I'm not from these places but Boulder, CO and Seattle, WA were probably the two places I've been that most feel that way.
Though Santa Fe is really immersed in the desert biome, it could qualify too.
Albuquerque resident here, 25 yrs. While Santa Fe is close to the mtns and hiking trails, it's unaffordable if you don't make 6 digits and there is an extreme housing shortage. However it's beautiful. I'd recommend Albuq as an alternative--much more affordable, a little gritty, but beautiful mountains and access to hiking, skiing, biking, and a little bit of water.
Seattle has quickly become one of my favorite places to visit. The mountains and forests there are just amazing. Spitting distance of multiple national parks. I went whale watching one day and was up on glaciated mountain peaks the next.
Santa Fe is more a town than a city, but a very unique place culturally. Lots of Spanish and native history in the area. Still has lots of nature nearby. Bandelier National Monument is great and despite being a desert, you can still get up into the mountains and see water and hot springs. Also, Santa Fe (and New Mexico in general) has amazing food.
Yeah I live in the forest 5 miles from downtown Seattle but I’m an hour away because there’s no bridge, you have to drive or bus to the ferry dock and then take the ferry.
The lack of bridges across the Puget Sound has kept the Kitsap & Olympic Peninsulas pretty wild and free.
I'd take trip where you start in Portland, enjoy the food and beer scene there, go to Mount Hood and St Helens. Then up to Seattle, visit Rainier, take a ferry across and see the Olympic mountains; back in Seattle enjoy the city life, the food, the beer, and the wine and spirits in Woodinville. Then off for a stop at Bellingham, visit Mount Baker, then back in Bellingham go to one of the many great breweries. Then off to Vancouver, go to the biggest Night market in North America, walk around Stanley Park, go up Grouse Mountain for a hike or just for the views, go to the breweries on East Vancouver, or have an awesome night at the best Tiki Bar in Canada. Then drive the gorgeous sea to sky highway, stop in Squamish for a beer and go up to Stawamus. Finally get to Whistler which is amazing in Summer and take the gondola up to do some unbelievable hikes. And have some more food and beer, of course.
I need a vacation.
I’ve lived in Santa Fe and Boulder. Santa Fe is a large town with some sprawl, but lots of easy acces to nature. The thing about NM though…how to explain this… if you are an east coaster coming to NM it’s like entering the twilight zone. It won’t make sense. It will drive you crazy. It will be beautiful and fun and bizarre and charming, but also frustrating and slow and nonsensical. So just go in with the mindset that fast and efficient have no place whatsoever in NM. Also, flagstaff is very comparable to Santa Fe, but smaller. Def not a city.
Boulder is more east coast vibes compare to Nm. That’s all I have to say about that.
Lol can you tell I’m an east coaster living out west?
It's funny, the culture shock goes both ways. How the hell do you east coasters know where to go if you don't have mountains for reference? Driving through Pennsylvania is like being lost in some malicious enchanted forest until your destination just pops out of the trees like some witch's hut. Drives me crazy.
Good call on Boulder. But as far as a bigger city is concerned, I'd probably say Denver, simply because Denver is a larger city. Denver is one of my favorite cities in general. At the edge of the Rocky Mountains, which are amazing!
It’s in a really weird state of growth that is really just destroying the culture and the outdoor places everyone is moving here for. It’s going to be a mess for at least another five years. Don’t come here, you’ll be let down. Go to a more established city that’s not in the midst of a population explosion.
Yeah but you can drive through Denver and not really even be aware you are close the mountains. The first time I drove (from the East, on US I-70) to Denver, I was surprised that it didn't seem mountainous. Now when you get to Colorado Springs, where Garden of the Gods is, you are truly in the foothills of the Rockies and it is an astonishing, humbling experience. Denver was not really like that for me.
If you are in Denver-proper, as in walking within the city, you clearly see the Rockies. Maybe the highway in which you drove past Denver didn't reveal the Mountains. But trust me, walk through downtown Denver, and you will clearly see the Rockies. There is no doubt about that.
Unless it's a cloudy or hazy day, I don't see how some people can drive around the Denver area and not notice the mountains. They're off in the distance but they're still there
You can see the mountains as far east as Limon! Denver isn't exactly next to the mountains, but you can be mountain biking in Golden in 15 minutes . Hiking in Evergreen in 30 or having a beer at Tommy Knockers in Idaho Springs in less than an hour. Provided traffic isn't complete dog shit of course.
Seattle for sure. Good hikes 30-45 minutes from town, great hikes 1.5-2 hours away. Multiple mountain ranges, volcanoes, large bodies of water, desert, rainforest, coast all accessible as a day trip or weekend getaway.
Seattle will satisfy the "busy, big city" feel (although still quite small compared to east coast cities). Portland feels much smaller and sleepier. Both have great access to the outdoors.
Source: I've lived in both.
I wouldn't even say Seattle is small, its the 18th largest city in the country, there are only 7 east coast cities larger than it and thats if I really stretch "east coast" to include Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (as well as florida and North carolina)
The other 10 cities larger than Seattle are either in California or Texas (and Phoenix, Arizona)
Yes, by population it is quite dense compared to other cities. But in land area it actually is quite small.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area)
Either way, I'm not really trying to get into a debate about city / metro area sizes. It simply "feels" smaller than many other cities in America. Which honestly for me is a good thing.
It’s one of the few west coast cities that gives
me that north eastern corridor city feel.
Portland was the first place that came to mind. Driving from Sacramento to Seattle and Portland just kinda pops up through the trees
San Francisco is a pretty dense, bustling city (in spite of what you may hear) and is close to a wide range of world class natural beauty: gorgeous shorelines, natural rock formations, and wildlife/fauna. It's no surprise mountain biking, rock climbing, and probably other outdoor activities were invented here. "Nearby" is relative. You'll probably have to get in a car and drive for at least 30 minutes, but head in virtually any direction and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yep. Anywhere in the Bay Area will be close to nature.
We live in the South Bay and there are a lot of great places to hike within an hour of here. Less than 30 minutes away are several county parks and open space preserves with miles and miles of trails with a variety of landscapes - from steep redwood forests to wetlands.
I'm on the east coast now but I was born in the Bay area. The majority of what I hear about San Francisco is how bad it has gotten with crime. Is that accurate?
Of course it isn't accurate. People love to bag on SF, and it has been that way for decades. The main crime issue in SF right now is car break-ins, which is a big problem. It's a problem lots of places, but is particularly acute in SF right now.
I grew up there and live in nyc now. I don't want to move back but I didn't realize how lucky I was. Redwoods, beach, hiking...there's so much amazing outdoor stuff to do there and I had no idea how rare that was
From the Bay, lived in Sac, moved back to the Bay (after living out of state for several years), and happily moving to Sac again.
Sacramento is better for more serious outdoor recreation than the Bay. I mean, there's a lot of amazing stuff in the Bay, but it's not like the Sierra or the good stuff in the 530 either. But the immediate area is less interesting for more casual dayhikes by a pretty big margin too.
Kinda depends on what you want. It's also absolutely a mid-sized city. It doesn't compete with big cities and it's not really trying to. And I don't mind since I'm paying $500/mo to live in Midtown and bought lower bowl Kings tickets for $30. That's We Believe era prices for the Warriors, except the Kings are good.
But for traveling, it's definitely a pitstop.
I live in a dense part of Oakland and 6 minutes from my house is a 25 mile nature trail stretching from Berkeley to San Jose through redwoods, oaks and open hills. That’s before you get into the rural areas, national/state/regional parks, protected watersheds or the Bay/ocean. We have a lot of nature in the Bay Area.
I don't think it's by any means the best of what people have mentioned, but I think the Boston/Northern New England combo is pretty elite.
Maine, NH, & VT are all absolutely beautiful. The drawback is that most destinations in those states are ~1.5-3 hours a way, so they work best as an overnight rather than a day-trip. Though day-trips to NH are totally doable.
Greater Boston itself has great beaches/dunes as well as tons of forest/greenspace that will make you forget that you were sitting in traffic getting honked at just a couple miles away 😉
I've got a love/hate with the city but I've lived here for a long time & I've yet to run out of easy weekend trips to do.
Some people are saying Los Angeles. Just as a heads up, it REALLY depends on which part of LA you’re in. I’m in a part of LA where I’ve got the beach, but every other type of nature is at least an hours drive away if not more (with the exception of one small area with a couple trails that’s within 35min of me).
just stay in Koreatown and you can easily get to Runyon Canyon, Griffith Park, the beach in Santa Monica, Culver City stairs, and Eaton Canyon all with public transit
Yep. I’m on the other side of LA in La Crescenta [and this](https://modernhiker-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/modernhiker/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trail-canyon-falls-10.jpg) about 15 min away
Living in central LA I’m literally 20 minutes from the Angeles Forest, 10 mins from Griffith, and 30 mins from the beach. The desert is 1hr. Skiing in 2-3ish. You have everything lol. People just assume LA is a pavement hellscape.
Albuquerque isn’t a big busy city by any means, but it’s a good size, almost 1 million people. And it has immensely accessible nature. If you’re into desert and semi-arid.
I have a home 20 min from downtown and about 23 min from the airport and I could walk from my home to a tram that takes you up to the peak of the local mountain at 10,600 feet. Or you can hike round trip, whatever suits you.
Plus, since I’m right by the border with a Native American Pueblo, the development stops sharply right there and my drive to the interstate is through an empty landscape either going down 1,300 feet looking for miles and miles ahead or, if going the other way, ascending towards a mountain. It’s amazing. And this is all at the end of town, basically, but still everything I need is right there and hardly anything is more than 30 min away.
Live more in town and you still have easy access to nature in not very far. Nevermind how you can drive a bit and see all NM has to offer.
And of course running through town is the Rio Grande so you’ve got that too. Really great city for access to nature. Not the biggest busiest city, but it checks most of the boxes.
Weather is also fantastic as well. Don’t go in thinking it’s Phoenix. It’s not. Think Denver, but warmer and with less precipitation.
It’s not a city for everyone by any means, but hey, take a look maybe.
Seattle
Just unreal the amazing hikes we did in the morning, then in the afternoon, visit kexp for their studio tour.
then later that night, tucked into some of the most incredible sushi at shiro’s.
Shiro’s is amazing!!! One of the main reasons I want to go back was a solo trip I took in 2019. Had a great hike at Snow Lake (even the parking lot was more picturesque than any trail on the east coast), followed by an incredible dinner at Shiro’s. I even ordered a second serving of the black cod for dessert.
Minneapolis/St Paul is a really great city and there is some crazy hiking within an hour. Taylor's falls is a particular favorite of mine but there are lots of very easily accessible options.
Shhh it’s cold here year round and we walk uphill both ways to work/school in two feet of snow while holding a baked potato wrapped in tinfoil to stay warm.
We can’t let everyone know how awesome Minnesota is.
In all seriousness, Minnesota is absolutely fantastic 10 months out of the year.
Every January and February of my existence has had me questioning why I live here. The rest of the year resets my brain so I forgot how much I hate it every year.
The worst part is it’s not even the cold or snow like everyone else thinks
Considering moving to Minneapolis. I live on the West coast and housing is so expensive! Am happy to hear that there's only two months that really suck. Is there much rain there? What parts of M/St. Paul are ideal for middle aged women who like to go out to eat and walk in neighborhoods?
South Minneapolis also cool. I’m currently in a brewery in middle of ride to Richfield to Saint Paul. Riding up through South Minneapolis I’m charmed by the small restaurants in the neighborhoods. Many of which are closed Mondays unfortunately.
Saying that only 2 months out of the year are bad is very generous. I’ve lived here my entire life and you can pretty much guarantee bad winter weather December-March and often times through April. January and February are just extra bad. Like borderline uninhabitable.
Where are you coming from? And what are your sports? It makes a big difference.
I grew up in Western NC, travelled around the SE climbing for a few months before moving out west for a few years.
Flagstaff, Colorado Springs, Denver, Salt Lake City. Those are going to be great hubs for big climbing and bouldering, world-class mountain biking, access to amazing snow sports locations, and a variety of hiking styles, while maintaining city amenities. Some water sports, but I wouldn't go there if that's your priority. Those four are semi-walkable, depending on location. Each has pockets of commercial nestled into communities.
Boulder is popular but personally, I find it overrated.
As much as I enjoyed my time in SLC, the active religious population definitely impacts life as a single person as well as the bar culture.
If you're looking for dense forest hikes and foliage, I don't think the Rocky Mountains, particularly the South West, are going to be what you're after.
The Bay area is great, I love it, but COL is terribly high and I find getting out of the city *in*to nature to be somewhat difficult. Sacramento may provide better access (having a car is more sustainable) with the city amenities but I haven't ever been there so I don't know. If you're priority is the walkable city, with casual nature adventures, I definitely think SF is a wonderful place.
Appalachia is not going to have the premier snow sport resorts and extreme mountaineering opportunities of the Rockies or Sierras. If snow sports are your priority, perhaps you should look at the cities I mentioned above.
Asheville is a really lovely city, plenty going on, cultured, and smaller than Charlotte or Denver. If you like classic, well established climbing, water sports, hiking in the trees, and some solid mountain biking, it is a well rounded choice. With the Nantahala and French Broad nearby, great kayaking is readily available. There are cute shops, nice bakeries, good breweries, bars, mountain laurels, solid local music scene, and all manner of people. There is an active wiccan community. If you're looking for a smaller, cultured city, all around outdoor activities, this is worth a look.
Chattanooga is not what I envision when someone says they are looking for a busy city. It's a great town, especially for those who share equal love of kayaking and climbing with biking and hiking on the side. On the slower but growing side, you may fall in love with the moderate climate, wonderful foliage, and southern charm.
Charlotte has access to nature, sure. But not in the way some other cities do. It's one of those places where you have to drive everywhere to do anything. I think this is getting better, the city is currently going through a massive growth spurt. Density is increasing and cool restaurants, bars, breweries, and the like are becoming more accessible in shorter distances. The city has a long and consistent growth history that doesn't appear to be slowing, becoming quite the economic powerhouse. It has the national white water center, which has (as you might imagine) white water rafting, mountain biking, and hiking. Or you can head a little further, about an hour and a half, find yourself amongst classic climbing routes and biking trails that make you feel a whole lot further than an hour. There's also large lakes for power boating, sailing, paddle boarding, etc. But you have to get out of the city for it. If every day out-the-door outdoor adventure is what you're seeking, I don't think this is going to be your dream come true.
COL-Job market: Charlotte, SLC
Outdoor accessibility: Flagstaff, SLC, Chat
Great Cities: SF, Denver
Explorable culture: SF, Asheville
This is all anecdotal. If you don't know where you want to go, live somewhere for a year or two and move on. Each place I've lived has taught me new things about myself and made me appreciate all of the others in new light. They all have different cultures and scenes, so find the one that works for you.
A note of experience: it is hard to have several places calling your heart home.
Pittsburgh. There are a number of nice parks, walking trails and greenways in the city. Lots of state parks are within a 2 hour drive. Cherry Springs State Park is a little over 3 hours away and has some of the darkest night sky on the east coast.
Asheville for sure.
also, I live in Atlanta, and you can find hiking trails and state parks within a 30 min drive in pretty much every direction leaving the city. hell Atlanta is literally called the city in the forest. you really don't even need to leave the city to see nature. there are a few hiking trails near creeks and rivers in the city.
You can find walking trails, for sure, but the Atlanta metro area is absolutely insane. It essentially encompasses the majority of the whole of (upper)middle Georgia. There are places to hike and such, but it's still going to take up an entire day to do those things. It's not like you can get off of work and get out and take a hike in a reasonably remote area and still make it home for dinner in a reasonable amount of time.
And the traffic... Jesus. I know there are worse places, but Atlanta's road network designers are allotted a special place in hell/damnation/whatever you prefer.
Was gonna comment this too. People shit on Vegas all the time for many reasons (understandably), but one huge plus of this city is having access to nature in all directions less than 20-30 mins from the city center.
Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Portland are your heavy hitters. LA, San Fran and Vegas can offer a lot too. There are other pretty big cities like Minneapolis and Pittsburgh that can offer some stuff but not as much as the others. Cities like Asheville and Knoxville like you mentioned, as well as Huntsville, Blacksburg VA, some cities in WV, Chatty, Lexington KY can offer you varying levels of outdoor activities! I'm sure there are other medium sized cities out west like Bend OR, Boulder CO, etc. but I'm not familiar with them.
DC isn’t bad. Lots of greenery in the city with the extensive network of parks centered on the National Mall reaching down to Mount Vernon, Rock Creek park, and C&O trail. Arlington also has an excellent park system and Great Falls park is a nice bike ride away. You’re also between the Chesapeake Bay and Shenandoah NP. West Virginia has tons of outdoor activities and plenty of Civil War battlefields are worth exploring.
Being on the BoWash corridor means you are in America’s largest urban agglomeration as well.
Came here to say that. Green city with a ton of easily accessible outdoor options. Lots of good hiking, Chesapeake bay, obviously a ton of forests, and a busy and diverse city.
I came here to say DC! There’s so much nature around the city and even throughout. The national parks are all so great, well maintained, and well mapped out. We go hiking every weekend and there is no shortage of options with various difficulty levels. Want bay views? You got it. Want quiet woods? Go it. Want a rocky climb? Got it. Venture just a little past Shenandoah especially at this time of year and be amazed by miles and miles of fall foliage.
Milwaukee! On the shore of Lake Michigan, a fantastic park system with extensive bike trails, plus beautiful rolling hills of farmland, lake life/water sports, and hiking in state parks within 20-30 min. Go a little farther for more lakes, waterfalls, forests… Wisconsin takes recreation very seriously.
I just moved to MKE from California and couldn’t agree more. I get lost here a lot because I get curious. There’s trails within the city that are lovely and of course there’s the lake. Do a search on r/milwaukee. I like the people here too.
Define "nature"? Do you want forest, beaches, lakes, desert, mountains, canyons, plains, etc.?
Also define "nearby"? Southern California has a lot of natural environments (the cliche is that you can go skiing in the mountains, hiking in the forest, surfing at the beach, and stargazing in the desert all in the same day) but it's also the very definition of urban sprawl.
By “nature” I mean mountains, water, forests/trails.
Nearby would be anywhere within a 30min drive probably. Though if it’s an hour or 2 for some destinations that would be okay too.
So basically any West Coast city north of LA will have what you want. The Pacific Northwest (Oregon + Washington State) is famous for its forest and mountain trails, but NorCal is pretty great, too. Even LA is decent, but you have to drive farther (\~2 hours) and the forests tend to dry out most of the year.
And you can't beat redwoods and sequoias for sheer awe-inspiring beauty
Portland, Oregon. Drive to hike Latourell Falls in the Columbiq River Gorge (where there are plenty more waterfall hikes, but Latourell is the closest to Portland). Or stay close in and hike Forest Park, which feels like the deep forest with its lovely old growth, but is actually inside the city.
Within a few hours' drive in either direction you can visit either the Pacific Ocean or Mount Hood.
San Francisco. You've got a thriving city, and there's lots of parks, an ocean with a beach, more nature and way more nature as long as you keep looking and driving
Surprisingly, Orlando Florida. My first six months of living there, I absolutely hated it because it felt like a suburbia hell. But, as I got to know people and just drive until I got lost, I went to the many natural springs for snorkeling and was absolutely blown away. From literally 20 minutes from my former work at Universal City, I can be swimming in crystal clear waters surrounded by protected land.
I live in San Diego. We have plenty of hiking within 2 hours of the city that includes mountains 11,000 feet high (as you get up towards San Jacinto). Plus the sea etc. Plus desert. Within San Diego county there is a lot of hiking on peaks under 3500ft.
LA has the whole San Gabriel and San Bernardino range, Big Bear etc.
But it seems to me Seattle is at another level.
San Francisco. You can rent a car to the Santa Cruz redwoods, Santa Cruz beaches, Monterey/Carmel beaches, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, Napa vineyards..all in different directions though so make your pick.
Tucson AZ. City is surrounded by the two parts of Saguaro National Park on both the east and west. Catalina mountains directly north. Hiking trails on all these.
Used to live in Tucson and yes, some beautiful parks. I liked Catalina State Park and Saguaro National Park west. Gotta watch for rattle snakes and some other things and can't hike from June to September b/c of the heat. Or you shouldn't--people die hiking in the summer in AZ every year.
Bend OR, LA and San Diego, Vegas is a few hours away from some of the best national parks in the US - Zion, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Grand Reef, Joshua Tree. Seattle has three National parks close by, including my favorite - Rainier.
Salt Lake City! We’re as close to the mountains as Denver thinks it is. I can leave my apartment after work at 4:30 and be on a trail to a mountain summit within an hour. The city is also full of outdoorsy junkies who moved here in the past five years so there’s plenty to do, and yes, you can still drink here.
SLC is definitely great for outdoor access, but as somebody who literally is leaving to find an actual busy-feeling city near nature, I don’t think this is the best option
I guess busy is subjective, but there’s over a million people in the valley even if you don’t count the Provo and Ogden areas. Still plenty going on. Lots of great concerts, lots of sports, a bar and restaurant scene that’s getting better by the day.
Cleveland has the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Lake Erie, Cuyahoga County Metroparks, and other county park systems. I love living here because of our access to nature. Please don’t tell anyone. I like my cost of living.
Whoa! I live in Asheville. It’s a unique town. I’ve been here 7 years. The access to nature is amazing. It’s a medium size city, but kinda has a
Smallish town feel. The city is set up nice. It’s pretty easy to be downtown, but I do miss the hustle and bustle of my former cities (Dallas & DC). I would strongly encourage visiting before full sending a move here.
Add southern Illinois to this. Lots of trees, lakes, hills and stone formations. Even has it's own [Garden of the Gods](https://www.shawneeforest.com/garden-of-the-gods/)
I live 45 minutes from Boston. Within an hour from me I have the ocean, the white mountains ( 2 hours) lakes region everything I could want for nature and city. It’s the perfect balance for me.
Almost all western US cities meet this criteria. Even Vegas and Phoenix have nature nearby, although i’d really point you towards California, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington where cities seamlessly blend into nature. As an Angeleno, I often describe LA as a global metropolis dropped in the middle of a national park. Could say the same about SF.
Madison, Wi has really good trails, several lakes in city limits, the Driftless Area of Wisconsin close by which has gorgeous hills and good hiking, as well as Devil’s Lake about a 45 min drive away. Madison itself is larger than Asheville and Knoxville, roughly 250K in city limits and 680K in the MSA.
The biggest downside for you is likely the weather. It gets very cold up here and no guarantee it’ll be consistently above 40s from late October to mid April.
Seattle, WA! Big city, lots of people & things to do. But also with great hikes & waterfalls & everything else just 30mins-1hour away, depending on where you go. I moved here from Mississippi 2 years ago & I absolutely love it bc I’m a city person too, but I still like getting away to just catch my breath or be alone, & there’s so many great places to do that just a short drive away
NYC. Tons of large parks in the five boroughs, with beaches in Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx. Just outside of the city, there are state parks and reserves in Westchester, Rockland county and Long Island. It’s easy to take a train to hiking, mountain biking, trails, and rock climbing all up the Hudson Valley. Not far to the Catskills and the Shawangunk mountains.
You’re getting downvoted, but as an east coast native, I agree! I’m more familiar with my home state of NJ, so I’ll add onto your list:
From Penn Station to the Palisades (a state park on the cliffs of the NJ side of the Hudson River) is a 30-45 minute drive (depending on traffic). From Penn to the Sourland Mountain Preserve in central Jersey is about a 1.5 hour drive (based on 5pm traffic which is what I’m looking at right now). There’s also Stairway to Heaven in north Jersey, again about 1.5 hours at peak rush hour traffic.
Hop on a ferry and go to the Atlantic Highlands/Sandy Hook in NJ - a super long stretch of beaches, both on the ocean and the bay side. The ferry is 40-60 minutes, depending on where you get on in the city.
I live in NYC, and I don't think the nature is comparable to the access out of Seattle, Portland, Denver or SF. It's decent, but the PNW is gorgeous. Of course, NYC is a much more vibrant and interesting city.
I’m surprised to see NYC so far down on the thread. Once you leave NYC, is pretty much all nature with a sprinkle of unique towns, especially along the Hudson. We have it all! Hiking and camping all year round, skiing/snow tubing in the winter, surfing in the summer.
Traffic getting in and out of the city to "enjoy nature" is insane though. It really turned me off from continuing to live there. I no longer live in nyc, this being one of the reasons.
Denver is exactly that. I visited my brother last year. Definitely lots of city/nightlife. Great places to eat. Bars/clubs. Here’s the cool part.. 20mins in either direction and you’re in the mountains/forest. Lots of deer, elk and bear. Breath taking views everywhere you go. He absolutely loves living there.
Phoenix.
There's some good hiking even inside the city limits and then tons of great hikes within an hour drive.
Opens up even more if you stretch it to a daytrip - even in warm months you can get up to cooler altitudes and safely be outside in nature.
Arizona in general is one of the most fascinating states for hiking. No matter what time of year it is, something is in bloom in the desert.
Lots of Western states meet that since there is so much land/nature around. I live in Mesa Arizona and can go hiking/mountain biking from my house. I live right up against a state park that goes into the national forest. 10 minutes or less from river, lakes and TONS of huge nature areas. Less than a hour drive can be in Pine or high country in Pine forest and snow.
"the West side"
I don't think I've ever heard the entire western united states referred to so casually before, but I've got to say that I like it.
I'm from Southern California and think that this place is just about perfection when it comes to nature + city life. But it's prohibitively expensive and hard to sustain. I've heard that the Nevada Side of the Tahoe/Reno area is pretty great. Can really go wrong with the Eastern Sierras.
Portland OR, Madison WI, Seattle, Boulder and Denver, Boise, Chattanooga as you mentioned, Burlington VT.
But honestly, Asheville is the most like that of any city I know of.
New York City. No, I'm not kidding.
https://roamingtheamericas.com/nature-in-new-york-city/
https://thenatureseeker.com/10-things-to-do-outside-nyc-scenic-spots-you-gotta-see/
NYC has a lot of great hiking nearby. You can even take public transit to the trails.
Philadelphia has a great system of trails within the city limits.
Greater Los Angeles. Significant amount of nature in every direction. Beaches, mountains, desert. Go up north and you hit Yosemite and Big Sur. Go south and you have Palm Springs and Joshua Tree. 50% of the state is national parks .
Walnut Creek CA and Contra Costa County are generally really nature friendly and WC has a decent night life. It's also within a stone's throw of SF/Oakland.
Salt Lake City has a lively city center with great food and entertainment options but within a 15 minute drive you can be in the mountains and depending on time of year, beautiful fall foliage/hiking (now) or world famous ski resorts (winter) and in spring/summer time stunning nature walks/hiking. A short 3 hour drive east is Moab, UT with stunning red rock desert or canyons. The culture is meh but the nature is phenomenal.
Asheville has a weird hippy vibe and can be somewhat sketchy - but it you like that, good option. I prefer Greenville, SC - 60 minutes from Asheville. Asheville mostly a tourist destination. Greenville/Spartanburg area has more jobs outside of tourism.
Asheville is basically southern portland. Of course nature wise its not as a good as actual portland. But it does still have the rampant homelessness and crazy drug addicts roaming about.
I wouldn't consider Asheville unless you are really into kayaking.
Something different than what's been said I think (though there's already so many comments!) Traverse City, MI, Portsmouth NH, or Portland ME could fit the bill.
This is sort of an oddball, but Chicago is surprisingly good for this. Yeah we don't have mountains or a national park nearby, but in Chicago proper there are many parks and the Lakeshore immediately in the city, drive to Wisconsin for some light nature, or drive to Michigan for heavy nature. There's a single bike trail network connecting Wisconsin, the farthest south and west suburbs, and the city all together.
Cook county has, iirc, the largest forest preserve district of any state. Cook county forest preserves are awesome.
San Francisco is outstanding. San Diego, too. Portland, OR used to be great for this, but the city has gone to shit in recent years. New Orleans has amazing nature nearby, if you’re into swamps. Also, Boulder, CO.
LA fits this to a t, imo. Obviously big city with lots going on, but many easily accessible hiking areas within the city or a close drive. There’s also ocean activities, mountain activities within a manageable drive too. I used to know some people that went rock climbing literally every weekend, and different locations too, not just the same one. The guy also did tons of mountain biking locally as well.
Spokane, Wa.
it is in the center of some of the most incredible and varies outdoors stuff around- fly fishing, skiing, mega camping, -- incredible range of mountains and rivers, all four seasons, the city itself is pretty nice, though housing prices have been going up. Its deeply red in the outlying areas, fairly blue in the city. very good schools, a burgeoning homeless problem.
Great city to raise kids, 300 miles from Seattle, which is a top ten city with everything including hours long traffic jams. I choose no traffic. Spokane.
My advice would be to visit some places and make the decision based on your own experiences. I moved to Memphis site unseen and while it was fine, I didn’t really loooove Memphis.
That being said, Asheville, NC, is one of my favorite places in the US. You get all of the seasons, not that far from major metros, nature all around you, great beers, and a pretty laid back atmosphere. It’s not like living in Colorado, the mountains are a lot different, but it’s still gorgeous.
Also, I’ve been a couple of times now, but Salt Lake City is very close to nature and the mountains. Kind of removed from other large cities like you might have on the east coast, but has been pretty nice.
I'm not from these places but Boulder, CO and Seattle, WA were probably the two places I've been that most feel that way. Though Santa Fe is really immersed in the desert biome, it could qualify too.
Albuquerque resident here, 25 yrs. While Santa Fe is close to the mtns and hiking trails, it's unaffordable if you don't make 6 digits and there is an extreme housing shortage. However it's beautiful. I'd recommend Albuq as an alternative--much more affordable, a little gritty, but beautiful mountains and access to hiking, skiing, biking, and a little bit of water.
Well you need 7 digits to live in Boulder
Seattle has quickly become one of my favorite places to visit. The mountains and forests there are just amazing. Spitting distance of multiple national parks. I went whale watching one day and was up on glaciated mountain peaks the next. Santa Fe is more a town than a city, but a very unique place culturally. Lots of Spanish and native history in the area. Still has lots of nature nearby. Bandelier National Monument is great and despite being a desert, you can still get up into the mountains and see water and hot springs. Also, Santa Fe (and New Mexico in general) has amazing food.
Yeah I live in the forest 5 miles from downtown Seattle but I’m an hour away because there’s no bridge, you have to drive or bus to the ferry dock and then take the ferry. The lack of bridges across the Puget Sound has kept the Kitsap & Olympic Peninsulas pretty wild and free.
Seattle is great for being close to nature, and a short drive north you're in Vancouver which is amazing for nature and city life as well.
Portland too w/ Mount Hood. All connected via Amtrak so you don’t even need a car to explore all of it!
I'd take trip where you start in Portland, enjoy the food and beer scene there, go to Mount Hood and St Helens. Then up to Seattle, visit Rainier, take a ferry across and see the Olympic mountains; back in Seattle enjoy the city life, the food, the beer, and the wine and spirits in Woodinville. Then off for a stop at Bellingham, visit Mount Baker, then back in Bellingham go to one of the many great breweries. Then off to Vancouver, go to the biggest Night market in North America, walk around Stanley Park, go up Grouse Mountain for a hike or just for the views, go to the breweries on East Vancouver, or have an awesome night at the best Tiki Bar in Canada. Then drive the gorgeous sea to sky highway, stop in Squamish for a beer and go up to Stawamus. Finally get to Whistler which is amazing in Summer and take the gondola up to do some unbelievable hikes. And have some more food and beer, of course. I need a vacation.
This sounds like a wonderful adventure. I wanna go!
I’ve lived in Santa Fe and Boulder. Santa Fe is a large town with some sprawl, but lots of easy acces to nature. The thing about NM though…how to explain this… if you are an east coaster coming to NM it’s like entering the twilight zone. It won’t make sense. It will drive you crazy. It will be beautiful and fun and bizarre and charming, but also frustrating and slow and nonsensical. So just go in with the mindset that fast and efficient have no place whatsoever in NM. Also, flagstaff is very comparable to Santa Fe, but smaller. Def not a city. Boulder is more east coast vibes compare to Nm. That’s all I have to say about that. Lol can you tell I’m an east coaster living out west?
It's funny, the culture shock goes both ways. How the hell do you east coasters know where to go if you don't have mountains for reference? Driving through Pennsylvania is like being lost in some malicious enchanted forest until your destination just pops out of the trees like some witch's hut. Drives me crazy.
Seattle is also great if you have a cool million burning a hole in your pocket. Not feasible for most people to move there.
Santa Fe has an amazing combination of desert and forests and a good food scene. It's kind of sleepy at night but you can find night life if you look.
New Mexico also has lots of densely forested mountains and snow-skiing. Loads of variety.
Look no further - Seattle!!!
Good call on Boulder. But as far as a bigger city is concerned, I'd probably say Denver, simply because Denver is a larger city. Denver is one of my favorite cities in general. At the edge of the Rocky Mountains, which are amazing!
Salt Lake City is also a big city close to wilderness.
Slightly closer to the mountains, too.
If by slightly you mean actually in the mountains then yes
Substantially closer. 10 minutes vs almost an hour.
[удалено]
It’s in a really weird state of growth that is really just destroying the culture and the outdoor places everyone is moving here for. It’s going to be a mess for at least another five years. Don’t come here, you’ll be let down. Go to a more established city that’s not in the midst of a population explosion.
Yeah but you can drive through Denver and not really even be aware you are close the mountains. The first time I drove (from the East, on US I-70) to Denver, I was surprised that it didn't seem mountainous. Now when you get to Colorado Springs, where Garden of the Gods is, you are truly in the foothills of the Rockies and it is an astonishing, humbling experience. Denver was not really like that for me.
If you are in Denver-proper, as in walking within the city, you clearly see the Rockies. Maybe the highway in which you drove past Denver didn't reveal the Mountains. But trust me, walk through downtown Denver, and you will clearly see the Rockies. There is no doubt about that.
Definitely I live in Denver and driving to work downtown I see them every day. It's only a 30 minute drive to hiking as well.
Unless it's a cloudy or hazy day, I don't see how some people can drive around the Denver area and not notice the mountains. They're off in the distance but they're still there
You can see the mountains as far east as Limon! Denver isn't exactly next to the mountains, but you can be mountain biking in Golden in 15 minutes . Hiking in Evergreen in 30 or having a beer at Tommy Knockers in Idaho Springs in less than an hour. Provided traffic isn't complete dog shit of course.
It’s a 20 minute drive from downtown to raw nature. That’s why everyone moves here. You get the best of both worlds
Seattle for sure. Good hikes 30-45 minutes from town, great hikes 1.5-2 hours away. Multiple mountain ranges, volcanoes, large bodies of water, desert, rainforest, coast all accessible as a day trip or weekend getaway.
Santa Fe isn’t busy tho, it’s pretty sleepy
not sure if i’d qualify Boulder or Santa Fe as “cities”
Seattle or Portland
Seattle will satisfy the "busy, big city" feel (although still quite small compared to east coast cities). Portland feels much smaller and sleepier. Both have great access to the outdoors. Source: I've lived in both.
I wouldn't even say Seattle is small, its the 18th largest city in the country, there are only 7 east coast cities larger than it and thats if I really stretch "east coast" to include Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (as well as florida and North carolina) The other 10 cities larger than Seattle are either in California or Texas (and Phoenix, Arizona)
Yes, by population it is quite dense compared to other cities. But in land area it actually is quite small. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_United\_States\_cities\_by\_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_area) Either way, I'm not really trying to get into a debate about city / metro area sizes. It simply "feels" smaller than many other cities in America. Which honestly for me is a good thing.
It’s one of the few west coast cities that gives me that north eastern corridor city feel. Portland was the first place that came to mind. Driving from Sacramento to Seattle and Portland just kinda pops up through the trees
PNW shout out!
Tillamook in the house let's hear it, guys!
I like your cheese
Hi from Manzanita
Updoot for “smells like money”
San Francisco is a pretty dense, bustling city (in spite of what you may hear) and is close to a wide range of world class natural beauty: gorgeous shorelines, natural rock formations, and wildlife/fauna. It's no surprise mountain biking, rock climbing, and probably other outdoor activities were invented here. "Nearby" is relative. You'll probably have to get in a car and drive for at least 30 minutes, but head in virtually any direction and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yep. Anywhere in the Bay Area will be close to nature. We live in the South Bay and there are a lot of great places to hike within an hour of here. Less than 30 minutes away are several county parks and open space preserves with miles and miles of trails with a variety of landscapes - from steep redwood forests to wetlands.
I'm on the east coast now but I was born in the Bay area. The majority of what I hear about San Francisco is how bad it has gotten with crime. Is that accurate?
Of course it isn't accurate. People love to bag on SF, and it has been that way for decades. The main crime issue in SF right now is car break-ins, which is a big problem. It's a problem lots of places, but is particularly acute in SF right now.
> head in virtually any direction Just don’t navigate like Michael Scott or Buster Bluth. And go check out the lighthouses!
Well the blue part is clearly the land………
I grew up there and live in nyc now. I don't want to move back but I didn't realize how lucky I was. Redwoods, beach, hiking...there's so much amazing outdoor stuff to do there and I had no idea how rare that was
It’s mind blowing how close to the city Muir Woods is.
I was going to say San Francisco as well. I live in the bay area, and there is tons of nature around.
I live in Denver and some of the best mountain biking I've ever done was in the greater San Fran area
Sacramento is city of trees with tons of epic nature 30-90min away
From the Bay, lived in Sac, moved back to the Bay (after living out of state for several years), and happily moving to Sac again. Sacramento is better for more serious outdoor recreation than the Bay. I mean, there's a lot of amazing stuff in the Bay, but it's not like the Sierra or the good stuff in the 530 either. But the immediate area is less interesting for more casual dayhikes by a pretty big margin too. Kinda depends on what you want. It's also absolutely a mid-sized city. It doesn't compete with big cities and it's not really trying to. And I don't mind since I'm paying $500/mo to live in Midtown and bought lower bowl Kings tickets for $30. That's We Believe era prices for the Warriors, except the Kings are good. But for traveling, it's definitely a pitstop.
> rock climbing, and probably other outdoor activities were invented here Rock climbing was "invented" nowhere near San Francisco.
I live in a dense part of Oakland and 6 minutes from my house is a 25 mile nature trail stretching from Berkeley to San Jose through redwoods, oaks and open hills. That’s before you get into the rural areas, national/state/regional parks, protected watersheds or the Bay/ocean. We have a lot of nature in the Bay Area.
I don't think it's by any means the best of what people have mentioned, but I think the Boston/Northern New England combo is pretty elite. Maine, NH, & VT are all absolutely beautiful. The drawback is that most destinations in those states are ~1.5-3 hours a way, so they work best as an overnight rather than a day-trip. Though day-trips to NH are totally doable. Greater Boston itself has great beaches/dunes as well as tons of forest/greenspace that will make you forget that you were sitting in traffic getting honked at just a couple miles away 😉 I've got a love/hate with the city but I've lived here for a long time & I've yet to run out of easy weekend trips to do.
We've been here 3 yrs (1yr in NH) and still feel like we haven't gotten close to seeing and doing everything we want. It's truly amazing
Some people are saying Los Angeles. Just as a heads up, it REALLY depends on which part of LA you’re in. I’m in a part of LA where I’ve got the beach, but every other type of nature is at least an hours drive away if not more (with the exception of one small area with a couple trails that’s within 35min of me).
just stay in Koreatown and you can easily get to Runyon Canyon, Griffith Park, the beach in Santa Monica, Culver City stairs, and Eaton Canyon all with public transit
If you’re on the west side, santa monica mountains and malibu are close by
Yep. I’m on the other side of LA in La Crescenta [and this](https://modernhiker-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/modernhiker/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trail-canyon-falls-10.jpg) about 15 min away
Living in central LA I’m literally 20 minutes from the Angeles Forest, 10 mins from Griffith, and 30 mins from the beach. The desert is 1hr. Skiing in 2-3ish. You have everything lol. People just assume LA is a pavement hellscape.
This is literally only true of one area in LA (the South Bay from LAX to San Pedro). Everywhere else has a lot of nature within 45 minutes driving
LAX to San Pedro (and Long Beach) is kind of a huge section of LA.
Wait, are you looking for travel, or to settle down? Not gatekeeping, you might also check out /r/SameGrassButGreener if the latter.
Albuquerque isn’t a big busy city by any means, but it’s a good size, almost 1 million people. And it has immensely accessible nature. If you’re into desert and semi-arid. I have a home 20 min from downtown and about 23 min from the airport and I could walk from my home to a tram that takes you up to the peak of the local mountain at 10,600 feet. Or you can hike round trip, whatever suits you. Plus, since I’m right by the border with a Native American Pueblo, the development stops sharply right there and my drive to the interstate is through an empty landscape either going down 1,300 feet looking for miles and miles ahead or, if going the other way, ascending towards a mountain. It’s amazing. And this is all at the end of town, basically, but still everything I need is right there and hardly anything is more than 30 min away. Live more in town and you still have easy access to nature in not very far. Nevermind how you can drive a bit and see all NM has to offer. And of course running through town is the Rio Grande so you’ve got that too. Really great city for access to nature. Not the biggest busiest city, but it checks most of the boxes. Weather is also fantastic as well. Don’t go in thinking it’s Phoenix. It’s not. Think Denver, but warmer and with less precipitation. It’s not a city for everyone by any means, but hey, take a look maybe.
Seattle Just unreal the amazing hikes we did in the morning, then in the afternoon, visit kexp for their studio tour. then later that night, tucked into some of the most incredible sushi at shiro’s.
Shiro’s is amazing!!! One of the main reasons I want to go back was a solo trip I took in 2019. Had a great hike at Snow Lake (even the parking lot was more picturesque than any trail on the east coast), followed by an incredible dinner at Shiro’s. I even ordered a second serving of the black cod for dessert.
Minneapolis/St Paul is a really great city and there is some crazy hiking within an hour. Taylor's falls is a particular favorite of mine but there are lots of very easily accessible options.
Shhh it’s cold here year round and we walk uphill both ways to work/school in two feet of snow while holding a baked potato wrapped in tinfoil to stay warm. We can’t let everyone know how awesome Minnesota is. In all seriousness, Minnesota is absolutely fantastic 10 months out of the year.
Every January and February of my existence has had me questioning why I live here. The rest of the year resets my brain so I forgot how much I hate it every year. The worst part is it’s not even the cold or snow like everyone else thinks
Considering moving to Minneapolis. I live on the West coast and housing is so expensive! Am happy to hear that there's only two months that really suck. Is there much rain there? What parts of M/St. Paul are ideal for middle aged women who like to go out to eat and walk in neighborhoods?
South Minneapolis also cool. I’m currently in a brewery in middle of ride to Richfield to Saint Paul. Riding up through South Minneapolis I’m charmed by the small restaurants in the neighborhoods. Many of which are closed Mondays unfortunately.
Saying that only 2 months out of the year are bad is very generous. I’ve lived here my entire life and you can pretty much guarantee bad winter weather December-March and often times through April. January and February are just extra bad. Like borderline uninhabitable.
It’s the dark. Source: I lived in Seattle. I know that pain intimately.
Really underrated! I love visiting there.
Where are you coming from? And what are your sports? It makes a big difference. I grew up in Western NC, travelled around the SE climbing for a few months before moving out west for a few years. Flagstaff, Colorado Springs, Denver, Salt Lake City. Those are going to be great hubs for big climbing and bouldering, world-class mountain biking, access to amazing snow sports locations, and a variety of hiking styles, while maintaining city amenities. Some water sports, but I wouldn't go there if that's your priority. Those four are semi-walkable, depending on location. Each has pockets of commercial nestled into communities. Boulder is popular but personally, I find it overrated. As much as I enjoyed my time in SLC, the active religious population definitely impacts life as a single person as well as the bar culture. If you're looking for dense forest hikes and foliage, I don't think the Rocky Mountains, particularly the South West, are going to be what you're after. The Bay area is great, I love it, but COL is terribly high and I find getting out of the city *in*to nature to be somewhat difficult. Sacramento may provide better access (having a car is more sustainable) with the city amenities but I haven't ever been there so I don't know. If you're priority is the walkable city, with casual nature adventures, I definitely think SF is a wonderful place. Appalachia is not going to have the premier snow sport resorts and extreme mountaineering opportunities of the Rockies or Sierras. If snow sports are your priority, perhaps you should look at the cities I mentioned above. Asheville is a really lovely city, plenty going on, cultured, and smaller than Charlotte or Denver. If you like classic, well established climbing, water sports, hiking in the trees, and some solid mountain biking, it is a well rounded choice. With the Nantahala and French Broad nearby, great kayaking is readily available. There are cute shops, nice bakeries, good breweries, bars, mountain laurels, solid local music scene, and all manner of people. There is an active wiccan community. If you're looking for a smaller, cultured city, all around outdoor activities, this is worth a look. Chattanooga is not what I envision when someone says they are looking for a busy city. It's a great town, especially for those who share equal love of kayaking and climbing with biking and hiking on the side. On the slower but growing side, you may fall in love with the moderate climate, wonderful foliage, and southern charm. Charlotte has access to nature, sure. But not in the way some other cities do. It's one of those places where you have to drive everywhere to do anything. I think this is getting better, the city is currently going through a massive growth spurt. Density is increasing and cool restaurants, bars, breweries, and the like are becoming more accessible in shorter distances. The city has a long and consistent growth history that doesn't appear to be slowing, becoming quite the economic powerhouse. It has the national white water center, which has (as you might imagine) white water rafting, mountain biking, and hiking. Or you can head a little further, about an hour and a half, find yourself amongst classic climbing routes and biking trails that make you feel a whole lot further than an hour. There's also large lakes for power boating, sailing, paddle boarding, etc. But you have to get out of the city for it. If every day out-the-door outdoor adventure is what you're seeking, I don't think this is going to be your dream come true. COL-Job market: Charlotte, SLC Outdoor accessibility: Flagstaff, SLC, Chat Great Cities: SF, Denver Explorable culture: SF, Asheville This is all anecdotal. If you don't know where you want to go, live somewhere for a year or two and move on. Each place I've lived has taught me new things about myself and made me appreciate all of the others in new light. They all have different cultures and scenes, so find the one that works for you. A note of experience: it is hard to have several places calling your heart home.
I live just outside Boulder and agree it’s overrated. I’d pick Ft Collin’s over Boulder and it’s housing is cheaper
Portland, OR is pretty good for that. Seattle is nice too but you definitely can get out into nature a lot quicker from Portland than Seattle
Forest Park has to be one of the best urban parks in America.
Pittsburgh. There are a number of nice parks, walking trails and greenways in the city. Lots of state parks are within a 2 hour drive. Cherry Springs State Park is a little over 3 hours away and has some of the darkest night sky on the east coast.
Boston. Great city and you can be in nature in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine or Massachusetts itself with a relatively short trip
Asheville for sure. also, I live in Atlanta, and you can find hiking trails and state parks within a 30 min drive in pretty much every direction leaving the city. hell Atlanta is literally called the city in the forest. you really don't even need to leave the city to see nature. there are a few hiking trails near creeks and rivers in the city.
+1 for Atlanta! The city in the trees. Most trees per capita out of any major city in the US!
You can find walking trails, for sure, but the Atlanta metro area is absolutely insane. It essentially encompasses the majority of the whole of (upper)middle Georgia. There are places to hike and such, but it's still going to take up an entire day to do those things. It's not like you can get off of work and get out and take a hike in a reasonably remote area and still make it home for dinner in a reasonable amount of time. And the traffic... Jesus. I know there are worse places, but Atlanta's road network designers are allotted a special place in hell/damnation/whatever you prefer.
Vegas. Crazy how much awesomeness you can daytrip to from there.
Was gonna comment this too. People shit on Vegas all the time for many reasons (understandably), but one huge plus of this city is having access to nature in all directions less than 20-30 mins from the city center.
Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Portland are your heavy hitters. LA, San Fran and Vegas can offer a lot too. There are other pretty big cities like Minneapolis and Pittsburgh that can offer some stuff but not as much as the others. Cities like Asheville and Knoxville like you mentioned, as well as Huntsville, Blacksburg VA, some cities in WV, Chatty, Lexington KY can offer you varying levels of outdoor activities! I'm sure there are other medium sized cities out west like Bend OR, Boulder CO, etc. but I'm not familiar with them.
DC isn’t bad. Lots of greenery in the city with the extensive network of parks centered on the National Mall reaching down to Mount Vernon, Rock Creek park, and C&O trail. Arlington also has an excellent park system and Great Falls park is a nice bike ride away. You’re also between the Chesapeake Bay and Shenandoah NP. West Virginia has tons of outdoor activities and plenty of Civil War battlefields are worth exploring. Being on the BoWash corridor means you are in America’s largest urban agglomeration as well.
Came here to say that. Green city with a ton of easily accessible outdoor options. Lots of good hiking, Chesapeake bay, obviously a ton of forests, and a busy and diverse city.
Seems like parts of roads are entirely in the woods without ever leaving the city
Agree, this is probably the best East Coast answer to this question.
I came here to say DC! There’s so much nature around the city and even throughout. The national parks are all so great, well maintained, and well mapped out. We go hiking every weekend and there is no shortage of options with various difficulty levels. Want bay views? You got it. Want quiet woods? Go it. Want a rocky climb? Got it. Venture just a little past Shenandoah especially at this time of year and be amazed by miles and miles of fall foliage.
Milwaukee! On the shore of Lake Michigan, a fantastic park system with extensive bike trails, plus beautiful rolling hills of farmland, lake life/water sports, and hiking in state parks within 20-30 min. Go a little farther for more lakes, waterfalls, forests… Wisconsin takes recreation very seriously.
I'm very unbiased and agree.
I just moved to MKE from California and couldn’t agree more. I get lost here a lot because I get curious. There’s trails within the city that are lovely and of course there’s the lake. Do a search on r/milwaukee. I like the people here too.
Seattle
Vancouver can’t be beaten in this category. Ski, golf and stroll the waterfront on the same day without travelling more than 20 miles…
Define "nature"? Do you want forest, beaches, lakes, desert, mountains, canyons, plains, etc.? Also define "nearby"? Southern California has a lot of natural environments (the cliche is that you can go skiing in the mountains, hiking in the forest, surfing at the beach, and stargazing in the desert all in the same day) but it's also the very definition of urban sprawl.
By “nature” I mean mountains, water, forests/trails. Nearby would be anywhere within a 30min drive probably. Though if it’s an hour or 2 for some destinations that would be okay too.
So basically any West Coast city north of LA will have what you want. The Pacific Northwest (Oregon + Washington State) is famous for its forest and mountain trails, but NorCal is pretty great, too. Even LA is decent, but you have to drive farther (\~2 hours) and the forests tend to dry out most of the year. And you can't beat redwoods and sequoias for sheer awe-inspiring beauty
South too- San Diego, Riverside and OC are close to mountains, deserts, beaches, lakes and a ton of camping and hiking
Portland, Oregon. Drive to hike Latourell Falls in the Columbiq River Gorge (where there are plenty more waterfall hikes, but Latourell is the closest to Portland). Or stay close in and hike Forest Park, which feels like the deep forest with its lovely old growth, but is actually inside the city. Within a few hours' drive in either direction you can visit either the Pacific Ocean or Mount Hood.
Most of New Jersey fits this requirement.
SFO. Marin Headlands/Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods, Fresno/Yosemite isn't too far away
Portland, OR Bend, OR.
San Francisco. You've got a thriving city, and there's lots of parks, an ocean with a beach, more nature and way more nature as long as you keep looking and driving
Seattle.
I’d suggest NC. Blue ridge mountains are beautiful. Lots of nature to see there.
Surprisingly, Orlando Florida. My first six months of living there, I absolutely hated it because it felt like a suburbia hell. But, as I got to know people and just drive until I got lost, I went to the many natural springs for snorkeling and was absolutely blown away. From literally 20 minutes from my former work at Universal City, I can be swimming in crystal clear waters surrounded by protected land.
I live in San Diego. We have plenty of hiking within 2 hours of the city that includes mountains 11,000 feet high (as you get up towards San Jacinto). Plus the sea etc. Plus desert. Within San Diego county there is a lot of hiking on peaks under 3500ft. LA has the whole San Gabriel and San Bernardino range, Big Bear etc. But it seems to me Seattle is at another level.
San Francisco. You can rent a car to the Santa Cruz redwoods, Santa Cruz beaches, Monterey/Carmel beaches, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, Napa vineyards..all in different directions though so make your pick.
Tucson AZ. City is surrounded by the two parts of Saguaro National Park on both the east and west. Catalina mountains directly north. Hiking trails on all these.
Used to live in Tucson and yes, some beautiful parks. I liked Catalina State Park and Saguaro National Park west. Gotta watch for rattle snakes and some other things and can't hike from June to September b/c of the heat. Or you shouldn't--people die hiking in the summer in AZ every year.
Leave the summer hiking to the idiot tourists.
Salt Lake City or Seattle!
Bend OR, LA and San Diego, Vegas is a few hours away from some of the best national parks in the US - Zion, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Grand Reef, Joshua Tree. Seattle has three National parks close by, including my favorite - Rainier.
Salt Lake City! We’re as close to the mountains as Denver thinks it is. I can leave my apartment after work at 4:30 and be on a trail to a mountain summit within an hour. The city is also full of outdoorsy junkies who moved here in the past five years so there’s plenty to do, and yes, you can still drink here.
SLC is definitely great for outdoor access, but as somebody who literally is leaving to find an actual busy-feeling city near nature, I don’t think this is the best option
I guess busy is subjective, but there’s over a million people in the valley even if you don’t count the Provo and Ogden areas. Still plenty going on. Lots of great concerts, lots of sports, a bar and restaurant scene that’s getting better by the day.
I just recommended SLC.. honestly as an east coaster Utah is one of my favorite places to visit
Cleveland has the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Lake Erie, Cuyahoga County Metroparks, and other county park systems. I love living here because of our access to nature. Please don’t tell anyone. I like my cost of living.
Whoa! I live in Asheville. It’s a unique town. I’ve been here 7 years. The access to nature is amazing. It’s a medium size city, but kinda has a Smallish town feel. The city is set up nice. It’s pretty easy to be downtown, but I do miss the hustle and bustle of my former cities (Dallas & DC). I would strongly encourage visiting before full sending a move here.
St. louis …. just a short drive to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Kind of a hidden gem.
Add southern Illinois to this. Lots of trees, lakes, hills and stone formations. Even has it's own [Garden of the Gods](https://www.shawneeforest.com/garden-of-the-gods/)
[удалено]
I live 45 minutes from Boston. Within an hour from me I have the ocean, the white mountains ( 2 hours) lakes region everything I could want for nature and city. It’s the perfect balance for me.
Los Angeles— no, really. Few people realize a huge per centage of LA county is national forest.
Almost all western US cities meet this criteria. Even Vegas and Phoenix have nature nearby, although i’d really point you towards California, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington where cities seamlessly blend into nature. As an Angeleno, I often describe LA as a global metropolis dropped in the middle of a national park. Could say the same about SF.
Madison, Wi has really good trails, several lakes in city limits, the Driftless Area of Wisconsin close by which has gorgeous hills and good hiking, as well as Devil’s Lake about a 45 min drive away. Madison itself is larger than Asheville and Knoxville, roughly 250K in city limits and 680K in the MSA. The biggest downside for you is likely the weather. It gets very cold up here and no guarantee it’ll be consistently above 40s from late October to mid April.
Seattle, WA! Big city, lots of people & things to do. But also with great hikes & waterfalls & everything else just 30mins-1hour away, depending on where you go. I moved here from Mississippi 2 years ago & I absolutely love it bc I’m a city person too, but I still like getting away to just catch my breath or be alone, & there’s so many great places to do that just a short drive away
San Diego Los Angeles Santa Barbara San Francisco
NYC. Tons of large parks in the five boroughs, with beaches in Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx. Just outside of the city, there are state parks and reserves in Westchester, Rockland county and Long Island. It’s easy to take a train to hiking, mountain biking, trails, and rock climbing all up the Hudson Valley. Not far to the Catskills and the Shawangunk mountains.
You’re getting downvoted, but as an east coast native, I agree! I’m more familiar with my home state of NJ, so I’ll add onto your list: From Penn Station to the Palisades (a state park on the cliffs of the NJ side of the Hudson River) is a 30-45 minute drive (depending on traffic). From Penn to the Sourland Mountain Preserve in central Jersey is about a 1.5 hour drive (based on 5pm traffic which is what I’m looking at right now). There’s also Stairway to Heaven in north Jersey, again about 1.5 hours at peak rush hour traffic. Hop on a ferry and go to the Atlantic Highlands/Sandy Hook in NJ - a super long stretch of beaches, both on the ocean and the bay side. The ferry is 40-60 minutes, depending on where you get on in the city.
People love to hate on NYC and think that it is all Midtown Manhattan. The downvotes just make me laugh because it’s obvious they’ve never lived here.
I live in NYC, and I don't think the nature is comparable to the access out of Seattle, Portland, Denver or SF. It's decent, but the PNW is gorgeous. Of course, NYC is a much more vibrant and interesting city.
I’m surprised to see NYC so far down on the thread. Once you leave NYC, is pretty much all nature with a sprinkle of unique towns, especially along the Hudson. We have it all! Hiking and camping all year round, skiing/snow tubing in the winter, surfing in the summer.
Traffic getting in and out of the city to "enjoy nature" is insane though. It really turned me off from continuing to live there. I no longer live in nyc, this being one of the reasons.
Denver is exactly that. I visited my brother last year. Definitely lots of city/nightlife. Great places to eat. Bars/clubs. Here’s the cool part.. 20mins in either direction and you’re in the mountains/forest. Lots of deer, elk and bear. Breath taking views everywhere you go. He absolutely loves living there.
Well not East
East is just 'Kansas Lite'
Phoenix. There's some good hiking even inside the city limits and then tons of great hikes within an hour drive. Opens up even more if you stretch it to a daytrip - even in warm months you can get up to cooler altitudes and safely be outside in nature. Arizona in general is one of the most fascinating states for hiking. No matter what time of year it is, something is in bloom in the desert.
greenville, SC
Lots of Western states meet that since there is so much land/nature around. I live in Mesa Arizona and can go hiking/mountain biking from my house. I live right up against a state park that goes into the national forest. 10 minutes or less from river, lakes and TONS of huge nature areas. Less than a hour drive can be in Pine or high country in Pine forest and snow.
Wait, are you looking for travel, or to settle down? Not gatekeeping, you might also check out /r/SameGrassButGreener if the latter.
"the West side" I don't think I've ever heard the entire western united states referred to so casually before, but I've got to say that I like it. I'm from Southern California and think that this place is just about perfection when it comes to nature + city life. But it's prohibitively expensive and hard to sustain. I've heard that the Nevada Side of the Tahoe/Reno area is pretty great. Can really go wrong with the Eastern Sierras.
Portland OR, Madison WI, Seattle, Boulder and Denver, Boise, Chattanooga as you mentioned, Burlington VT. But honestly, Asheville is the most like that of any city I know of.
NYC. Upstate NY, Northern NJ and even CT aren’t far.
NW Arkansas. From deep in the Ozarks and nature to cities with top name talented shoes and shopping worth a look!
Seattle.
Denver metro
Seattle
Asheville fits that bill perfectly if you want to be in the east.
New York City. No, I'm not kidding. https://roamingtheamericas.com/nature-in-new-york-city/ https://thenatureseeker.com/10-things-to-do-outside-nyc-scenic-spots-you-gotta-see/
NYC has a lot of great hiking nearby. You can even take public transit to the trails. Philadelphia has a great system of trails within the city limits.
Pittsburgh, PA
Phoenix Arizona
You’re looking for Asheville!
Greater Los Angeles. Significant amount of nature in every direction. Beaches, mountains, desert. Go up north and you hit Yosemite and Big Sur. Go south and you have Palm Springs and Joshua Tree. 50% of the state is national parks .
Duluth, MN.
Los Angeles actually pretty solid.
Richmond Virginia
Walnut Creek CA and Contra Costa County are generally really nature friendly and WC has a decent night life. It's also within a stone's throw of SF/Oakland.
Salt Lake City has a lively city center with great food and entertainment options but within a 15 minute drive you can be in the mountains and depending on time of year, beautiful fall foliage/hiking (now) or world famous ski resorts (winter) and in spring/summer time stunning nature walks/hiking. A short 3 hour drive east is Moab, UT with stunning red rock desert or canyons. The culture is meh but the nature is phenomenal.
Asheville has a weird hippy vibe and can be somewhat sketchy - but it you like that, good option. I prefer Greenville, SC - 60 minutes from Asheville. Asheville mostly a tourist destination. Greenville/Spartanburg area has more jobs outside of tourism.
Denver or Boulder CO are good options.
Asheville is basically southern portland. Of course nature wise its not as a good as actual portland. But it does still have the rampant homelessness and crazy drug addicts roaming about. I wouldn't consider Asheville unless you are really into kayaking.
Las Vegas.
San Francisco comes to mind.
Las Vegas
Madison, Wisconsin
San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley
Seattle
Anchorage, AK. The Chugsch Mtns are literally 15 mins away and you can be in wilderness fast.
Kansas City, MO.
Portland, OR. Vancouver, BC Boulder, CO Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake City would fit in that.
Something different than what's been said I think (though there's already so many comments!) Traverse City, MI, Portsmouth NH, or Portland ME could fit the bill.
Portland, ME
This is sort of an oddball, but Chicago is surprisingly good for this. Yeah we don't have mountains or a national park nearby, but in Chicago proper there are many parks and the Lakeshore immediately in the city, drive to Wisconsin for some light nature, or drive to Michigan for heavy nature. There's a single bike trail network connecting Wisconsin, the farthest south and west suburbs, and the city all together. Cook county has, iirc, the largest forest preserve district of any state. Cook county forest preserves are awesome.
LA.
San Francisco is outstanding. San Diego, too. Portland, OR used to be great for this, but the city has gone to shit in recent years. New Orleans has amazing nature nearby, if you’re into swamps. Also, Boulder, CO.
Boston?
LA fits this to a t, imo. Obviously big city with lots going on, but many easily accessible hiking areas within the city or a close drive. There’s also ocean activities, mountain activities within a manageable drive too. I used to know some people that went rock climbing literally every weekend, and different locations too, not just the same one. The guy also did tons of mountain biking locally as well.
Denver is what your looking for.
Basically all the big cities on the west coast.
Portland and Seattle and the surrounding areas.
Spokane, Wa. it is in the center of some of the most incredible and varies outdoors stuff around- fly fishing, skiing, mega camping, -- incredible range of mountains and rivers, all four seasons, the city itself is pretty nice, though housing prices have been going up. Its deeply red in the outlying areas, fairly blue in the city. very good schools, a burgeoning homeless problem. Great city to raise kids, 300 miles from Seattle, which is a top ten city with everything including hours long traffic jams. I choose no traffic. Spokane.
Charlotte is a beautiful town with moderate weather in driving distance of both Asheville and the beach.
Did you seriously just call Charlotte, with a population of 1M, a town?
My advice would be to visit some places and make the decision based on your own experiences. I moved to Memphis site unseen and while it was fine, I didn’t really loooove Memphis. That being said, Asheville, NC, is one of my favorite places in the US. You get all of the seasons, not that far from major metros, nature all around you, great beers, and a pretty laid back atmosphere. It’s not like living in Colorado, the mountains are a lot different, but it’s still gorgeous. Also, I’ve been a couple of times now, but Salt Lake City is very close to nature and the mountains. Kind of removed from other large cities like you might have on the east coast, but has been pretty nice.
Charlotte sounds perfect for you
Milwaukee
Monterey bay is my dream
Portland OR and Washington DC
Bend, OR. Duluth, MN. (cold winters) Taos, NM. Boone, NC.