Moving to Sacramento from Connecticut. Tahoe tips?

Alpine Meadows is garbage. Don't even go there

Kirkwood is way out of the way from sacramento, assuming you will actually be in sac and not just the sac area. Squaw and Alpine meadows have the best terrain arguably, and their season pass is connected which is great. Northstar for park probably, but otherwise terrain is pretty boring. Season pass for that is connected to kirkwood and other vail resorts. Sugar Bowl is good as well, but it's season pass is by itself. Also the closest to sacramento along I-80. Boreal tends to have a good park and cheap tickets/passes but it's pretty small. Also super close to sac along I80.

Ok so I just checked again, kirkwood isn't that out of the way but it really depends on where you live in sac. I'm a little bit northeast of sac so for me it was always a stupid far drive compared to the I80/Truckee resorts.

TheRackerKirkwood is way out of the way from sacramento, assuming you will actually be in sac and not just the sac area. Squaw and Alpine meadows have the best terrain arguably, and their season pass is connected which is great. Northstar for park probably, but otherwise terrain is pretty boring. Season pass for that is connected to kirkwood and other vail resorts. Sugar Bowl is good as well, but it's season pass is by itself. Also the closest to sacramento along I-80. Boreal tends to have a good park and cheap tickets/passes but it's pretty small. Also super close to sac along I80.

You summed it up pretty well. Squaw is gunna be the closest and best bang for your buck on that commute.

My office is in roseville, right near I-80 so I'm probably going to live right to the north east of Sacramento not far off I-80.

03gadeMy office is in roseville, right near I-80 so I'm probably going to live right to the north east of Sacramento not far off I-80.

Oh sick. Roseville is pretty nice. Squaw is gunna be your best bet I would say

You might not be aware of just how pumped you should be. I half a decade as a ski bum in Squaw, and it is an insane mountain. So is Alpine Meadows. They both get a lot of snow when we are not in a drought, and it bounced back strong this year, and the terrain is sick. Put it this way, I'm going to piss off some Colorado people here, but I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado with the possible exception of Silverton (which is an entirely different deal) and it is not even close. Put it this way, it destroys Vail, Aspen and anywhere in Summit county in terms of steep terrain. I ski Mammoth 35 days a year now, I'm a socal weekender like you will be for Tahoe, and I really wish I was skiing Squaw instead of Mammoth. I grew up back east and you are about to have your mind blown. I'm really pumped for you. For the record Mammoth is super steep but not as crazy as Squaw. I really miss Squaw. Alpine is pretty nuts too, one of the most underrated mountains in the country.

As far as passes go, I would either go Squaw/Alpine or Epic which allows you to ski Kirkwood. Kirkwood is one of the best mountains in the country, once again I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado, and it gets the most snow in Tahoe. The Epic pass will also allow you to vacation in Colorado if Tahoe has a bad snow year. I would go Squaw/Alpine, but Kirkwood rocks too.

The drought is a serious anomaly. In normal years Squaw should be expected to get 400 inches. We could go back to a drought, no one can predict these things, but if you look at the last 25 years it is more likely that things will be like they were in the first 20 than in the last 4 until this year.

If you have the money you should look into getting a ski lease in Tahoe. This will allow you to go up any weekend you want, for probably 200-400 a month, and you will meet some cool people to ski with. If you want to go a couple of weekends a month, and you should, it will work out well. I have one in Mammoth which allows me to go up 2-3 weekends a month and I live 5.5 hours away. Sacramento is very close so you should be able to go up all the time.

Both Kirkwood and Squaw are not far from Sac. You go different routes, but compared to what I drive most weekends it is nothing. I will reiterate that you should be really excited. Your skiing life is about to change in a monumental way.

If I were you i'd get the Squaw/Alpine pass and Boreal. Their the closest. Kirkwood is also good on a powder day but is an extra hour or more drive from Squaw and the park is pretty bad. Northstar's park is fun and has most variety but Boreal's jump line is much better and would be cheaper than the Epic pass.

03gadeMy office is in roseville, right near I-80 so I'm probably going to live right to the north east of Sacramento not far off I-80.

Roseville is basically right where I live only about an hour drive to sugar bowl/boreal and about 1hr 20-30 to squaw and alpine. Don't even worry about kirkwood then haha.

So boreal and sugar bowl are the closest on 1-80, if you get the squaw gold pass you get access to sugar bowl and Sierra for 4 days (I think) so that would probably be your best bet for living in Roseville. One quick note tho Sierra is on 50 so that's a little out of the way but it's worth it especially on powder days because no one is there. Welcome to the city of trees !

dan4060If you have the money you should look into getting a ski lease in Tahoe. This will allow you to go up any weekend you want, for probably 200-400 a month, and you will meet some cool people to ski with. If you want to go a couple of weekends a month, and you should, it will work out well. I have one in Mammoth which allows me to go up 2-3 weekends a month and I live 5.5 hours away. Sacramento is very close so you should be able to go up all the time.

That's a really smart idea I didn't think of that. But tahoe sounds awesome, I'm super pumped. Thanks for the advice guys! Sounds like I may have to check out most of the mountains and see what I like. But I'm still leaning towards squaw and/or an epic pass, so I can check out the vail resorts and ski northstar's park.

dan4060You might not be aware of just how pumped you should be. I half a decade as a ski bum in Squaw, and it is an insane mountain. So is Alpine Meadows. They both get a lot of snow when we are not in a drought, and it bounced back strong this year, and the terrain is sick. Put it this way, I'm going to piss off some Colorado people here, but I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado with the possible exception of Silverton (which is an entirely different deal) and it is not even close. Put it this way, it destroys Vail, Aspen and anywhere in Summit county in terms of steep terrain. I ski Mammoth 35 days a year now, I'm a socal weekender like you will be for Tahoe, and I really wish I was skiing Squaw instead of Mammoth. I grew up back east and you are about to have your mind blown. I'm really pumped for you. For the record Mammoth is super steep but not as crazy as Squaw. I really miss Squaw. Alpine is pretty nuts too, one of the most underrated mountains in the country.

As far as passes go, I would either go Squaw/Alpine or Epic which allows you to ski Kirkwood. Kirkwood is one of the best mountains in the country, once again I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado, and it gets the most snow in Tahoe. The Epic pass will also allow you to vacation in Colorado if Tahoe has a bad snow year. I would go Squaw/Alpine, but Kirkwood rocks too.

The drought is a serious anomaly. In normal years Squaw should be expected to get 400 inches. We could go back to a drought, no one can predict these things, but if you look at the last 25 years it is more likely that things will be like they were in the first 20 than in the last 4 until this year.

If you have the money you should look into getting a ski lease in Tahoe. This will allow you to go up any weekend you want, for probably 200-400 a month, and you will meet some cool people to ski with. If you want to go a couple of weekends a month, and you should, it will work out well. I have one in Mammoth which allows me to go up 2-3 weekends a month and I live 5.5 hours away. Sacramento is very close so you should be able to go up all the time.

Both Kirkwood and Squaw are not far from Sac. You go different routes, but compared to what I drive most weekends it is nothing. I will reiterate that you should be really excited. Your skiing life is about to change in a monumental way.

100% Agree. Very very few places in N . America that can rival the terrain squaw valley and alpine meadows has to offer with such an ease of access. Hikes are all relatively short and fairly easy, and the lift accessed terrain is unreal.

Skied at copper recently and the terrain there was not even remotely close to how crazy squaw is. Was actually a little dissapointed how tame the mountain was.

If I was moving to CA...i'd go with the squaw/alpine pass personally. But definitely try them out and see for yourself. It is literally impossible to get bored skiiing squaw/alpine. Gnarliest in bounds terrain in the USA (except maybe silverton, whistler/revelstoke/telluride)

as far as park goes, you'll probably want an epic pass if you're planning on skiing a fair amount of park. northstar has an awesomely huge park set up, it's one of the larger park set ups I've skied. if you're looking for bigger/better jumps though, boreal wins out. I've skied boreal a lot, and they go back and forth between really kick ass set ups and kinda whack set ups. just depends, but there will always be something fun to hit. boreal also has the cheapest passes, and you can get a night pass that lets you ski from 3pm-9pm for like $130 if you're down to do some night riding.

Brocka_FlockaAlpine Meadows is garbage. Don't even go there

Yeah that place is horrible don't go there.

Brocka_FlockaAlpine Meadows is garbage. Don't even go there

Yeah that place is horrible don't go there.

TheRackerKirkwood is way out of the way from sacramento, assuming you will actually be in sac and not just the sac area. Squaw and Alpine meadows have the best terrain arguably, and their season pass is connected which is great. Northstar for park probably, but otherwise terrain is pretty boring. Season pass for that is connected to kirkwood and other vail resorts. Sugar Bowl is good as well, but it's season pass is by itself. Also the closest to sacramento along I-80. Boreal tends to have a good park and cheap tickets/passes but it's pretty small. Also super close to sac along I80.

You can take Highway 50 up to kirwood from sac

I'd go with the Squaw/Alpine pass for sure. Squaw is super sick for hot laps and gnarly lines. At Alpine you have to hike to get to the best terrain but when you get there it is sick. Alpine also has some sick wind lips and natural kickers. Alpine has way less people so if you're looking for some people to push you out of your comfort zone then go to Squaw. The park can be okay at Squaw or Alpine but nothing great. But honestly, don't go Tahoe to ski park because there is so much sick terrain.

eric_tahoeYou can take Highway 50 up to kirwood from sac

Well yeah but if you're in northern sac it's way easier and quicker to go up I80. For me it was 50-90 minutes for most of the I80 stuff and 2 hours or so for kirkwood. But if you live next to 50 then go for that.

TheRackerKirkwood is way out of the way from sacramento, assuming you will actually be in sac and not just the sac area. Squaw and Alpine meadows have the best terrain arguably, and their season pass is connected which is great. Northstar for park probably, but otherwise terrain is pretty boring. Season pass for that is connected to kirkwood and other vail resorts. Sugar Bowl is good as well, but it's season pass is by itself. Also the closest to sacramento along I-80. Boreal tends to have a good park and cheap tickets/passes but it's pretty small. Also super close to sac along I80.

yep

dan4060You might not be aware of just how pumped you should be. I half a decade as a ski bum in Squaw, and it is an insane mountain. So is Alpine Meadows. They both get a lot of snow when we are not in a drought, and it bounced back strong this year, and the terrain is sick. Put it this way, I'm going to piss off some Colorado people here, but I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado with the possible exception of Silverton (which is an entirely different deal) and it is not even close. Put it this way, it destroys Vail, Aspen and anywhere in Summit county in terms of steep terrain. I ski Mammoth 35 days a year now, I'm a socal weekender like you will be for Tahoe, and I really wish I was skiing Squaw instead of Mammoth. I grew up back east and you are about to have your mind blown. I'm really pumped for you. For the record Mammoth is super steep but not as crazy as Squaw. I really miss Squaw. Alpine is pretty nuts too, one of the most underrated mountains in the country.

As far as passes go, I would either go Squaw/Alpine or Epic which allows you to ski Kirkwood. Kirkwood is one of the best mountains in the country, once again I would rather ski there than anywhere in Colorado, and it gets the most snow in Tahoe. The Epic pass will also allow you to vacation in Colorado if Tahoe has a bad snow year. I would go Squaw/Alpine, but Kirkwood rocks too.

The drought is a serious anomaly. In normal years Squaw should be expected to get 400 inches. We could go back to a drought, no one can predict these things, but if you look at the last 25 years it is more likely that things will be like they were in the first 20 than in the last 4 until this year.

If you have the money you should look into getting a ski lease in Tahoe. This will allow you to go up any weekend you want, for probably 200-400 a month, and you will meet some cool people to ski with. If you want to go a couple of weekends a month, and you should, it will work out well. I have one in Mammoth which allows me to go up 2-3 weekends a month and I live 5.5 hours away. Sacramento is very close so you should be able to go up all the time.

Both Kirkwood and Squaw are not far from Sac. You go different routes, but compared to what I drive most weekends it is nothing. I will reiterate that you should be really excited. Your skiing life is about to change in a monumental way.

yep again.

squaw is one of the sickest mountains ever, and alpine meadows is like its younger sister who somehow doesnt get as much attention even though she's arguably just as hot. seriously, alpine meadows is one of the most underrated places in skiing, period

Titsandwich11yep



yep again.

squaw is one of the sickest mountains ever, and alpine meadows is like its younger sister who somehow doesnt get as much attention even though she's arguably just as hot. seriously, alpine meadows is one of the most underrated places in skiing, period

Oh, hey there Estelle.


Squalpine is rad. Kirkwood is radder... Though idk how Vail has changed it since I haven't been in Tahoe in 2 years. I've also heard KSL has turned squalpine into a shitshow as well, so idk.

What I do know is that OP will in waaaaaay over his head in terms of terrain for the first couple years, and will adjust his whole perspective on freeskiing for the better :).

If I was OP, I'd get a squalpine pass and go to every movie premiere and ski sway I could to collect day ticket vouchers to other resorts and check them out for free.

eric_tahoeI'd go with the Squaw/Alpine pass for sure. Squaw is super sick for hot laps and gnarly lines. At Alpine you have to hike to get to the best terrain but when you get there it is sick. Alpine also has some sick wind lips and natural kickers. Alpine has way less people so if you're looking for some people to push you out of your comfort zone then go to Squaw. The park can be okay at Squaw or Alpine but nothing great. But honestly, don't go Tahoe to ski park because there is so much sick terrain.

"Tahoe tips" - a good name for a taco stand.

Go with a sugar bowl pass or a squaw alpine pass for all mountain. Then pick up a Boreal pass for park. The Boreal pass is pretty affordable

Tanner-DGo with a sugar bowl pass or a squaw alpine pass for all mountain. Then pick up a Boreal pass for park. The Boreal pass is pretty affordable

You think he should pick up a squalpine pass AND a boreal pass even though he is only able to ski on weekends? That seems a whole lotta overkill to me.

californiagrownYou think he should pick up a squalpine pass AND a boreal pass even though he is only able to ski on weekends? That seems a whole lotta overkill to me.

That is a good point. In that case just a squawalpine pass would suffice since they build a decent park.

californiagrownYou think he should pick up a squalpine pass AND a boreal pass even though he is only able to ski on weekends? That seems a whole lotta overkill to me.

Eh. If he does the condo whatever thing it could work out. Head out friday and ski nights at boreal and saturday sunday at squaw/alpine.

its real cheap. if hes going that route it would pay off easy. Personally I wouldnt....i just dont like park enough.

californiagrownWhat I do know is that OP will in waaaaaay over his head in terms of terrain for the first couple years, and will adjust his whole perspective on freeskiing for the better :).

I mean, It's not like I haven't skied out west before, I've skiied Wildcat at Alta and Alta Chutes at Jackson and yeah, I'm not slaying it and I have to up my game but I don't think I'm "way over my head."

That said, I don't think I'm going to give up on park skiing for the foreseeable future, its just two different experiences. Hopefully I can find a crew to ski with.

And its gonna take a hell of a lot of convincing to get my lazy ass fully kitted out for AT. Maybe when I'm a bit older and can't ski park anymore.

03gadeI mean, It's not like I haven't skied out west before, I've skiied Wildcat at Alta and Alta Chutes at Jackson and yeah, I'm not slaying it and I have to up my game but I don't think I'm "way over my head."

That said, I don't think I'm going to give up on park skiing for the foreseeable future, its just two different experiences. Hopefully I can find a crew to ski with.

And its gonna take a hell of a lot of convincing to get my lazy ass fully kitted out for AT. Maybe when I'm a bit older and can't ski park anymore.

Squallywood is way different man. This shit is insane. First time you see somebody nuke the palisades or mcconkeys line you will shit yourself.

03gadeI mean, It's not like I haven't skied out west before, I've skiied Wildcat at Alta and Alta Chutes at Jackson and yeah, I'm not slaying it and I have to up my game but I don't think I'm "way over my head."

That said, I don't think I'm going to give up on park skiing for the foreseeable future, its just two different experiences. Hopefully I can find a crew to ski with.

And its gonna take a hell of a lot of convincing to get my lazy ass fully kitted out for AT. Maybe when I'm a bit older and can't ski park anymore.

I couldnt tell you how gnarly either of those areas are, never been to either. Being comfy in the air is a huge skill to learn, both with cliffs and natural airs, but also with just generally going fast and hopping into turns- thats a skill that you already posses.

Maybe you already kill it, idk? but what i will say is that in every zone there are the "A" lines that are the skied out, main lines, and then there are the alternate lines and mini zones. The very good skiers link any and all the lines and zones fast and fluid in most any conditions. skiing with other folks that have been there a while will allow you to see all these different lines much quicker, and generally view the mtn different than how you likely do now. Additionally, youll figure out how to ski these lines in different snow- hard snow, chunderr, pow, chop, moguls etc. Youll also figure out consequences for falling in the wrong spots can be big.

Its a really cool thing to be able to ride one of the first 10 chairs up on a pow day and be able to know exactly the line youll flash on the way back to the lift- no slowing to scope airs, no stopping to figure out which way will be best, just charging and sending bigger than youre used to with a chairlift audience cheering above you. :)


hope you have one helluva time!

Definitely check out Sierra. It is mini golf on steroids! Super fun on pow days and parks are fun. Definitely the best on South Lake and it's also the closest to Sac.

I'd recommend not living in Roseville if you can help it. It's a suburban hellhole. If you're into that, go for it, but I'd rather live 20 mins down the road in the city core areas and commute in. Traffic isn't that bad in the morning, anyway (it's a little slow going in the afternoons). I used to do that commute all the time. It's really not so bad. 45 minutes at the most if there's an accident or something, and you get to listen to the best part of CPR's broadcast (area NPR station) during that time anyway.

Roseville is the reason people think Sacramento sucks - they think that when they visited a friend in Roseville or Carmichael or Citrus Heights, they were in Sacramento - when really they were in a place that's only as well known for it's overadvertized Automall and overabundance of cookie cutter houses with no shade trees at all. Do yourself a favor and commute in - it's worth it - especially when the Sacramento Grid is booming as it is with cool shit to do. You'll loathe summertime otherwise.

as for where to go. Squaw/Alpine and then get a night pass to Boreal is probably the best option for value... But it does definitely have it's caveats if you're not down with that.

Biggest example is driving into Squaw/Alpine on the weekends is going to SUCK. like. MAJOR MAJOR SUCK. I've worked for Squaw for a few seasons in my life, and in order to go to work at 830am, on many a Saturday where there's any trace of fresh in the previous few days, I'd have to leave at 730-745 to have a HOPE of making it to work on time from whats normally 15 mins away in TRUCKEE. I had hour-10 minute commutes to work this year from Truckee. Traffic was backed up 13+ miles all the way onto the freeway many times. It was bad. I'd almost recommend against it if you're a weekend warrior rather than someone with a more flexible schedule.

If you really don't want to deal with the stupid crowds, then get a Sugar Bowl pass and avoid it completely while still having absolutely bomber sick terrain at your disposal. Additionally, it's higher elevation base means even more snow than Squalpine. It's also the closest ski area to where you'll be, so that's a big plus too - even without the traffic you'll save yourself almost half an hour most days. If I didn't work in Olympic Valley and have free unlimited passes to Squaw/Alpine, I'd probably just bypass it all and get a Sugar Bowl pass like I used to previous to moving to Oregon

The added bonus of Sugar Bowl is you get uphill access and SICK lift accessed backcountry terrain

Any other questions about Sacramento, just ask me since I'm from here. I won't be here all summer since I'll be in another hemisphere chasing pow, but I'll probably be back next season working for Squaw again, so get at me if you need a ski buddy.

**This post was edited on Apr 25th 2016 at 3:08:36am

WildBANimalNbuddy.

I would definitely agree. Squaw is a bitch on a weekend powder day.

What do you do for squaw?

Jesus Christ... I've been contemplating a move to SF (if work opportunities pan out). This thread is definitely persuading me to do it. Sorry to thread jack, but anyone know what the commute from SF is like on the weekeds? Given the terrain, I think 4-5 hours is well worth it.

OP, if I'm out there next season I'll hit you up for sure and explore the shit out of Tahoe

PowBombJesus Christ... I've been contemplating a move to SF (if work opportunities pan out). This thread is definitely persuading me to do it. Sorry to thread jack, but anyone know what the commute from SF is like on the weekeds? Given the terrain, I think 4-5 hours is well worth it.

OP, if I'm out there next season I'll hit you up for sure and explore the shit out of Tahoe

...as long as you're not leaving the morning of, the commute from SF to tahoe is 4 hours at most. I used to get to the slopes in no more than 3.5 hours coming from Oakland. San Jose would be a bit far, but SF/Oakland is well within daytrip/weekend warrior range.

PowBombJesus Christ... I've been contemplating a move to SF (if work opportunities pan out). This thread is definitely persuading me to do it. Sorry to thread jack, but anyone know what the commute from SF is like on the weekeds? Given the terrain, I think 4-5 hours is well worth it.

OP, if I'm out there next season I'll hit you up for sure and explore the shit out of Tahoe

I moved to the seattle area because i lived in SF for 2 years and it fucking sucked if you like doing outdoors stuff, especially if you plan on skiing a bunch.

Curiously, why do you want to move to SF, and what other areas are you considering?

thanks for the responses

californiagrownI moved to the seattle area because i lived in SF for 2 years and it fucking sucked if you like doing outdoors stuff, especially if you plan on skiing a bunch.

Curiously, why do you want to move to SF, and what other areas are you considering?

Good question... still weighing the pros and cons, i would visit before i commit for sure. but basically a better paying job and a girl. you're right though, if i'm not skiing, i'm tryin to fish on the weekends. so my outdoors life would probably take a beating

californiagrownI moved to the seattle area because i lived in SF for 2 years and it fucking sucked if you like doing outdoors stuff, especially if you plan on skiing a bunch.

Curiously, why do you want to move to SF, and what other areas are you considering?

Double post, ma bad... also highly considering Portland, Vancouver, Seattle area as well. Less possibly Denver. I'm lucky enough to hopefully be able to score a job in any one of these wonderful places and get my ass off the East Coast... 2 seasons here has been more than enough

PowBombDouble post, ma bad... also highly considering Portland, Vancouver, Seattle area as well. Less possibly Denver. I'm lucky enough to hopefully be able to score a job in any one of these wonderful places and get my ass off the East Coast... 2 seasons here has been more than enough

IMO SF is cool if you're into the SF scene, or want to do big things in your career. For most other things, I think there are better cities. Seattle had the best mix of world class city and access to world class outdoors.

You would plan on living in SF? or in a surrounding city? SF is a really cool, really unique place, don't get me wrong, but unless you surf/windsurf/sail, you gotta work hard to enjoy the outdoors sports.

californiagrownYou would plan on living in SF? or in a surrounding city? SF is a really cool, really unique place, don't get me wrong, but unless you surf/windsurf/sail, you gotta work hard to enjoy the outdoors sports.

If you're into windsports, either live in PDX and go to hood river, or live in Sacramento/Oakland and go to Powerlines or Tahoe.

Freshies for tacos

californiagrownIMO SF is cool if you're into the SF scene, or want to do big things in your career. For most other things, I think there are better cities. Seattle had the best mix of world class city and access to world class outdoors.

You would plan on living in SF? or in a surrounding city? SF is a really cool, really unique place, don't get me wrong, but unless you surf/windsurf/sail, you gotta work hard to enjoy the outdoors sports.

You have to work hard to surf in SF. Ocean Beach can be great, but it is blown out most of the time. You really need to be on it to get those windows when the surf is clean and that is tough to do with an office job. It is much easier to surf in Santa Cruz, and far easier to surf in Orange County where I live. If I ever moved to SF I would enjoy being closer to Tahoe than I am to Mammoth but deal with the trade off that I would surf less.

I would not say SF sucks for skiing, not saying you did, if you have the money to get a ski lease and you are willing to drive you can get in a whole lot of days, but those two things are key. If you can't spend the money on a ski lease and you don't want to drive you won't be able to have a good ski year. I guess I see it that way because I drive to Mammoth 3 weekends a month from Orange County and that drive is 5 hours and 45 minutes with no traffic. I also spend 385 a month on my ski lease. It takes a real commitment to live here and ski good mountains 30 to 40 days a year, but it can be done if you are motivated enough.

I think SF is much better than people think for skiing when compared to Denver. I've heard the I-70 can be hell when getting to Summit, 4 hours, which is almost as bad as the drive from the bay to Tahoe. If you want to ski two days 3 weekends a month or more you would need a ski lease there too, and I would rather ski Tahoe than Summit County, so I think those areas are pretty even. The advantage Denver has is Loveland Pass, which is close. If I lived there I would either drive every weekend day to ski Loveland or get a ski lease in Summit.

I guess what I am saying is that you can have winters that are just as good in Orange County and SF as you can in Denver, you just have to be willing to drive to do it. As far as Seattle goes, how far is it from Crystal/Alpental/Steven's Pass? If it is two hours each way you are still driving 8 hours every weekend if you want to get a lot of days in, whereas in the bay you are driving 9 to 10. The difference is day trips, you can't do a day trip from SF unless you are willing to drive 9 hours for one day which I would not do.

So I guess Seattle is easier, but if you don't get a ski lease you still drive a lot for a two day ski weekend. I think the only major city where you can ski great mountains without much of a commitment would be Salt Lake.

But your point about SF is accurate. You WILL have to work for your outdoor activities, but you will be rewarded. You will find people in SF who ski just as much as the folks in Denver, it just takes getting used to the drive. I'm not trying to persuade someone not to go to SF, it is where I would live if I did not live in socal, just be aware of the commitment you will have to make to ski a lot. That skiing will be great though, I would rather ski Squaw than anywhere I have been, and that includes Mammoth, the place I currently spend my weekends. I love Mammoth, but I would trade Mammoth for Squalpine in a heart beat. Or maybe I wouldn't, maybe the crowds at Squalpine are now so bad that it would drive me to Sugar Bowl. When I lived in Tahoe the crowds at Squaw were not that bad because the season passes were not so cheap.

dan4060You have to work hard to surf in SF. Ocean Beach can be great, but it is blown out most of the time. You really need to be on it to get those windows when the surf is clean and that is tough to do with an office job. It is much easier to surf in Santa Cruz, and far easier to surf in Orange County where I live. If I ever moved to SF I would enjoy being closer to Tahoe than I am to Mammoth but deal with the trade off that I would surf less.

I would not say SF sucks for skiing, not saying you did, if you have the money to get a ski lease and you are willing to drive you can get in a whole lot of days, but those two things are key. If you can't spend the money on a ski lease and you don't want to drive you won't be able to have a good ski year. I guess I see it that way because I drive to Mammoth 3 weekends a month from Orange County and that drive is 5 hours and 45 minutes with no traffic. I also spend 385 a month on my ski lease. It takes a real commitment to live here and ski good mountains 30 to 40 days a year, but it can be done if you are motivated enough.

I think SF is much better than people think for skiing when compared to Denver. I've heard the I-70 can be hell when getting to Summit, 4 hours, which is almost as bad as the drive from the bay to Tahoe. If you want to ski two days 3 weekends a month or more you would need a ski lease there too, and I would rather ski Tahoe than Summit County, so I think those areas are pretty even. The advantage Denver has is Loveland Pass, which is close. If I lived there I would either drive every weekend day to ski Loveland or get a ski lease in Summit.

I guess what I am saying is that you can have winters that are just as good in Orange County and SF as you can in Denver, you just have to be willing to drive to do it. As far as Seattle goes, how far is it from Crystal/Alpental/Steven's Pass? If it is two hours each way you are still driving 8 hours every weekend if you want to get a lot of days in, whereas in the bay you are driving 9 to 10. The difference is day trips, you can't do a day trip from SF unless you are willing to drive 9 hours for one day which I would not do.

So I guess Seattle is easier, but if you don't get a ski lease you still drive a lot for a two day ski weekend. I think the only major city where you can ski great mountains without much of a commitment would be Salt Lake.

But your point about SF is accurate. You WILL have to work for your outdoor activities, but you will be rewarded. You will find people in SF who ski just as much as the folks in Denver, it just takes getting used to the drive. I'm not trying to persuade someone not to go to SF, it is where I would live if I did not live in socal, just be aware of the commitment you will have to make to ski a lot. That skiing will be great though, I would rather ski Squaw than anywhere I have been, and that includes Mammoth, the place I currently spend my weekends. I love Mammoth, but I would trade Mammoth for Squalpine in a heart beat. Or maybe I wouldn't, maybe the crowds at Squalpine are now so bad that it would drive me to Sugar Bowl. When I lived in Tahoe the crowds at Squaw were not that bad because the season passes were not so cheap.

There are a number of good breaks between SF and Santa Cruz, not to mention SC is only 75 mins from SF.

My home mtn here is 45 mins from my front door and has really rad terrain and gets 500" a year. I don't miss powdays, I ski till 1115, and am at my desk by noon. Crystal is 1.5 hrs away, and whistler is 4 hours away. I have the best MTB in the world all around, and can get into legit mtns for backpacking/fishing in under an hour.

Idk bout you, but I'd rather save ski lease money and gas money and buy a nice house at a young age. Not to mention that living in SF, but not being able to enjoy it on weekends because Tahoe was too damn far sucked when you consider the rent, traffic and parking you have to put up with.

I don't regret living there at all, but for me and my priorities, Seattle is a significantly better fit- it has 90% of the benefits, with almost none of the drawbacks SF did.


And when I was looking at places to move I did look at Denver closely, but I wasn't stoked on its proximity to the mtns, nor on those mtns as I don't ski park much anymore. It's a great city though, and has great weather.

californiagrownThere are a number of good breaks between SF and Santa Cruz, not to mention SC is only 75 mins from SF.

My home mtn here is 45 mins from my front door and has really rad terrain and gets 500" a year. I don't miss powdays, I ski till 1115, and am at my desk by noon. Crystal is 1.5 hrs away, and whistler is 4 hours away. I have the best MTB in the world all around, and can get into legit mtns for backpacking/fishing in under an hour.

Idk bout you, but I'd rather save ski lease money and gas money and buy a nice house at a young age. Not to mention that living in SF, but not being able to enjoy it on weekends because Tahoe was too damn far sucked when you consider the rent, traffic and parking you have to put up with.

I don't regret living there at all, but for me and my priorities, Seattle is a significantly better fit- it has 90% of the benefits, with almost none of the drawbacks SF did.


And when I was looking at places to move I did look at Denver closely, but I wasn't stoked on its proximity to the mtns, nor on those mtns as I don't ski park much anymore. It's a great city though, and has great weather.

pfft, you think that's good? i live in boston, skied 3 times this year, and all my friends here are gapers

dan4060You have to work hard to surf in SF. Ocean Beach can be great, but it is blown out most of the time. You really need to be on it to get those windows when the surf is clean and that is tough to do with an office job. It is much easier to surf in Santa Cruz, and far easier to surf in Orange County where I live. If I ever moved to SF I would enjoy being closer to Tahoe than I am to Mammoth but deal with the trade off that I would surf less.

I would not say SF sucks for skiing, not saying you did, if you have the money to get a ski lease and you are willing to drive you can get in a whole lot of days, but those two things are key. If you can't spend the money on a ski lease and you don't want to drive you won't be able to have a good ski year. I guess I see it that way because I drive to Mammoth 3 weekends a month from Orange County and that drive is 5 hours and 45 minutes with no traffic. I also spend 385 a month on my ski lease. It takes a real commitment to live here and ski good mountains 30 to 40 days a year, but it can be done if you are motivated enough.

I think SF is much better than people think for skiing when compared to Denver. I've heard the I-70 can be hell when getting to Summit, 4 hours, which is almost as bad as the drive from the bay to Tahoe. If you want to ski two days 3 weekends a month or more you would need a ski lease there too, and I would rather ski Tahoe than Summit County, so I think those areas are pretty even. The advantage Denver has is Loveland Pass, which is close. If I lived there I would either drive every weekend day to ski Loveland or get a ski lease in Summit.

I guess what I am saying is that you can have winters that are just as good in Orange County and SF as you can in Denver, you just have to be willing to drive to do it. As far as Seattle goes, how far is it from Crystal/Alpental/Steven's Pass? If it is two hours each way you are still driving 8 hours every weekend if you want to get a lot of days in, whereas in the bay you are driving 9 to 10. The difference is day trips, you can't do a day trip from SF unless you are willing to drive 9 hours for one day which I would not do.

So I guess Seattle is easier, but if you don't get a ski lease you still drive a lot for a two day ski weekend. I think the only major city where you can ski great mountains without much of a commitment would be Salt Lake.

But your point about SF is accurate. You WILL have to work for your outdoor activities, but you will be rewarded. You will find people in SF who ski just as much as the folks in Denver, it just takes getting used to the drive. I'm not trying to persuade someone not to go to SF, it is where I would live if I did not live in socal, just be aware of the commitment you will have to make to ski a lot. That skiing will be great though, I would rather ski Squaw than anywhere I have been, and that includes Mammoth, the place I currently spend my weekends. I love Mammoth, but I would trade Mammoth for Squalpine in a heart beat. Or maybe I wouldn't, maybe the crowds at Squalpine are now so bad that it would drive me to Sugar Bowl. When I lived in Tahoe the crowds at Squaw were not that bad because the season passes were not so cheap.

I do agree with the ski lease though. Definitely the way to go if you're hours from the hill and you're a weekend warrior. I ended up doing a lot of day trips, sleeping in my 4runner(had a pretty good setup actually), or bumming couch space whilst apre drinking haha.

I'm just not a fan of wasting so much life and money driving to your "home mtn".

californiagrownThere are a number of good breaks between SF and Santa Cruz, not to mention SC is only 75 mins from SF.

My home mtn here is 45 mins from my front door and has really rad terrain and gets 500" a year. I don't miss powdays, I ski till 1115, and am at my desk by noon. Crystal is 1.5 hrs away, and whistler is 4 hours away. I have the best MTB in the world all around, and can get into legit mtns for backpacking/fishing in under an hour.

Idk bout you, but I'd rather save ski lease money and gas money and buy a nice house at a young age. Not to mention that living in SF, but not being able to enjoy it on weekends because Tahoe was too damn far sucked when you consider the rent, traffic and parking you have to put up with.

I don't regret living there at all, but for me and my priorities, Seattle is a significantly better fit- it has 90% of the benefits, with almost none of the drawbacks SF did.


And when I was looking at places to move I did look at Denver closely, but I wasn't stoked on its proximity to the mtns, nor on those mtns as I don't ski park much anymore. It's a great city though, and has great weather.

There are good breaks between SF and SC but they tend to blow out, much more so than Orange County. SC has good surf, which is pretty protected from the wind, 75 minutes is a long way for surf. I would rather be close to surfing than skiing, even though I like skiing better, because the surf changes so much that you really have to be on it to get it. I would not want to deal with surfing in SF because the wind destroys it so much. In Newport the wind almost never comes up before 11, while in norcal you can go weeks without it letting up at Ocean Beach. Surfing is typically done before 11 am, which is why you want to live close. Driving 75 minutes for a 3 hour session every weekend day really sucks. I am a half hour from Trestles, which is super consistent and typically holds the wind well unlike norcal, and 10 minutes from Newport which has surf almost every day. It is easier to be a surfer in Orange County than almost everywhere else. I would not want to live anywhere other than Santa Cruz to be a surfer up north. If you live right at Ocean Beach and have a flexible schedule you can make that work but I would rather add an hour to my ski drive and live down south than have that much difficulty with surfing.

For most people who surf and ski the consensus seems to be that it is better to live near the beach and get 40 days a year of skiing than live close to the mountains which pretty much eliminates surfing, at least in California. Washington has surf but I really would not want to be a surfer there. If you need to get more than 40 days a year of skiing that is really tough. I know some people in LA who get about 60, but they go to Mammoth every weekend, have 3 day weekends, and go heli-skiing every year. They don't intend to have kids and center their lives around skiing. They are more hardcore than I am, and they live in an area of LA where I would not want to live as it would make surfing tough. If you live more than 45 minutes from the beach surfing regularly becomes pretty tough, and even that is a long way away to do it consistently. Also, it is easier to know what you are going to get with skiing, surfing is more random.

Seattle is one of the few places I would consider, because of the ease of skiing. 45 minutes sounds pretty awesome, easy to go every weekend day if you are that close. My friends, job and wife are down here though, so I don't ever see moving. I also own a house in Newport and have a great job which pays very well and allows me to work only 40-45 hours a week. I don't think I could give all of that up, even for the ease of skiing that Seattle brings.

How far is your work commute? I have heard that if you live outside the city and have to commute downtown it really sucks. My drive to work is only 10 minutes, which probably makes it easier to drive so much on the weekends. 10 minutes to work, 10 minutes to surf and 5.5 hours to one of the best mountains in North America. It works for me, although sometimes Seattle sounds intriguing. If I did not live in socal or norcal I would want to live in Seattle.

To the SF folks I should add that Silicon Valley is one of the worst places to buy a house right now. It is far worse than Newport Beach which is saying something. All the tech money has made things out of control. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that houses up there are almost double what they are in Newport, and Newport is very expensive. Do consider this when you decide where to move. Houses you would want to live in in the bay are well over 2 mill, and they are going for more than asking price as people are bidding them up. Unless the tech market crashes or there is an earthquake this is unlikely to change.

dan4060There are good breaks between SF and SC but they tend to blow out, much more so than Orange County. SC has good surf, which is pretty protected from the wind, 75 minutes is a long way for surf. I would rather be close to surfing than skiing, even though I like skiing better, because the surf changes so much that you really have to be on it to get it. I would not want to deal with surfing in SF because the wind destroys it so much. In Newport the wind almost never comes up before 11, while in norcal you can go weeks without it letting up at Ocean Beach. Surfing is typically done before 11 am, which is why you want to live close. Driving 75 minutes for a 3 hour session every weekend day really sucks. I am a half hour from Trestles, which is super consistent and typically holds the wind well unlike norcal, and 10 minutes from Newport which has surf almost every day. It is easier to be a surfer in Orange County than almost everywhere else. I would not want to live anywhere other than Santa Cruz to be a surfer up north. If you live right at Ocean Beach and have a flexible schedule you can make that work but I would rather add an hour to my ski drive and live down south than have that much difficulty with surfing.

For most people who surf and ski the consensus seems to be that it is better to live near the beach and get 40 days a year of skiing than live close to the mountains which pretty much eliminates surfing, at least in California. Washington has surf but I really would not want to be a surfer there. If you need to get more than 40 days a year of skiing that is really tough. I know some people in LA who get about 60, but they go to Mammoth every weekend, have 3 day weekends, and go heli-skiing every year. They don't intend to have kids and center their lives around skiing. They are more hardcore than I am, and they live in an area of LA where I would not want to live as it would make surfing tough. If you live more than 45 minutes from the beach surfing regularly becomes pretty tough, and even that is a long way away to do it consistently. Also, it is easier to know what you are going to get with skiing, surfing is more random.

Seattle is one of the few places I would consider, because of the ease of skiing. 45 minutes sounds pretty awesome, easy to go every weekend day if you are that close. My friends, job and wife are down here though, so I don't ever see moving. I also own a house in Newport and have a great job which pays very well and allows me to work only 40-45 hours a week. I don't think I could give all of that up, even for the ease of skiing that Seattle brings.

How far is your work commute? I have heard that if you live outside the city and have to commute downtown it really sucks. My drive to work is only 10 minutes, which probably makes it easier to drive so much on the weekends. 10 minutes to work, 10 minutes to surf and 5.5 hours to one of the best mountains in North America. It works for me, although sometimes Seattle sounds intriguing. If I did not live in socal or norcal I would want to live in Seattle.

Eh surfing is a non factor for me. I live in Kirkland, and I work in Kirkland so my commute is 10 mins as well. Life wasted in my car was a big reason I live where I do now.

dan4060To the SF folks I should add that Silicon Valley is one of the worst places to buy a house right now. It is far worse than Newport Beach which is saying something. All the tech money has made things out of control. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that houses up there are almost double what they are in Newport, and Newport is very expensive. Do consider this when you decide where to move. Houses you would want to live in in the bay are well over 2 mill, and they are going for more than asking price as people are bidding them up. Unless the tech market crashes or there is an earthquake this is unlikely to change.

That's a bit overblown on your numbers. But yes the housing market is tough to get into.

californiagrownThat's a bit overblown on your numbers. But yes the housing market is tough to get into.

Sadly I'm not overblown on my numbers. I have a buddy who just put in a bid on a home for 2.6 mill in Menlo Park, which is not a particularly ritzy area. It is around 2,300 square feet, and not all that fancy, not really a home he wants to live in. He got out bid by someone who came in with cash for 2.8, and there were several bids on the home. This is happening everywhere in his area. The lowest priced single-family home in his daughter's school district is 2.5 mill. I showed him some places in Newport on Trulia.com and he says that some that are 1.4 around here are nicer than the one he bid 2.6 on, so I don't think my numbers are out of line, it really is pretty close to twice what you would pay in Newport. I would have assumed they would be about the same, but I was way off. I know it sounds crazy but if you do some research that is what you will come up with. I really feel for my buddy, he is successful but he is getting outbid by people with crazy amounts of money who can pay 2.8 cash. Sellers are getting over the listed price and still getting cash offers. That is pretty ludicrous. The tech money has changed things to a point where you have to be incredibly rich to even think about living there.

Other parts of the bay area might be different, but the reality is that the ordinary parts of Silicon Valley are now twice as expensive as the ordinary parts of Newport for what you get.

Cgrown,

Here is an example of what I am talking about. This is a listing on Trulia.com in the Harbor View area of Newport Beach.
http://www.trulia.com/property/3229404980-11-Mainsail-Dr-Corona-del-Mar-CA-92625

I showed my buddy this and he said it is nicer than the one where his 2.6 mill bid was rejected.

dan4060Sadly I'm not overblown on my numbers. I have a buddy who just put in a bid on a home for 2.6 mill in Menlo Park, which is not a particularly ritzy area. It is around 2,300 square feet, and not all that fancy, not really a home he wants to live in. He got out bid by someone who came in with cash for 2.8, and there were several bids on the home. This is happening everywhere in his area. The lowest priced single-family home in his daughter's school district is 2.5 mill. I showed him some places in Newport on Trulia.com and he says that some that are 1.4 around here are nicer than the one he bid 2.6 on, so I don't think my numbers are out of line, it really is pretty close to twice what you would pay in Newport. I would have assumed they would be about the same, but I was way off. I know it sounds crazy but if you do some research that is what you will come up with. I really feel for my buddy, he is successful but he is getting outbid by people with crazy amounts of money who can pay 2.8 cash. Sellers are getting over the listed price and still getting cash offers. That is pretty ludicrous. The tech money has changed things to a point where you have to be incredibly rich to even think about living there.

Other parts of the bay area might be different, but the reality is that the ordinary parts of Silicon Valley are now twice as expensive as the ordinary parts of Newport for what you get.

Yes, Menlo park has many areas that are particularly wealthy. I'm from the town just south of there. I am acutely aware of the real estate market in that area- I get weekly updates from my parents who cannot believe their luck, still 30 years later.

It all depends on your definition of "nice" I suppose, but you can grab a nice (by my definition) house in a bunch of cities both in the valley and just out for 1-1.5 million. That is excessively expensive IMO, and yet another reason why I moved North haha, but your example was an out-of-the norm example. The median home value in Menlo is 2 million flat. I'd be able to find a "nice" home for 1.5 pretty easily... Maybe you have higher standards, idk? I don't expect to be able to afford one of the nicer houses, in a really wealthy city, in silicon valley, as my first house.

Idk the market in SoCal so I cannot speak to that.

dan4060Cgrown,

Here is an example of what I am talking about. This is a listing on Trulia.com in the Harbor View area of Newport Beach.
http://www.trulia.com/property/3229404980-11-Mainsail-Dr-Corona-del-Mar-CA-92625

I showed my buddy this and he said it is nicer than the one where his 2.6 mill bid was rejected.

Oh, i agree that the bay area, particularly the peninsula and the valley are horrendously overpriced. I just (over)reacted to your over estimation of the minimum price you would pay for a nice house in the area haha.