Utah vs Colorado.

[ellenmseb]

Im ashamed to say that I had to temporarily relocate to SoCal and I don't see anything impressive here. If anyone has any tips, please let me know. What locals call "mountains" here, I call "hills". And the Sierras are like ~4hrs drive. On the plus side, my modified 4Runner is getting lots of attention in luxury-sedan-innundated roads of LA lol.

SoCal has many ultraprominent peaks: San Antonio 10k', San Gorgonio 11.5k', San Jacinto 10.8k', Telescope 11k', etc. They are way more prominent than the rockies because sea level is not far away. The coastal ranges often have easy day-hikes, but the sierra & desert ranges (Panamint, Coxcomb etc) are way more challenging than the rockies in terms of remoteness, scrambling, red tape, lack of beta. You can certainly fill a winter, spring and summer-fall climbing in the desert, coastal ranges and sierra respectively.

Being in SF, I'm jealous of a 10k' acclimitization opportunity 1 hour from downtown LA, and then only 4 hours from the sierra instead of 7.

snwburd.com and peakbagger.com are the best resources.

Relevant peakbagging lists are SPS, DPS, and HPS. Peaks are chosen for their aesthetic, cultural and historical importance, and prominence in addition to elevation. Each list has an 'emblem' subset of the best peaks.

[CaptCO]

Im ashamed to say that I had to temporarily relocate to SoCal and I don't see anything impressive here. If anyone has any tips, please let me know. What locals call "mountains" here, I call "hills". And the Sierras are like ~4hrs drive. On the plus side, my modified 4Runner is getting lots of attention in luxury-sedan-innundated roads of LA lol.

SoCal has many ultraprominent peaks: San Antonio 10k', San Gorgonio 11.5k', San Jacinto 10.8k', Telescope 11k', etc. They are way more prominent than the rockies because sea level is not far away. The coastal ranges often have easy day-hikes, but the sierra & desert ranges (Panamint, Coxcomb etc) are way more challenging than the rockies in terms of remoteness, scrambling, red tape, lack of beta. You can certainly fill a winter, spring and summer-fall climbing in the desert, coastal ranges and sierra respectively.

Being in SF, I'm jealous of a 10k' acclimitization opportunity 1 hour from downtown LA, and then only 4 hours from the sierra instead of 7.

snwburd.com and peakbagger.com are the best resources.

Relevant peakbagging lists are SPS, DPS, and HPS. Peaks are chosen for their aesthetic, cultural and historical importance, and prominence in addition to elevation. Each list has an 'emblem' subset of the best peaks.

Let me piss some some “people” off. I’d bet my property near SA TX is worth more than that “mountain”. Have fun guys!

[ellenmseb]

Im ashamed to say that I had to temporarily relocate to SoCal and I don't see anything impressive here. If anyone has any tips, please let me know. What locals call "mountains" here, I call "hills". And the Sierras are like ~4hrs drive. On the plus side, my modified 4Runner is getting lots of attention in luxury-sedan-innundated roads of LA lol.

SoCal has many ultraprominent peaks: San Antonio 10k', San Gorgonio 11.5k', San Jacinto 10.8k', Telescope 11k', etc. They are way more prominent than the rockies because sea level is not far away. The coastal ranges often have easy day-hikes, but the sierra & desert ranges (Panamint, Coxcomb etc) are way more challenging than the rockies in terms of remoteness, scrambling, red tape, lack of beta. You can certainly fill a winter, spring and summer-fall climbing in the desert, coastal ranges and sierra respectively.

Being in SF, I'm jealous of a 10k' acclimitization opportunity 1 hour from downtown LA, and then only 4 hours from the sierra instead of 7.

snwburd.com and peakbagger.com are the best resources.

Relevant peakbagging lists are SPS, DPS, and HPS. Peaks are chosen for their aesthetic, cultural and historical importance, and prominence in addition to elevation. Each list has an 'emblem' subset of the best peaks.

Let me piss some some “people” off. I’d bet my property near SA TX is worth more than that “mountain”. Have fun guys!

Which mountain do you mean? San Antonio? It has a ski resort lol.

[Scott P]

Im ashamed to say that I had to temporarily relocate to SoCal and I don't see anything impressive here. If anyone has any tips, please let me know. What locals call "mountains" here, I call "hills". And the Sierras are like ~4hrs drive. On the plus side, my modified 4Runner is getting lots of attention in luxury-sedan-innundated roads of LA lol.

Are you interested in canyoneering at all? There are a lot of good technical canyons in those mountains, though I haven't personally been. My friends have though and talk about then often. Pictures look cool.

[Scott P]

Do you have a favorite state or country, Scott? Seems like you’ve done a lot of traveling.

Utah is my favorite state to hike in, Colorado (as long as it's on the Western Slope) is my favorite state to live in, and Nepal is my favorite country to visit.

[ker0uac]

Im ashamed to say that I had to temporarily relocate to SoCal and I don't see anything impressive here. If anyone has any tips, please let me know. What locals call "mountains" here, I call "hills". And the Sierras are like ~4hrs drive. On the plus side, my modified 4Runner is getting lots of attention in luxury-sedan-innundated roads of LA lol.

Are you interested in canyoneering at all? There are a lot of good technical canyons in those mountains, though I haven't personally been. My friends have though and talk about then often. Pictures look cool.

Yep pretty much everything here is a canyon.... half of the roads are called canyon too... and it's nice that the city grew so much that it's glue to the canyons, unlike Denver which is not technically at the front range's foothill, so it takes me just 10min to get to a ridge trail... I feel soooo in shape here, there's oxygen everywhere!!! I can literally run up a steep incline for 10min

[bdloftin77]

Running with Scott P's idea, here's a compilation of the western CONUS peak counts for each elevation range.

Credit: listsofjohn.com

State Elevation Range Counts.JPG (68.75 KiB) Viewed 304 times

Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.

Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.

[Scott P]

Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.

Awesome analysis! Are you OK with me using it for future references?

Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.

It is interesting that California would still beat Colorado even if the eastern plains were eliminated and even with California's huge size and large flatlands in the Central Valleys. Imagine how everything would be if the state had the same population as Colorado. Even with all of the people, California still has some of the larges roadless areas in the Lower 48. It's too bad that California is so California-ish. Other wise I think I could live there.

[bdloftin77]

Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.

Awesome analysis! Are you OK with me using it for future references?

Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.

It is interesting that California would still beat Colorado even if the eastern plains were eliminated and even with California's huge size and large flatlands in the Central Valleys. Imagine how everything would be if the state had the same population as Colorado. Even with all of the people, California still has some of the larges roadless areas in the Lower 48. It's too bad that California is so California-ish. Other wise I think I could live there.

Thanks! Yeah, go for it!

Yeah, that was surprising to me, too. Especially having driven down the expansive valley area on I-5. Right? That would be pretty amazing if it had Colorado's population. Kinda a bummer. At least it's still cool to visit occasionally.

[ker0uac]

Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.

Awesome analysis! Are you OK with me using it for future references?

Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.

It is interesting that California would still beat Colorado even if the eastern plains were eliminated and even with California's huge size and large flatlands in the Central Valleys. Imagine how everything would be if the state had the same population as Colorado. Even with all of the people, California still has some of the larges roadless areas in the Lower 48. It's too bad that California is so California-ish. Other wise I think I could live there.

But I would think that counting number of peaks isn't very indicative of its potential for a mountain climbing mecca. No? Just to name a few, I would say access, terrain and weather would need to be taken into account. For instance, in CO, all 14ers and a good portion of 13ers, have mapped out trails and 2wd/4wd access. If you have the right rig or are ok with the additional forest road hiking, those peaks are accessible year around. Can you honestly say you would climb the Death Valley and CA high desert peaks in the summer? Also, while CA does have some cool peaks and big walls and etc, people who live in the major CA hubs don't tend to be as outdoorsy. It's not as easy to find a community of like-minded climbers such as this one - am I wrong? But I guess if you don't care about any of that, maybe coz you enjoy trailblazing or first ascents of tricky route navigation, then maybe # and concentration of peaks tell the whole story.

[mtn_hound]

Colorado is king of the high country in the lower 48. California has a good overall spread, but has high counts especially in the 4ers and under range. Despite its huge size, it still has the second highest concentration of peaks, behind Washington. Not surprisingly, California, Oregon, and Washington all have high counts in the lower elevation ranges, being right near the coast. Arizona also has high counts of low elevation peaks.

Awesome analysis! Are you OK with me using it for future references?

Colorado has the 4th lowest concentration of peaks. If we donate the vast plains east of I-25 to Kansas, we'd be left with about 63,000 square miles (using ArcMap and I-25 TIGER shapefile). The new concentration would be 0.0697 peaks per square mile, which looks a lot better.

It is interesting that California would still beat Colorado even if the eastern plains were eliminated and even with California's huge size and large flatlands in the Central Valleys. Imagine how everything would be if the state had the same population as Colorado. Even with all of the people, California still has some of the larges roadless areas in the Lower 48. It's too bad that California is so California-ish. Other wise I think I could live there.

Unless you're talking about the high taxes and government regulations that apply statewide, I don't know know that there's anything "California-ish" that characterizes the entire place in a way that I wouldn't want to live *anywhere* in the state. Sure the places where most of the population lives would be hard for me to go back to (grew up in bay area, also lived in San Diego). But it's such a huge state with so many different choices, I would think most people could find something they like somewhere within the borders.

[Scott P]

I don't know know that there's anything "California-ish" that characterizes the entire place in a way that I wouldn't want to live *anywhere* in the state.

I was somewhat joking.

I could probably live in somewhere like Bishop, Lone Pine, or Mt Shasta, but it seems to me that the best mountains in those areas require a fair amount of red tape. I understand that it is needed because of all the people that live there. It is needed there to protect the land. California does care about their outdoor areas.

That said though, my favorite places to go are the places where you can camp where you want and set off and hike in any direction for miles or miles and not have to worry about running into a private property sign or red tape. I haven't seen too much of that in California (though admittedly I haven't seen the whole state).

There is the cost in those places too. Those places actually have reasonable real estate prices (By California standards at least), though it's still shocking how much everything else costs. Could I afford it? Probably. It would leave less money for other things though.

Then again, although I have seen a fair amount of California, it's a big state and there are still a lot of areas I want to go to that I haven't seen yet. I still haven't been to the Redwood Forest or Trinity Alps, both of which are high on my list. Maybe there are places there like the ones I describe above in the state, but I don't know them.

If it weren't for the above, I think California and Utah would tie for #1 as far as my favorites go (and if Utah didn't have slot canyons California would be far superior to Utah). Personally, I'd rather live in Colorado though, at least for now.

That said though, I really like visiting parts of California. I need to get back to the Sierra, climb in Joshua Tree, visit and climb in the Trinity Alps, visit the Redwood Forest, Lost Coast, etc. I still have a lot to see there.

Live there? I don't know. I guess I shouldn't knock it until I try it so maybe someday in the distant future.