Best Place To Work, Live and Ski

FastSpeed

FastSpeed

Member
What citites are the best to work professionally in and then be close to good skiing? I am sure there is an old thread on this that I am too lazy to find right now. The ones I can think of:

Seattle

Portland

Denver

SLC

Reno

Any others to add to to the list? What do you like or not like about living, working and skiing in these places?
 
What's not to like? Working and having to only ski on the weekends...doesn't matter where you're at, being a weekend warrior = crowds and traffic if you're commuting from a big city.
 
Haha man you only listed cities in the states

Vancouver

Calgary

Montreal

Oslo

Zurich

Innsbruck

Munich

Bern

Geneva

Milan

Turin

Lyon

Best best though? All the Swiss cities combine the best pay, standard of living, and quality of riding. Hands down, Switzerland wins this one.
 
I live in Pittsburgh and it's probably one of the best options on the east coast. Seven Springs has some of the best terrain parks in the East and is only an hour south. It's a big city with a lot of jobs and a good place to live (unless you move into one of the shitholes like Homewood, the Hill, etc.)
 
I think you pretty much nailed it. I would not want to go anywhere back east as the mountains are nothing like what you will get in the cities you mentioned.

If you are willing to drive a bit you can live in the bay area and ski Tahoe every weekend. It is more of a drive but that is a great area. I know people who ski absolutely every weekend in Tahoe living in the bay. You just have to deal with the drive and have the money for a ski lease, but if you are dedicated it is a great place to be a weekend warrior. The only drawback is the cost of living, houses is Silicon Valley are insane right now, 2.5 million does not get you a great house, just a simple single family home. Put it this way, it is MUCH more expensive than Newport Beach, and Newport is incredibly pricey. One of my buddies just got denied on a 2,500 square foot home after offering 2.5m. He got blown out of the water by someone with 2.8m cash. The bay and Manhattan are the priciest places in the country right now. Also, Denver is not much closer to Summit County than San Fran is to Tahoe when you take traffic into account. I've heard it can take 4 hours on I-70 to get to Summit so it is necessary to get a ski lease there too. Traffic from the bay to Tahoe can be bad but if you leave early in the morning you can get there in 4-4.5 hours. Don't quote me on it but I have heard it is 4 hours on weekends from Denver to Summit. Salt Lake is spectacular because you don't need a ski lease and you get great mountains with tons of snow but I would not want to live there. Seattle is great too, terrific mountains that are not too far away and a much more desirable city than Salt Lake if you are not a Mormon, although I know some non-Mormons who love SLC.

I live in Newport Beach and ski 3 weekends a month, about 35 to 40 a year at Mammoth. I absolutely love it, I would rather ski there than anywhere in Summit or Vail, but you really have to drive. I leave every Saturday morning at 4 am and drive 5.5 hours to get to my ski lease and then Mammoth. Like the bay a ski lease is necessary and you have to be willing to drive, but you can have a great life as a weekend warrior. For me I also surf so it is nice to surf all summer and ski all winter. For pure skiing it does not have the ease of Seattle or Salt Lake but it is not as much worse as far as driving goes than Denver as one might think. I know lots of people in socal who ski 30-50 days a year at Mammoth, you just have to drive and be able to afford a ski lease. You can live the surf/ski dream here if you are willing to get behind the wheel a lot. If you don't like to drive and can't afford a ski lease then don't consider the bay or socal, in that case you will be limited to Denver Salt Lake and Seattle if you want to ski both days of the weekend. In Denver you will have to ski Loveland (great little mountain) not Summit County unless you want to drive 4 hours each way both days to get to Summit.

It also depends on where your friends are. I went to college in Santa Barbara, where I got used to the Mammoth drive several weekends a month, so most of my friends are in California. When you add in the weather and the ski/surf combo I don't want to leave.

I don't know much about Portland, but I don't think it is as good as Seattle or SLC from a pure skiing standpoint.

Reno is super close to Tahoe and some people really like it despite the slummy reputation.

You can go to TGR and look for threads on this and find some good info. Lots of people there are older than here and have experience as weekend warriors in the cities you are interested in. Just bring a thick skin as those guys (like the people here) can be childish.
 
I lived in SF and moved up to seattle a few years ago because it sucks as a skier living in SF.

I currently work a well paying cubicle corporate job in the seattle area. I ski 3-4 times per week, and live 45 mins from my hill, which has world class terrain and snow amounts. I have an arrangment with my bosses that i wont be in till noonish on pow days, which means i get 2-2.5 hours of pow before having to head into work on weekdays, or nightski laps after work till 10pm.. I also live in the mecca for MTB if that is your thing... which it will become if you move here haha.

Seattle has every benefit of a world class city, and some of the best food of anywhere in the country, i am 15 mins from downtown Seattle as well. Real estate is pricey, but only about 2/3 what it is the Bay Area.

OP- what are you looking for?
 
Salt Lake City pretty hard to beat at least in the US. Easily the best place to work and ski.

That being said...if you're willing to become a weekend warrior there are plenty of awesome options. San Fran has Tahoe 3 hours away. Denver has summit county pretty close. NYC / Boston have Vermont 3 hours away (obviously much much worse skiing especially last year on a low snow year) but still fun.
 
13701289:shredched said:
Salt lake ur golden
Click to expand...

But SLC is lacking on the the "live" aspect IMO.

13701326:KravtZ said:
Salt Lake City pretty hard to beat at least in the US. Easily the best place to work and ski.

That being said...if you're willing to become a weekend warrior there are plenty of awesome options. San Fran has Tahoe 3 hours away. Denver has summit county pretty close. NYC / Boston have Vermont 3 hours away (obviously much much worse skiing especially last year on a low snow year) but still fun.
Click to expand...

Tahoe is 4 hrs away. One way. And many times that balloons to 8+ one way. SF is great if career, culture, and partying are very very high on the priority list, IMO.

I'd also throw out Santa Fe, NM. cool kinda hippy city with Taos 1.5hrs away.
 
13701286:californiagrown said:
I lived in SF and moved up to seattle a few years ago because it sucks as a skier living in SF.
Click to expand...

I would not say it sucks. If you are willing to drive it is great. It is better than any of the cities he mentioned except Salt Lake, Seattle and Reno. I guess Denver has Loveland which is an advantage but Tahoe has better mountains than Summit County. If you can't take driving a lot and want to be able to get weekday skiing and can't afford a ski lease then yes, SF sucks. You can also learn to surf in California which is a big advantage, but I will warn you it is not easy. I learned in college and I have never seen anyone who learns late get past the mediocre stage. It is not harder to be Kelly Slater than it is to be Travis Rice or Shane McConkey or Daron Rahlves, but it is MUCH harder to be a competent surfer than it is to be a competent skier. Take that as a warning, as much as I love surfing it is much easier to pick up something like MTB as your summer sport. Most of the people I know who tried to start in college eventually gave surfing up, it is that hard. It's great if you stick with it though, I like skiing more but everything people say about surfing is true. Also, if you want to combine surfing and skiing SF is a tough place to surf. It is almost always blown out, and often too big. It is also cold and sharky. It is definitely not a user friendly place to surf although Ocean Beach can get epic. My buddies who live up there and have surfing as their primary sport would rather live right in Santa Cruz, which is protected from the wind and consistent, or OC or San Diego.
 
13701286:californiagrown said:
Real estate is pricey, but only about 2/3 what it is the Bay Area.
Click to expand...

Is it that expensive in Seattle? In the bay area right now 2.5m will get you a mediocre 3bd/2500sqft house if it is in a remotely nice area. I have a bunch of friends who are looking right now and going through hell. They are offering over asking price and being blown out of the water by cash buyers. If Seattle is 2/3 the price then that would make a 3bd/2500sqft home in a decent area 1.6m, which is what it is in Newport Beach. I guess I didn't know Seattle was as expensive as Newport. I know it is a great place but that surprises me.
 
13701371:dan4060 said:
Is it that expensive in Seattle? In the bay area right now 2.5m will get you a mediocre 3bd/2500sqft house if it is in a remotely nice area. I have a bunch of friends who are looking right now and going through hell. They are offering over asking price and being blown out of the water by cash buyers. If Seattle is 2/3 the price then that would make a 3bd/2500sqft home in a decent area 1.6m, which is what it is in Newport Beach. I guess I didn't know Seattle was as expensive as Newport. I know it is a great place but that surprises me.
Click to expand...

I grew up in the bay area, worked there for a few years, parents still live there etc.

Yes, comparatively equal neighborhoods are 1/2-2/3 the price of their bay area counterparts. This area is starting to see urban sprawl right now too, but there is a lot of push back against that type of development.

And I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how good SF is for skiing and other mtn sports haha.
 
13701286:californiagrown said:
I lived in SF and moved up to seattle a few years ago because it sucks as a skier living in SF.

I currently work a well paying cubicle corporate job in the seattle area. I ski 3-4 times per week, and live 45 mins from my hill, which has world class terrain and snow amounts. I have an arrangment with my bosses that i wont be in till noonish on pow days, which means i get 2-2.5 hours of pow before having to head into work on weekdays, or nightski laps after work till 10pm.. I also live in the mecca for MTB if that is your thing... which it will become if you move here haha.

Seattle has every benefit of a world class city, and some of the best food of anywhere in the country, i am 15 mins from downtown Seattle as well. Real estate is pricey, but only about 2/3 what it is the Bay Area.

OP- what are you looking for?
Click to expand...

What mountain is 45 minutes for Seattle? According to Google maps baker is over 2 1/2 hours away
 
13701421:36ChambersOfWu said:
What mountain is 45 minutes for Seattle? According to Google maps baker is over 2 1/2 hours away
Click to expand...

The Snoqualmie hills are 45 mins from my house. Alpental has the gnar if you're so inclined. Crystal is 90 mins and is a legit big mtn, with big time terrain. Stevens is 90mins as well and has a great park, and fun terrain.
 
13701375:californiagrown said:
And I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how good SF is for skiing and other mtn sports haha.
Click to expand...

I would agree that SF is not as good as Seattle for mountain sports, I just think that if someone is willing to drive and get a ski lease they can have a great skiing life. Whether it is great or not depends on the funds for a ski lease and how willing you are to spend a lot of time in a car. Let's say you are right out of college and can't afford a ski lease (which is 200-400 a month, quite significant when you are right out of college and trying to afford a steep SF rent). Let's say you also hate to drive. In that case I will completely agree that SF would suck, you have to cocktease of sick mountains that are a long way away. In my case I don't hate the drive and can afford a ski lease so when I way the pros and cons a ton of driving to Mammoth for my 40 days is worth it to surf all summer and live in Newport. If all I was looking for was skiing as a weekend warrior I would live in SLC or Seattle, but I have other things to weigh in and when I do I choose driving and living down here. If I had to leave I would pick the bay first, Seattle second and Denver third. I would love the skiing in SLC but I would not want to live there.

I would mention Sacramento as another possibility. I would not want to live there but it is only a couple of hours from Tahoe and past the urban sprawl of the bay. I would guess that it is easier to get to Tahoe from Sac town than it is to get to Summit from Denver.

For the OP it comes down to weighing in all the factors. I just wanted to point out that if you are willing to drive California becomes a very viable option.
 
13701461:dan4060 said:
I would agree that SF is not as good as Seattle for mountain sports, I just think that if someone is willing to drive and get a ski lease they can have a great skiing life. Whether it is great or not depends on the funds for a ski lease and how willing you are to spend a lot of time in a car. Let's say you are right out of college and can't afford a ski lease (which is 200-400 a month, quite significant when you are right out of college and trying to afford a steep SF rent). Let's say you also hate to drive. In that case I will completely agree that SF would suck, you have to cocktease of sick mountains that are a long way away. In my case I don't hate the drive and can afford a ski lease so when I way the pros and cons a ton of driving to Mammoth for my 40 days is worth it to surf all summer and live in Newport. If all I was looking for was skiing as a weekend warrior I would live in SLC or Seattle, but I have other things to weigh in and when I do I choose driving and living down here. If I had to leave I would pick the bay first, Seattle second and Denver third. I would love the skiing in SLC but I would not want to live there.

I would mention Sacramento as another possibility. I would not want to live there but it is only a couple of hours from Tahoe and past the urban sprawl of the bay. I would guess that it is easier to get to Tahoe from Sac town than it is to get to Summit from Denver.

For the OP it comes down to weighing in all the factors. I just wanted to point out that if you are willing to drive California becomes a very viable option.
Click to expand...

I prefer sleeping in my own bed, and enjoying the cool things my city has to offer on the weekends, and weekdays, while also skiing as much as I please.

I don't want to devote 100% of all my weekends to nothing but skiing, when the skiing only lasts 7 hours per day. I like half days. I like not missing pow days especially on weekdays. I like not having to work in my life around skiing, but instead have skiing fit into my life.

To me, there is a whole lot of wasted time and wasted life when your hobbies are so far away. Why not bring them closer? Not to mention always being gone on the weekends does not lend itself well to finding and keeping a girl.

I just don't get why people would make it so hard on themselves. It seems like all your reasoning is based around "why it's not that bad" to go the long distance route, instead of why it's so awesome haha. But, what makes me happy doesn't neccisarily make the next guy happy.
 
i'm a bit biased because i live there but portland is a great city to live, work and ski.

- got tons of stuff going on in terms of nightlife, music, food, etc.

- has a lot of different industries to find a job in, don't have to depend on seasonal jobs

- skiing all year round at hood or elsewhere in the cascades.

- legal weed, dope beer, very bike friendly, young people, no mormons

- not crazy expensive like jackson, mammoth, SF or a resort town like vail
 
13701446:hot.pocket said:
Just kidding it sucks here don't move here.
Click to expand...

All we have is hobos, dirt and shitty casinos. Nothing else. No nightlife, no powder, no mountains.

Jk I love it here...just don't bring your jerry friends
 
13701470:californiagrown said:
I prefer sleeping in my own bed, and enjoying the cool things my city has to offer on the weekends, and weekdays, while also skiing as much as I please.

I don't want to devote 100% of all my weekends to nothing but skiing, when the skiing only lasts 7 hours per day. I like half days. I like not missing pow days especially on weekdays. I like not having to work in my life around skiing, but instead have skiing fit into my life.

To me, there is a whole lot of wasted time and wasted life when your hobbies are so far away. Why not bring them closer? Not to mention always being gone on the weekends does not lend itself well to finding and keeping a girl.
Click to expand...

I agree about wasted time and wasted life with traveling, but if I want to both ski and surf this is the choice I have. If I only wanted to ski I might not live here. Unfortunately I can't bring my hobbies closer, that is not an option. As far as keeping a girl, I am married and she goes up with me so that is taken care of.

13701470:californiagrown said:
I just don't get why people would make it so hard on themselves. It seems like all your reasoning is based around "why it's not that bad" to go the long distance route, instead of why it's so awesome haha. But, what makes me happy doesn't necessarily make the next guy happy.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is based on the fact that it can be done, that you can have both a great surfing life and a great skiing life, that it is doable. I think it is absolutely awesome to have both surfing and skiing in my life and I would not have that in any of those other cities. I have a great life and my life is better than it would be in Seattle or any of those other cities. So yes, despite the driving it is great, better than anywhere else. If I had to leave I would go to San Francisco but I would not even want that.

I am writing all this not to say that "it's not that bad" but instead to say that it can be great if you don't mind dealing with driving and the expense of a ski lease. It depends on what the OP wants. Like I said before I am happier here than I would be in Seattle or Denver, I don't want to give up surfing, I want both, and if I am to have both I have to deal with a drive. But if you want to surf and ski Newport is probably the best option. There are other pluses, great weather and a strong job market, so I just want to let the OP know that you can have a great ski life and have all the advantages of socal if you want one. Is it as easy to ski as it is in Seattle? No. But the other advantages make it worth it.
 
13701633:dan4060 said:
I agree about wasted time and wasted life with traveling, but if I want to both ski and surf this is the choice I have. If I only wanted to ski I might not live here. Unfortunately I can't bring my hobbies closer, that is not an option. As far as keeping a girl, I am married and she goes up with me so that is taken care of.

My reasoning is based on the fact that it can be done, that you can have both a great surfing life and a great skiing life, that it is doable. I think it is absolutely awesome to have both surfing and skiing in my life and I would not have that in any of those other cities. I have a great life and my life is better than it would be in Seattle or any of those other cities. So yes, despite the driving it is great, better than anywhere else. If I had to leave I would go to San Francisco but I would not even want that.

I am writing all this not to say that "it's not that bad" but instead to say that it can be great if you don't mind dealing with driving and the expense of a ski lease. It depends on what the OP wants. Like I said before I am happier here than I would be in Seattle or Denver, I don't want to give up surfing, I want both, and if I am to have both I have to deal with a drive. But if you want to surf and ski Newport is probably the best option. There are other pluses, great weather and a strong job market, so I just want to let the OP know that you can have a great ski life and have all the advantages of socal if you want one. Is it as easy to ski as it is in Seattle? No. But the other advantages make it worth it.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure, I totally get what you're saying. What you're doing is the only viable option for someone whose passions are surfing and skiing. But if surfing isn't in one of your top 5 life priorities, I don't see the SoCal/SF deal as a very good option.

Travel time is the sacrifice you make because of your passion for surfing. If surfing wasn't your deal, I think there would be a number of other areas that would suit you better.
 
13701641:californiagrown said:
Oh for sure, I totally get what you're saying. What you're doing is the only viable option for someone whose passions are surfing and skiing. But if surfing isn't in one of your top 5 life priorities, I don't see the SoCal/SF deal as a very good option.

Travel time is the sacrifice you make because of your passion for surfing. If surfing wasn't your deal, I think there would be a number of other areas that would suit you better.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this here. Surfing is second for me so this is the only way. I am just letting the OP know that if he has a bug about surfing, and lots of people do, he can make both work if he really wants to. Like I think I said before though, it is incredibly difficult to learn to surf, so if you want to go this route take that warning seriously. If he does not care about surfing I would not choose SF/socal unless he really likes the weather and the area. Personally I love both of those things, and having gone to UCSB my friends are here, but if I had friends in Seattle and I did not care about surfing I might move there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top