Silicon Valley is 3.5 hours from the Sierra (in good weather, without traffic, but there's always traffic). If that's the standard for "access to the mountains", the entire eastern seaboard also has "access to the mountains".

I like the bay area; I lived there for 10 years, and I travel there regularly. But the myth that it has some unique access to the outdoors is absurd. At my house in town in New England, I can walk out my back door and ski in the winter, and the Appalachian Trail is about 5 miles away.

It's 10 minutes away from Rancho San Antonio, 30 from the parks along Skyline, and an hour from Pacific Ocean beaches. You can get to a half-day hike with 1000 feet of vertical elevation change with under an hour of total driving time. And the weather is good enough for this 11 months out of the year.

I used to live in New England. There were definitely parts I liked - I really miss the seasons, and I grew up 15 minutes away from the birthplace of the American Revolution, and there are some charming walks in the woods. But there are very few places that give you the combination of beaches, marsh flats, mountains, redwoods, urban attractions, and the weather to enjoy it all that the Bay Area has within an hour drive.

> But there are very few places that give you the combination of beaches, marsh flats, mountains, redwoods, urban attractions, and the weather to enjoy it all that the Bay Area has within an hour drive.

Exactly the same conditions? No, of course not. Functionally equivalent (better in some ways, worse in others)? Absolutely there are lots of other options. I don't have the ocean, but I have better mountains than the bay area, and wonderful rivers. That's a win in my book, but reasonable people may disagree.

I don't see anyone on this thread saying that the bay area is bad. As I said, I love the bay area, and I'll probably live there again. It just isn't a magical land that's better than anywhere else on earth.

If mountain access is your primary goal, there are absolutely better options. Salt Lake City comes to mind, where you're literally minutes away from world-class terrain in the Wasatch, or Boulder/Denver. Both cities offer lots of job opportunities compared to the more traditional mountain towns. Boston and Seattle are also options, though they come with their own long drives. And there are other, smaller cities to consider in the US as well.

But SF is unique in that you have a major, cosmopolitan city that's relatively close to a wide variety of terrain and environments, from beaches to forest to mountains, etc. SF is a compromise like any other option, but if you love the outdoors, it's one that gives you a hell of a lot of flexibility while still enjoying the benefits of a large city. It's not Jackson Hole, where the mountains are right there, but no one expects it to be.

This is very well put, but I don't think San Francisco is exclusive to this, especially in California. I'm sitting in Orange County right now and every thing I could want to do is at most an hour and a half away. Twenty minutes to the ocean, and hour and a half to Lake Arrowhead/Big Bear, an hour from Los Angeles and an hour from San Diego. An hour away is also the desert (amazing for camping.) Hell for anyone who's still into CES Vegas is four hours away, three if you go a little faster than you should.

Although I get one of the biggest appeals to SF besides the flexibility is the large tech industry, but you'd be surprised how many meetups, companies and stuff you can get to because of the close proximity to two major metropolitan cities, and Irvine (believe it or not) is huge in tech but just business in general here.

Boulder/Denver is pretty amazing, and there are a lot of job opportunities. It has its own set of downsides though. The influx of people is crazy and housing prices are really, really high. Not Bay Area high, but Seattle high. Public transportation is OK for a US city (I don't have experience elsewhere) but traffic is - IMHO pretty bad.

I'm not saying "don't come here" (like many Coloradoans do). Just do your research.

Wait, what? Why do people from Austin and Denver always say their home prices are comparable to Seattle? The average home for sale is Seattle is $666k. It hasn't even broken $350k in Denver. I'm looking at homes on Redfin within 1 mile of the University and there are dozens of ~2k sq ft, 3br 2+ bath homes listed under $500k.

List prices don't tell the whole story. I've got several friends who have purchased homes in the past year or two and if you aren't ready to sign on the day you look at the house with $20k - $50K over asking you won't get the house.

That $350k number probably includes Denver and the surrounding area - the "under $500k" (like $450-499) number is more appropriate for closer to downtown.

Edit: According to Zillow you are correct http://www.zillow.com/denver-co/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/

The Denver Post says $400, but that's still not Seattle prices. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/03/denver-median-home-sold...

As a native, I'll say it then. Don't come here; or rather, don't move here. ;-)

No, don't move to Colorado. You'd hate it ;)

There are no mountains comparable to the Sierras within 3.5 hours drive of anywhere on the Eastern seaboard.

The Coast Ranges -- to which eastern seaboard mountain ranges might be loosely comparable -- are a lot closer to SV than 3.5 hours.

Now, if you are concerned about skiing, the limiting factor for SV is access to snow, not access to mountains.

I was going to mention a few places on the east coast that have the Sierras not only beat, but the whole region beat. But I'm going to shut up b/c I don't want people going there. Pulling my Bolinas card.

Sounds like you are ignoring the Santa Cruz Mountains which are full of excellent hiking and Mountain biking.

I've hiked nearly the entirety of the Santa Cruz mountains, and much of the northern Diablo range as well. They're pleasant, but fall short of what I would consider "excellent hiking". If that makes me a hiking snob, so be it =).

And what do you think of Mt Tam?

I confess a certain fondness for the steep ravine -> dipsea loop.

The Santa Cruz mountains are less than half an hour away.

Where do you live? I want to move there :)

Lebanon, NH, but almost anywhere within 5 miles of the AT in northern New England fits the description.

Get a remote job, move to the mountains.

EDIT:

https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job

https://weworkremotely.com/

If I found a remote job, I'd probably move to Asheville. Such a cute little town with great food and views, but no tech jobs whatsoever.

I moved to Asheville after I had a remote job secured for a while. The problem is that Asheville, like much of the country, lacks jobs in general and that what's there pays rather little for even North Carolina even though the cost of living is the highest in the state. This offsets a lot of the cost advantages of being on a tech worker salary. A devops job I saw here paid $45k, and you can easily get $90k even in RTP.

Now I'm moving again a year later after I bought a house (rental options are terrible in small towns) mostly because my spouse has basically zero job prospects here despite some great credentials which meant an effective 30% pay cut on top of what I took to be a remote worker instead of onsite in a large metro area.

Don't move to Asheville specifically unless everyone in the house already has a job lined up or is really good at cooking or being a server.

Seconded. Asheville is one of the prettiest, most eclectic places in the entire country, with a reasonable cost of living to boot. Unfortunately all the jobs are in banking and the service sector.

> no tech jobs whatsoever

That really surprises me, given the Contra Dance scene in Asheville.

Amazing beer scene.