summer months, then Oxnard/Ventura have the best weather in the world.

With that said, our beaches aren't on the level of South Florida, mountains the Rockies, deserts northern Arizona, and islands Hawaii. That wouldn't be very fair.

Santiago, Chile

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How is it not San Francisco?

Depends on your definition of "city" but Fresno is a lot more centrally located to the mountains and desert areas of California, if we're considering "most varied geographical features". If you're thinking only major cities/metros then I think LA would fit the criteria more so than SF due to its proximity to the desert. If you want to take into account canyons and variety of desert landscapes, as well as the Great Plains into consideration, then I think you could make an argument for Las Vegas as well.

Which is also why the PNW (no desert) and interior mountain west such as SLC and Denver (no ocean) are lacking. California is the only state that has everything.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

In the world? You must have been to a lot of places.

Frankly, the same can be said about coastal Spain and France. And the islands there (the Balearic) and the water put the Pacific to shame.

I’ve been to Barcelona, Marseille, and Monaco. I’m pretty sure temps soar well into the 80s in July and August.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Santiago, Chile

Santiago isn’t along the coast (no, it’s not comparable to DTLA being inland) and there are no islands.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Depends on your definition of "city" but Fresno is a lot more centrally located to the mountains and desert areas of California, if we're considering "most varied geographical features". If you're thinking only major cities/metros then I think LA would fit the criteria more so than SF due to its proximity to the desert. If you want to take into account canyons and variety of desert landscapes, as well as the Great Plains into consideration, then I think you could make an argument for Las Vegas as well.

Which is also why the PNW (no desert) and interior mountain west such as SLC and Denver (no ocean) are lacking. California is the only state that has everything.

But Fresno is pretty far from the ocean. SF is close to the ocean and a reasonable drive from everything else that would be an advantage for Fresno. That said, Sacramento looks like it has the most even access to all of the varied geographies.