Best located city in the American west

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I don't believe you can get an ocean, desert, city and snow-capped mountain view at the same time in Santiago. Proximity is part of the argument, as per the OP - what's available in the immediate metro area and what's easily accessible regionally.

So this is just about views? Yes, the views will be different.

Originally Posted by badrunner

The desert is not easily accessible from Santiago - it's an hours-long drive up a narrow two-lane mountain road, across an international border.

The Atacama Desert is in mostly in Chile.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

The Santa Monica Mountains and Verdugos are hills. You want mountains you go to angeles national forest. You can be at 10000 feet in an alpine forest within 45 min and dealing with incredibly steep and difficult terrain as well as deep snow packs into June. There are many 10, 15, 20 mile plus trails. I hike these mountains all the time

We were going to climb Mt. Baldy the last time I was out there but I can't remember why we didn't or what we did instead. The rough thing about desert mountains is that it's *really* easy to get off trail, but in the case of the Santa Monica Mtns, you can't mess up too bad. Around Mt. Baldy, it appears that you can get WAY off trail and end up spending the night curled up next to a rock.

My first hike in California was Mt. Langley, in 2002. This was before GPS, phones, etc. Everything turned out fine but I lost that trail twice - once going up and once coming down. Plenty of ways to end up dead. I remember camping at 12,000 feet and feeling the altitude push my heart rate up, something I didn't anticipate. It's hard to believe that there are a fair number of people in South America who live their entire lives at 10,000+ feet!

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So this is just about views? Yes, the views will be different.

No it's about proximity. The Great Basin starts just 40 miles from Santa Monica. A similar ecologic/climatic distance in the Santiago area would be about 100 miles.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The Atacama Desert is in mostly in Chile.

But that's well to the north of Santiago. The closest actual desert to Santiago is in the rain shadow of the Andes. In Argentina.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

No it's about proximity. The Great Basin starts just 40 miles from Santa Monica. A similar ecologic/climatic distance in the Santiago area would be about 100 miles.



But that's well to the north of Santiago. The closest actual desert to Santiago is in the rain shadow of the Andes. In Argentina.

This is literally just outside the border of Santiago: https://goo.gl/maps/cAd4MS2h9vkU85q2A

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is literally just outside the border of Santiago: https://goo.gl/maps/cAd4MS2h9vkU85q2A

That's not a desert climate though it looks quite barren. See here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...resent.svg.png

Another difference is that the mountains around Santiago don't have the kind of mixed conifer alpine forests that characterize the transverse ranges in SoCal. It goes straight from chaparral to scrub oak to the treeline. Those mountains might be tall and impressive but it's missing an entire world up there. The climate and flora of the lower elevations do sort of resemble SoCal though. I'll give you that.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

We were going to climb Mt. Baldy the last time I was out there but I can't remember why we didn't or what we did instead. The rough thing about desert mountains is that it's *really* easy to get off trail, but in the case of the Santa Monica Mtns, you can't mess up too bad. Around Mt. Baldy, it appears that you can get WAY off trail and end up spending the night curled up next to a rock.

My first hike in California was Mt. Langley, in 2002. This was before GPS, phones, etc. Everything turned out fine but I lost that trail twice - once going up and once coming down. Plenty of ways to end up dead. I remember camping at 12,000 feet and feeling the altitude push my heart rate up, something I didn't anticipate. It's hard to believe that there are a fair number of people in South America who live their entire lives at 10,000+ feet!

Love Langley! Did it a in 2017 and itching to go back. I know exactly what you mean with the heart rate and having a billion ways to die lol.

Did Baldy in 2018 and same thing, many ways to die unfortunately and it happens quite often. Mount Baldy just closed last weekend for skiing so theres plenty of snow still up there.

Another great So Cal mountain to hike is San Gorgonio, which is the highest peak in So Cal. From the summit, you can see all the way to the Southern Sierra and to the Mexican border. Its a very beautiful hike

[downtownpdx]

Bend Oregon is definitely a good choice, and I'll just throw in my hometown Portland, although it doesn't have the dry high desert climate of Bend. But it's an hour to the ocean, an hour to Mt Hood skiing /camping etc, 45 minutes to Columbia Gorge waterfalls/hiking etc, 45 minutes to wine country, 2 hours to Seattle.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I don't believe you can get an ocean, desert, city and snow-capped mountain view at the same time in Santiago. Proximity is part of the argument, as per the OP - what's available in the immediate metro area and what's easily accessible regionally. The desert is not easily accessible from Santiago - it's an hours-long drive up a narrow two-lane mountain road, across an international border.

Thank you.

I wouldn’t bother with iheartthed anymore.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Bend Oregon is definitely a good choice, and I'll just throw in my hometown Portland, although it doesn't have the dry high desert climate of Bend. But it's an hour to the ocean, an hour to Mt Hood skiing /camping etc, 45 minutes to Columbia Gorge waterfalls/hiking etc, 45 minutes to wine country, 2 hours to Seattle.

Two hours?!? I've driven between PDX and Seattle a dozen times and it always took longer than that!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by craigs

Yeah, Casper is pretty bad. So is Elko, NV.

Elko is a shit town (I used to have to go over there for high school debate tournaments), but very nearby are the beauitful Ruby Mountains

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5925...6656?entry=ttu

Worst located might be Richland/Kennewick/Pasco. Far away from mountains by Western standards, and contaminated with nuclear waste from Hanford.

Or maybe Yuma?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Elko is a shit town (I used to have to go over there for high school debate tournaments), but very nearby are the beauitful Ruby Mountains

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5925...6656?entry=ttu

Worst located might be Richland/Kennewick/Pasco. Far away from mountains by Western standards, and contaminated with nuclear waste from Hanford.

Or maybe Yuma?

I've never seen those mountains, nice area. I've only passed through Elko on cross-country trips, with one exception. On one trip I got a room there because I just couldn't keep my eyes open. Not that there's any reason to stay awake in Elko, mind you. I was out of there as soon as the Sun was up.

I don't think I've ever been to either the Tri-Cities area or Yuma. The Washington cities are, IIRC, in the hottest and driest part of the state. Yuma looks like it is pretty isolated from anything appealing.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Love Langley! Did it a in 2017 and itching to go back. I know exactly what you mean with the heart rate and having a billion ways to die lol.

This conversation got me thinking about doing it again.

It's a miracle that more people don't get injured/killed when hiking. The rangers have to deal with stupid stuff constantly. People get in way over their heads, wear the wrong clothes, pack the wrong food/hydration, etc.

I participated in a charity walk a few weeks ago and the number of people who couldn't walk even a single mile was shocking. That's why those things max out at three miles or so - the percentage of Americans who can handle 60-90 minutes of walking is embarrassingly low.

[jd3189]

I would say LA or the Bay Area. California has everything the rest of the West has geographically and more.

[Quixote]

I wouldn’t compare the Sierra Nevadas to the Rockies or the Mojave and Colorado Deserts to the more picturesque landscapes of northern Arizona, but I get what you’re saying.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by craigs

Two hours?!? I've driven between PDX and Seattle a dozen times and it always took longer than that!

Haha well I guess 2.5 or 3 depending on traffic, but you can make a day trip out of it if you don't mind the drive.

[isaidso]

Los Angeles. Topographically, it has everything the US West has on offer in spades. Culturally and economically its tops as well. There's a reason its the biggest metro in this region.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I wouldn’t compare the Sierra Nevadas to the Rockies or the Mojave and Colorado Deserts to the more picturesque landscapes of northern Arizona, but I get what you’re saying.

Its no comparison for me honestly. The Sierra is the most beautiful place and ive been to numerous places in all of the above. There is just so much incredible scenery in the Sierra

[Nomayoplease]

Someone mentioned Reno, i did visit it before deciding on SLC, didn't dig the city, but the location is good. Considering Nevada , Reno and lake tahoe area are the only places i would consider living . As for beauty of mountains alone. The area around yosemite and telluride in colorado are my favorites. I like that granite, exposed rock kind of mountain. Last time i was in calgary , i took a weekend trip to Canmore. Beautiful place.
Turkey is extremily beautiful for those who enjoy the west geographical features. Drove from Antalya to Ankara in 2009 . Like greece on steroids

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I wouldn’t compare the Sierra Nevadas to the Rockies or the Mojave and Colorado Deserts to the more picturesque landscapes of northern Arizona, but I get what you’re saying.

Yeah, the Grand Canyon, the Rockies, Yellowstone, etc are outside of CA. But CA has its own versions of those things and world class cities within close proximity.

[RC14]

If we are talking about major American cities, San Francisco was the first city that came to my mind. Best natural harbor in America (probably), Redwoods, beaches, not too far form central valley, sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe etc. but I don't really know Northern California very well so maybe it's not as convenient as I'm imagining.

Las Vegas is pretty good too. Close to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce Canyon, Death Valley, Valley of Fire, Lake Mead.

My Hometown of Salt Lake City is pretty good on all but the fist point (National parks) Utah has five National parks but they all are located in the southern part of the sate. The closest to SLC would be Great Basin NP (around 3 hours away) and Capital Reef NP (Also around 3 hours). But Salt Lake has the Wasatch Mountains right at our doorstep with 11 ski resorts within an hour of Salt Lake International. We have the Great Salt Lake with it's islands, including Antelope Island, and Utah's west desert to the west. We have the Bonneville Salt Flats a little further west (around 90min). Further East, past the Wasatch, we have the Uinta mountains with many beautiful, high mountain lakes.