The 'Mountain Lion' Cities Rising in the U.S. West

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Well if you live in Bozeman, for example, you sort of can .

Bozangeles

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Most of the western mountains are arid and the mostly treeless elevations are quite gradual.

As usual, wrong. The Rockies, the Sierra, the coast ranges . . . none are arid or treeless. Even in the Sonoran desert overlooking my house near Tucson, the major ranges--the Santa Catalina and Santa Ritas have plenty of trees above around 6000 ft. I once read that Flagstaff AZ was in the middle of the largest Ponderosa pine forest in North America.

Santa Rita Mountains above Green Valley AZ


Here's what I look at in winter. It's hard to appreciate the treeline but if you look hard you can see it:


Source: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en...GT--2HX2BE3XXM

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Crawford

When can you keep the windows open in Bozeman? The week between fire season and the first deep blizzard?

If it's like anything in the west, as soon as the sun dips under mountains/buildings. Unless there's a fire then yes, keep those windows closed!

The lack of humidity out West is nice, though.

All you need is shade.
technically.

[proghousehead]

Just some random east coast mountain pics. I agree they’re underrated. Sure not the Tetons or Mount Whitney - but still appreciable and beyond “hills” as my west coast cousins like to condescendingly refer to the nature close
To New York. Exhibits:

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by edale

I have never quite understood why fleeing Californians would rather live in these somewhat remote backwater towns rather than established cities in the midwest or east coast. Going from San Francisco to Reno or Boise seems like a much steeper drop-off than moving to Chicago or Philadelphia, for example. Or any number of smaller metros like Cleveland or Kansas City, for that matter.

To go from a diverse, cosmopolitan city with great medical, educational, and cultural amenities to a small city that largely lacks all of those things just seems odd to me. It's definitely not all about weather, as SLC, Boise, Bozeman, etc have quite harsh and long winters. It's definitely not about proximity to the ocean or a large body of water. I guess it's the mountains? That, or the race factor like others have already pointed out.

We have whole established cities with amazing architecture and museums, top-rate universities and health care systems, professional sports, and CHEAP housing (Detroit, the Ohio 3Cs, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...) that would offer an urban experience much more akin to the large CA cities. Yet middle of nowhere Reno and Boise and SLC are the landing spot for Californians seeking more affordable options. Makes no sense to me.

For starters, most people that relocate out of California aren’t usually concerned about “educational opportunities” for themselves because in all likelihood, they’ve already earned their degree. Plus smaller towns probably have much better public schools than ANY of the cities you mentioned.”.

Having lived in Chicago (twice), there are a lot attractive quality of life amenities. But there are also a lot of quality of life negatives. People that have lived in a large so called ‘cosmopolitan’ city but opt to move to a smaller city, are probably motivated by a less hectic lifestyle and in some opinions likely a higher quality of life.

When I moved from Chicago, I moved to Arroyo Grande near SLO (and it was slow). But so peaceful, with beautiful weather minutes from the beach. Unfortunately, my career brought me back to Sacramento. While Sacramento is a far cry from Chicago, I still would prefer to live in a smaller town.

BTW Californians have a natural revulsion to humidity, which might be one reason more people leaving California don’t move to the Midwest and East Coast.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You have much more dramatic topography in the Alps. Much steeper elevations, in a much more lush environment, and closer proximity to amenities.

Having grown up in proximity to the Alps, I think this colors my thinking. Most of the western mountains are arid and the mostly treeless elevations are quite gradual. Nice, but generally not stunning, like the Dolemites or the Lauterbrunnen Valley. You can live in Munich or Milan and have fantastic urbanity plus amazing scenery in proximity, or somewhere like Innsbruck and go mountain hiking on lunch break.

Skiing, though, yeah. Best skiing on earth. But I don't think skiing, which is declining in popularity, is the primary driver. If my life revolved around skiing, I could definitely see living around Whistler or Alta, though.

Wait, you think the western mountains are arid and generally not stunning? Pick any 20 square mile region of the high sierra and theres enough stunning scenery to last a lifetime. I should know, ive hiked, camped, fished, driven, snowboarded and snowmobiled as much as possible from Mammoth to Yoesmite and all the way down to LA.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Just some random east coast mountain pics.

"Random" . . . yeah, sure.

Without a link it's hard to say where these pictures are taken but I'd have to guess somewhere in New Hampshire maybe. Most of the Appalachians do not look anything like that whereas a lot of the Rockies do.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, that difference of magnitude makes them easily accessible for outdoor recreation. You can actually get to them relatively easily and do something there, not just look at them.

Won't argue about skiing superiority in the West one bit, but for pretty much anything else, I generally prefer the eastern mountains overall. I like lush greenery, ample water, relative accessibility, easy-day-trip-ability. If I lived in the West near a national park, I would probably think differently.



Well no, of course not... because the Rocky Mountains are not located in the East. Conversely, the West doesn't have anything like the White, Green, Adirondack, Allegheny, Blue Ridge, or Great Smoky mountains... or any of the other green and lush sub ranges of the Appalachians. Two totally separate worlds, really.

I totally love the dramatic vistas out west, no doubt. I'm a huge fan of Glacier National Park, having done back country hiking and camping excursion there... amazing, stunning experience. But Glacier, Yellowstone, or Teton, etc.... it's not something you just decide to go do on a Saturday morning.

I dont think you guys realize how much nature is within 1 to 2 hours of Downtown LA, let alone stretching that out to 4 hours. From downtown LA, i can be at the beach in less than 30 min, or i can be at 9500 feet in an alpine zone within 1 hour. I can also be in the high or low desert in 1 hour. Same story for many western metros.

Also, a lot of people are moving to these mountain towns because the lifestyle is great. Hiking, fishing, camping, biking, etc all at your fingertips. Who wouldnt like that? Im planning on buying a mountain property asap and i can wait to spend half the year there

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

For starters, most people that relocate out of California aren’t usually concerned about “educational opportunities” for themselves because in all likelihood, they’ve already earned their degree. Plus smaller towns probably have much better public schools than ANY of the cities you mentioned.”.

Having lived in Chicago (twice), there are a lot attractive quality of life amenities. But there are also a lot of quality of life negatives. People that have lived in a large so called ‘cosmopolitan’ city but opt to move to a smaller city, are probably motivated by a less hectic lifestyle and in some opinions likely a higher quality of life.

When I moved from Chicago, I moved to Arroyo Grande near SLO (and it was slow). But so peaceful, with beautiful weather minutes from the beach. Unfortunately, my career brought me back to Sacramento. While Sacramento is a far cry from Chicago, I still would prefer to live in a smaller town.

BTW Californians have a natural revulsion to humidity, which might be one reason more people leaving California don’t move to the Midwest and East Coast.

The vast majority of Californians leaving give one reason: Cost of living. They are looking for larger homes for a fraction of the cost and generally they aren't really urbanophiles so they don't miss downtown attractions. The suburbs or small towns work just fine for them.

And you're right about the humidity. But there's more: The mythology about the South especially among people who have never lived east of the Mississippi is amazing. As someone who grew up in DC, Maryland and later North Carolina and Florida but has lived in CA for 40+ years, I am constantly having to tell my California friends that all southerners don't still live in share-cropper cabins, eat nothing but pig innards and whip their slaves regularly.

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

"Random" . . . yeah, sure.

Without a link it's hard to say where these pictures are taken but I'd have to guess somewhere in New Hampshire maybe. Most of the Appalachians do not look anything like that whereas a lot of the Rockies do.

Maine, New Hampshire and New York. Katahdin, White Mountains, Adirondacks.

Why so defensive? I literally just entered those search terms and grabbed the first couple of results. Jeez man we get that Cali has way superior terrain. My point is to show that decent wilderness is proximate to where I live.

Calm down! Lol.

[edale]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

For starters, most people that relocate out of California aren’t usually concerned about “educational opportunities” for themselves because in all likelihood, they’ve already earned their degree. Plus smaller towns probably have much better public schools than ANY of the cities you mentioned.”.

Having lived in Chicago (twice), there are a lot attractive quality of life amenities. But there are also a lot of quality of life negatives. People that have lived in a large so called ‘cosmopolitan’ city but opt to move to a smaller city, are probably motivated by a less hectic lifestyle and in some opinions likely a higher quality of life.

When I moved from Chicago, I moved to Arroyo Grande near SLO (and it was slow). But so peaceful, with beautiful weather minutes from the beach. Unfortunately, my career brought me back to Sacramento. While Sacramento is a far cry from Chicago, I still would prefer to live in a smaller town.

BTW Californians have a natural revulsion to humidity, which might be one reason more people leaving California don’t move to the Midwest and East Coast.

If you're planning on raising children somewhere, would you rather send them to University of Idaho or Berkeley or UCLA? Quality state universities are absolutely important to lots of people when considering where to live. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, etc. offer substantially better universities than Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Montana. They're not even in the same league.

And it's not just about universities, but also things like public library systems, arts facilities, museums...all things that contribute to the overall educational landscape. These are assets that legacy cities largely have in abundance, and that are lacking in mountain west cities that grew later (Denver excluded). Educational and cultural institutions are definitely important to me, and I think many people who choose to live in expensive cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles would feel similarly.

I sometimes feel like the mountain west boomtown phenomenon is attributable to the vacation lust syndrome. People go skiing in Utah or fly fishing in Montana or whatever and fall in love with the idea of the place because they had a great time on their vacation. So they move there to chase the feeling, only to find out that day to day life doesn't include whitewater rafting and skiing. And there's like 5 good restaurants and none of your favorite bands ever come through town on their tours. And there's maybe one historic district and a cute downtown, but the rest of the city is sprawl.

If I can't be in California, give me a solid midwest city over the mountain west (again, minus Denver) any day. I'll go to Park City once a year to get my ski fix.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Plus smaller towns probably have much better public schools than ANY of the cities you mentioned.

A town like Bozeman isn't gonna have high performing K-12 schools.

In contrast, places like Cleveland or Cincy will have a ton of elite options, public and private. So if you're a parent with kids in K-12 schools, and are highly invested in educational outcomes, Bozeman doesn't make much sense.

Another thing - there are few extracurriculars for kids. Example - my cousin in Bozeman has a kid who is really good at soccer. But there are basically no soccer programs, except for some seasonal outdoor recreational soccer (which was shut down all summer due to air quality). So he has nothing. In contrast, a major metro like Cleveland, will have a ton of options for your kid's interests, whether soccer, coding, music, robotics, whatever.

And then what about college? If you're in Montana, you can send your kid to Montana or Montana State, relatively minor institutions with limited reach. If you're in the Rust Belt, you can send your kid to a more global Big 10 university. Even University of Michigan is pretty accessible for in-state students with decent grades.

[homebucket]

I'm not sure why schools or cultural amenities are even a discussion though. I get the impression the majority of the people moving to these mountain west areas are either retired empty nesters looking to spend the rest of their days fishing at some secluded lake away from civilization or maybe young 20-somethings that don't have kids yet or aren't planning to. I don't think K-12 schools or proximity to museums really matter to them. Probably only a small fraction of them are moving there so they can raise their kids in a slower paced, less developed environment.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Wait, you think the western mountains are arid and generally not stunning? Pick any 20 square mile region of the high sierra and theres enough stunning scenery to last a lifetime. I should know, ive hiked, camped, fished, driven, snowboarded and snowmobiled as much as possible from Mammoth to Yoesmite and all the way down to LA.

Definitely much more arid and gentler elevations than Alps. Yosemite is to the Dolemites like the Ozarks are to the Cascades. The Dolemites are like hundreds and hundreds of El Capitans, but much more lush and perched above stunning Roman-era villages.

The Canadian Rockies are more scenic, and the Coastal Ranges are lush, but the Rockies aren't that impressive relative to the Alps. They're nice, but if I were a mountain person, I'd be in Northern Italy, Western Austria or Switzerland.

Jackson Hole is a good example. Outside the skiing/snowboarding, don't get it. Bleak, arid, flat.

[Shawn]

It's got to be the relative lack of humidity in these places. My brother and family just moved back to Boston from Davis after 10 years, and he says the only thing he misses about CA is the dry heat.

White people really hate humidity, and once they live without it for a while, it's exponentially harder to get them to move back into it. It took my Irish ass a looooong time to acclimate to worse-than-Singapore Tokyo, and now that I can handle it well, I'm scared I'll lose my humidity tolerance if I leave.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Can't go outside without the threat of a mountain lion attack.

According to Rockstar and RDR2, New Austin is just teeming with them!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Definitely much more arid and gentler elevations than Alps. Yosemite is to the Dolemites like the Ozarks are to the Cascades. The Dolemites are like hundreds and hundreds of El Capitans, but much more lush and perched above stunning Roman-era villages.

The Canadian Rockies are more scenic, and the Coastal Ranges are lush, but the Rockies aren't that impressive relative to the Alps. They're nice, but if I were a mountain person, I'd be in Northern Italy, Western Austria or Switzerland.

Jackson Hole is a good example. Outside the skiing/snowboarding, don't get it. Bleak, arid, flat.

Sure, Yosemite valley, a place that's considered one of the most jaw dropping, incredible places on earth is but an afterthought in the alps. The Sierra, a place that has the biggest, tallest, largest trees on earth, countless alpine lakes, incredible vista's, glaciers, glacial lakes, the highest point in the continental USA, lake tahoe, sequoia national park, amazing rivers and waterfalls is but an afterthought

Jackson hole is bleak arid and flat? Have you ever been there? The tetons are very beautiful, second only to the Sierra for me. Jenny lake and the surrounding area are beautiful

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I know people from the east who have moved to these same towns. I know a couple from Ohio who retired not to Florida but...Montana. I know several other people from Ohio who have moved to the towns mentioned in this article.

California's a big place. People shouldn't be surprised when a few thousand of them choose to move to odd places.

Yea, it's not just Californians. I've some of my old coworkers in Chicago are moving out west to these same places or are thinking about it.

I don't get it either, but these people don't give a shit about city life anymore. That's who's moving to the Bozeman's/Boise's etc.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Shawn

It's got to be the relative lack of humidity in these places. My brother and family just moved back to Boston from Davis after 10 years, and he says the only thing he misses about CA is the dry heat.

White people really hate humidity, and once they live without it for a while, it's exponentially harder to get them to move back into it. It took my Irish ass a looooong time to acclimate to worse-than-Singapore Tokyo, and now that I can handle it well, I'm scared I'll lose my humidity tolerance if I leave.

Yes, this is true too lol.

I can't do humidty anymore either. I'm white, and I just can't stand it. Ever since being in California, anytime I go back east it's harder to deal with. Luckily on my last Chicago trip, it wasn't humid outside of a day or two.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Maine, New Hampshire and New York. Katahdin, White Mountains, Adirondacks.

Why so defensive? I literally just entered those search terms and grabbed the first couple of results. Jeez man we get that Cali has way superior terrain. My point is to show that decent wilderness is proximate to where I live.

Calm down! Lol.

It's not defensive to question what you categorize as "random". I grew up in Maryland, visiting the Appalachians in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. My college roommate was from East Tennessee and I went home with him and saw the mountains in that state. And later I went to school in North Carolina and travelled through northern Georgia and Alabama. That pretty much covers the Appalachians south of Pennsylvania and I never saw anything that was very rugged like what you posted. So that northern 30% or so, probably less, is not really typical of eastern mountains and that makes sense because geologically the eastern mountains are much older and more weathered.

I think that fairly calmly points out that your post was a little disingenuous.