5 ms·

It's access to the mountains. If you're In to hiking an mountain biking it makes sense.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Get a remote job, move to the mountains. EDIT: https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job https://weworkremotely.com/ https://weworkremotely.com/
- Xcelerate 10y ago
  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.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    Amazing beer scene.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    > no tech jobs whatsoever That really surprises me, given the Contra Dance scene in Asheville.
  - devonkim 10y ago
    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.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    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.
stephencanon 10y ago
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.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  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.
  - stephencanon 10y ago
    > 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.
- Bluestrike2 10y ago
  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.

Get a remote job, move to the mountains. EDIT: https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job https://weworkremotely.com/ https://weworkremotely.com/

Xcelerate 10y ago
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.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Amazing beer scene.
- afarrell 10y ago
  > no tech jobs whatsoever That really surprises me, given the Contra Dance scene in Asheville.
- devonkim 10y ago
  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.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  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.

stephencanon 10y ago

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.

nostrademons 10y ago
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.
- stephencanon 10y ago
  > 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.
Bluestrike2 10y ago
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.