If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be? | High Sierra Topix  

If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby mokelumnekid » Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:35 am

I'm with giantbrookie on this one. Both my work needs and my primary non-work passion (glass blowing) requires urban-based resources. And I enjoy international travel enough that I would want to be near an airport with reasonable service to the Bay Area or LA. If money were no object I'd probably go for a spot in the Callahan Ranch/Galena Creek area on the lower-east side of Mt. Rose just south of Reno. This is where the sage brush meets the Ponderosa pines and Tuolumne Meadows is only about 2.5 hours away, Carson and Ebbetts areas are near by, and that area sits above the winter inversion smog of the Truckee Meadows. One can jump on the Mt. Rose hwy to go to Tahoe for a swim and decent winter sports (I'm not a snowy person like g-b either) are right there.

Plus the Nevada wilderness begins there and that has charms as well, especially eastern Nevada.



User avatar
mokelumnekid
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby SSSdave » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:06 pm

Bishop and the rest of the Owens Valley towns and Bridgeport are not geologically in the south eastern Sierra but rather just east in adjacent fault block valleys. The only three communities that are topographically actually within the Sierra would be Mammoth Lakes, Hilton Creek, Lee Vining, and Topaz. Of those, if one is retired and wealthy, Hilton Creek/Crowley would be a nice choice. Very scenic landscape with less winter snow than Mammoth Lakes though colder, not as hot as Bishop, however minimal infrastructure. An excellent base with towering nearby slopes for the backcountry skier willing to earn their turns.
User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Location: Silicon Valley
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby mokelumnekid » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:37 pm

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Markleeville? Not all that much snow, verdant valley, close to civilization, fishing, etc.?

(SSSDave- I would be a bit careful about being too technical about what defines the "Sierra" geologically as we could spend days talking about that one- as a geologist who has spent considerable time working there- as has giantbrookie who is better equipped than I am to make that call based on the distribution of normal faults- the eastern front is actually a diffuse zone of faulting that penetrates well into the range proper, as well as to the east. If one thinks of the "Sierra" as the Creataceous age plutonic rocks, many of those now are the basement for the ranges in western Nevada. Just saying is all.)
User avatar
mokelumnekid
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby giantbrookie » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:31 pm

mokelumnekid wrote:Why hasn't anyone mentioned Markleeville? Not all that much snow, verdant valley, close to civilization, fishing, etc.?

(SSSDave- I would be a bit careful about being too technical about what defines the "Sierra" geologically as we could spend days talking about that one- as a geologist who has spent considerable time working there- as has giantbrookie who is better equipped than I am to make that call based on the distribution of normal faults- the eastern front is actually a diffuse zone of faulting that penetrates well into the range proper, as well as to the east. If one thinks of the "Sierra" as the Creataceous age plutonic rocks, many of those now are the basement for the ranges in western Nevada. Just saying is all.)


As a bit of a geologic clarification, I should say that many research geologists have a hard time with the definition of the Sierra Nevada, and I can say I've given them a hard time about their inconsistency both in statements in my published papers and in my formal journal reviews of other folks' papers. We need to remember that there is a difference between the geologic Sierra Nevada block and what we may think of as the Sierra, which is why you don't find me saying anything about this unless prompted (such as here). In the strictest sense the Sierra should EXCLUDE everything east of the westernmost significant fault in the Sierra Nevada eastern Frontal fault system at any given latitude. However, as Mokelumne pointed out, the SN frontal fault system north of Bishop is a series of overlapping escarpments, so even this definition gets difficult. Suffice it to say there are some who still think of the Carson Range (Mt. Rose etc.) and the Diamond Mtns (east of Mohawk Valley) as part of the Sierra or "transitional", but this is an inconsistent definition tantamount to calling the White-Inyos "Sierra" or "transitional". Needless to say Mammoth,Bishop, South Lake Tahoe, Truckee, Quincy, Meadow Valley and Westwood are NOT Sierra by this definition, but for the purposes of folks thinking of the Sierra for recreational purposes, they are. And that's what we're all about here (as much as I like geology--we're about recreation here, not neotectonics and tectonic geomorphology). By the way, here are a couple of geo-trivia points: (1) The granitic rocks of the Sierra "the Sierra Nevada batholith" diverge northward from the Sierra at around L. Tahoe--this puts them east of the "neotectonic" (ie present day geologic Sierra) in the region north of Tahoe (as noted by Mokelumne). In other words there is a post- 5 m.y. geologic definition of the Sierra, but the pre-5 m.y. geologic definition of the Sierra can be quite different. In fact the eastern border of the post-20 m.y. border of the Sierra has shifted progressively westward since then, as new faults have initiated slip--The Sierra Nevada microplate (see below) is getting progressively narrower with time.
(2) The tectonic block that includes the Sierra also includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Vallies--this is known as the "Sierra Nevada microplate". Accordingly, I could say that I'm in the Sierra (being in Fresno), I suppose, but that would make little sense from a recreatonal or eco system standpoint.

Regarding Markleeville, that is indeed a nice place. It is a bit short of amenities (say compared to my beloved Quincy), but it is a nice place indeed.

Cheers,

GB

P.S. I am posting here from Houston, where I am attending the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (just finished convening a session, giving a talk, and having the requisite multiple pints afterwards--my talk was partly about the pre-granitic history of the Sierra Nevada ca. 500 m.y. to 175 m.y.).
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Fresno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby mokelumnekid » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:16 pm

Well said giantbrookie. Another definition might simply be, "is an area inside the snow zone or in the rain shadow?" Although in that case the west side of the Carson Range is in. Can you send me the abstract of your GSA talk? Oh look beautiful aspens in Bishop- but wait you are in *lovely* Houston- hah, hah. (Sorry couldn't help but rub that in. See you at AGU?)
User avatar
mokelumnekid
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby madeintahoe » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:49 pm

Sometimes we often think about that we would like living a little lower down south and in elevation...Woodfords/Markleeville areas, Gardnerville down to Topaz lake even around Coleville and Walker. We have lived in Meyers/South Lake Tahoe for 22 years and have seen our share of snowfall! Tahoe does have most everything you need and it is beautiful and all...but we get a lot of tourist here certain times of the year and sometimes it gets a little annoying :eek:
You have to love snow and not mind having to deal with it..some people do not realize how much snow this area can get...and sometimes your street will not get plowed right away. All the seasons are really beautiful here...we feel very fortunate that we do live here :)

It really is a beautiful place to be living....you are close to so much hiking here and not far away to get to the Southern Sierra for the more higher elevation areas.
User avatar
madeintahoe
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:58 am
Location: South Lake Tahoe, Meyers, CA.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby dave54 » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:48 pm

There seems to be many different definitions of the Sierra depending on the users frame of reference. A geologist defines it differently from a biologist's ecosystem view. Land use planners tend to use a political definition. The 'Sierran counties' include land areas extending to the coast range. The Forest Service Sierra Nevada Framework boundary was all the way north to Modoc (which made no sense at all from any viewpoint). The Sierra Conservancy covers nearly as much. The media seems to be clueless. If I hear another idiot news reporter refer to Lassen Volcanic National Park as 'the Sierra' I may throw a brick at the TV.

And if you want to be a real nitpicker, there is also a Sierra Nevada Range in Spain. :lol:

GB said in an earlier post Westwood is not technically in the Sierras. Westwood residents do not think of the town as Sierran, we think of ourselves in the Cascades (which may not be technically correct either. Some argue this is the tip of a finger of the Columbia plateau. I'll let others debate that, I just call it home). However, just 15 miles west in Chester they do consider themselves as a Sierra town and Susanville seems to be split between Great Basin, Sierras, and Cascades.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby Phil R » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:01 am

Mammoth, or between Mammoth & Bishop.
A retired co-worker of mine owns a chalet in Wilsonia, which is inside Kings Canyon National Park...I have to admit I wouldn't mind that. LIttle or no access during winter, however.
People are friendly at 6000 ft...and the higher you go, the friendlier they get.
User avatar
Phil R
Topix Acquainted
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:18 am
Location: Orange County, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby SteveB » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:13 am

Where would I live, if I could? I would live where no man's foot has tread for years, where nature is king and knows it, where I learn right away that I am but a brief visitor, and where my single greatest concern is contemplating both the grand and simple pleasures in whatever I see.

I know, but there it is. :)
User avatar
SteveB
Founding Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:08 pm
Location: Reno, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby Bad Man From Bodie » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:09 pm

I live in the Sierra Nevada. I always have and god willing I always will. I was born and I will die there. She goes with me in my travels and she is always on my mind. I am haunted and mesmorized by her beauty. As for the best place to live......anywhere but Mammoth Lakes. I went to highschool there and Ive had enouth of that. Id have to say Lee Vining, because its not overpopulated and never will be, has Mono Lake, Mono Craters, Sierra Mts, and YNP just a couple of minuts away. Lee Vining even has live music these days. Or, Saddlehorn/Calahan Ranch area in Reno because you can make a desent living in Reno and Lee Vining is just 2.5 hrs away.
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Lee Vining/Reno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby pnfpnf » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:55 pm

I did hope to move to Truckee or Tahoe or around Donner Pass but these are far too expensive. Plumas County or the Eastern Sierra between Crowley and I-80 seem great but at my age I want bus or train accessibility to the Bay Area in case of medical necessity. Not sure what sort of public or solid commercial-passenger transit there may be (other than the ghastlily scheduled Greyhound, if it still exists, along 395) in the Eastern Sierra, outside the Truckee-Tahoe area; does anyone know? Or how the budget crisis will affect these? Also, does anyone know much about the western Sierra in this regard (and home availability)? I see dirt-cheap mobile homes advertised in the Grass Vally and Auburn areas, sometimes near Quincy, but these are really foothills, terribly hot, much poison oak, and not enough snow. But what about farther south, west of Yosemite and south?
User avatar
pnfpnf
Topix Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:22 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: If you could live in the Sierras - where would it be?

Postby giantbrookie » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:32 am

Quincy is certainly not the foothills. It is actually on the east side of the Sierra and the summer climate is quite mild, much cooler than anything from Lee Vining south. Earlier in this thread, I put in my vote for Quincy as my favorite "Sierra" town (even though I don't intend to retire there--I simply enjoy visiting the place). I do not know much about real estate prices, but Quincy certainly flies under the radar with respect to many places. As you note the Truckee-Tahoe area is inflated and certainly Mammoth and vicinity would be high relative to some other areas on the central and southern east side. In the general area of Quincy I suspect I think things are a bit more expensive in the Graeagle-Blairsden area, and there are certainly some high-end developments at Lake Almanor, but Quincy has escaped this attention so far. Quincy is a nice town with good places to eat, and a bit of displaced SF Bay area culture w/o the price--this may be partly because there are some ex-patriot Yay Area folks there (but not enough to drive the price up) and because of the presence of a junior college (Feather River college) that is actually affiliated with the Peralta community college district (East Bay).
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Fresno
Experience: N/A

PreviousNext

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest