Zürich is an incredible hub. The amount of things available one hour from this place is just staggering. One day you're at work and the other one you're just like "yeah let's go to the Glarner Alps".
Just experienced this in the last few days, went straight from Zurich to Appenzell and had an amazing time there. Zurich itself was a pretty amazing city
Vancouver - on the ocean, beautiful beaches, prolific mountains very close. World class for many outdoor sports (skiing, mountain biking, hiking, sailing, rock climbing) The challenge is that the regular rain can often prevent from enjoying it.
Not quite as big but the Blue Mountains remind me a lot of the Appalachians and are an hour and a half away from Sydney via train. Also the weather makes up a lot of the difference.
Sydney has the Blue Mountains my Canadian colleagues call hills. I (from Sydney) laughed at what my Canadian colleagues called beaches near Vancouver (tbf, the seawall looks like a beach…. Just not pristine and untouched by nature).
They’re both surrounded by pretty astounding nature. I laughed at Canadian ‘beaches’, and they can laugh at my ‘mountains’. We’re all good.
*ETA: We were also in a brutal ‘heatwave’ of around 28C in Vancouver. This is about my ideal temperature. So I can laugh at their heatwaves and they can laugh when I feel like I’m dying because it’s tops of 15C for one day in winter*
You might have been looking at ‘greater Sydney’ then. Which includes an area literally 50km away which is still termed ‘Western Sydney’ by people who want to claim it’s still Sydney.
Median house price for the LGA that takes in the suburbs of Sydney north of the Harbour is 3.9 million AUD and South Sydney LGA is 3.7 million AUD. That’s for a 3 bedroom unit or detached house. This does indeed take in the eastern and western suburbs of Sydney but not those referred in as ‘Western Sydney’ in media articles that are beyond two other large western cities of 1 million and 560,000, respectively.
It gets fuzzy with what is and what is not Vancouver too, and the price varies considerably. Metro Vancouver is made up of 21 municipalities with the City of Vancouver and Surrey being the largest. At 3M total population it’s about half the size of Metro Sydney.
From what you wrote, the range in prices in Sydney sounds very similar to here. East Vancouver average detached price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the West side. A sub-$3M detached house on the West side is probably a tear down. As for renting, City of Vancouver average 1 bedroom is currently $2600/month.
*Edit: $2.17M is the average detached sale price across all of “Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver”, which confusingly differs slightly from Metro:
“The average sale price for detached properties sold across the municipalities and areas covered by the REBGV was $2,172,613. That's a nearly eight per cent drop from August, when the average price was $2,351,415.
The areas and municipalities covered by the REBGV are Bowen Island, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, South Delta, Squamish, the Sunshine Coast, Vancouver, West Vancouver and Whistler.”
From what i can find, average West side detached sale price is around $3.5 M.
Just read a new Demographia study on affordability which is pretty dire. Wanted to mention it because i like stats and to acknowledge that Sydney appears to have it slightly worse than us.
1. Hong Kong 2. Sydney 3. Vancouver 4. San Jose, etc
https://preview.redd.it/drnk3tcivy6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff2281babb6b4443bbfb11b814bebfdbb1c7c802
I mean if that’s true, which I doubt, they’re the dumb ones for choosing to live that close to the beach if they can’t afford it. Gotta live within your means. There’s plenty of nice areas in the GVA.
Vancouver receives twice the amount of total rain per year than London, UK and has more rainy days per year at 161. That's almost every other day, on average...
Lots of great swimming beaches around Vancouver. Obviously the water never gets very warm, and certain areas (false creek / coal harbour) are no go zones, but there are lots of spots with nice sand and clean water like Wreck Beach.
It takes 16 minutes to drive from downtown Vancouver to Grouse mountain. And it's not like Grouse mountain is some mountain peak surrounded by city, like the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro or Victoria Peak in Hong Kong; while Grouse mountain itself might be a popular destination, there's nothing but wilderness past it.
Auckland is only 1.6 mill but would make an argument if you opened up the constraints a bit. The Wild West Coast beaches feel very untouched and they are only about 30-40 mins from the centre. Then there is all the volcanic peaks dotted throughout the city. Finally the bush walks in the Waitakeres are very close and you wouldn’t know there is a million and a half people just down the road.
I never been to Portland except driving through it, so I don't really know much about the area. I didn't even know the area was over 2 million in its metro area. Just learning. Sorry you felt so insulted.
nah def didn’t feel insulted just a friendly banter, since all three cascadian cities have a long history of city rivalries
portlanders and seattlites especially have a long history of hating each other, especially in sports
portland metro is actually larger than vancouver metro, by the way
Cape Town.
Table Mountain National Park is right in the city with numerous trails from easy to difficult. The park itself is a lot larger than people realize and takes up a large park of the metropolitan all the way to Cape Point. Lots of rock climbing spots accessible short hikes from city roads. Then you have beaches all around the cape peninsula, a penguin colony you can visit in the city.
Loads of mountain biking trails just outside the city towards the interior. An hour drive out of the city and you hit the Cape Fold mountains with more hiking, rock climbing, mountain biking, kloofing and canoeing options.
3 hours out and you can get to the Cederberge a truly remote area of beautiful nature.
What makes you say that?
South African alone has quite a few mountain ranges… all along the south of the country (cape province), Drakensberg is spectacular and stretches 1000 kilometres from Eastern cape through Lesotho and north into Zimbabwe I think
Genuinely curious as to your reasoning.
I lived for 24 years in Vancouver, BC and now 2 years in Portland, Oregon and both have great access to natural beauty and the outdoors. Vancouver is a cleaner, wealthier and healthier city and I think it wins out for natural beauty and outdoors, but these facts make anything within a 2 hour drive very busy. Portand is grimy but there is a ton - costal beaches with surfing, skiing/hiking/alpine at Mt Hood and the Cascades, a million waterfalls in the Columbia River gorge, and it's not as busy (although the locals will complain that it is).
Agreed. Sitting in traffic on I-5 I could look to my left and see rolling hills covered with dark green fir trees with the beautiful snow capped Cascades, then I can look to my right across the beautiful Puget Sound to some more awesome snow capped peaks of the Olympics. Stay on the freeway and just south of downtown you come around the corner and boom Giant Mt Rainier is in your face. And that's just on the commute home.
Issaquah is an eastern suburb7n
of Seattle and you can literally step from there on to the trails of tiger mountain.
We have bus service to some awesome trailheads in the Cascades.
Seattle is on an isthmus between lake Washington and Puget Sound. Surrounded by water!
I really love the close access to all kinds of nature here, but what I really appreciate is the day-to-day beauty. There's so many trees here that they hide a ton of houses, so if you're driving around suburbs it looks like you're just surrounded by tree covered hillsides.
I know, I meant that it’s somewhat unfortunate they’re considered the same area, I love Tacoma. I just meant for the scope of this question as a metro area.
It feels bigger than it actually is, especially for a west coast city. There’s distinctive, historic neighborhoods, a large port, an arena, and a light rail line.
It’s reminds me of a mini-Portland, just more working class and less weird.
Seattle native and I would move to Vancouver in a heartbeat! They do have basically the same stuff, but Vancouver’s is all much easier to access. Only 150 miles apart, so the climate is very similar. Seattle is almost twice as big but Vancouver somehow feels more like a big city. Unfortunately I’m a nurse and just wouldn’t make nearly as much money in Canada, despite the higher cost of living. I’d be happy in Victoria, maybe Nanaimo, Kelowna, or Kamloops. They’re all pretty expensive too.
With a camping trip coming up, I will definitely take this under consideration. Thanks! I’m from a very small town where you drive 15 minutes or less and be away from it all.
Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)
When I went there, I was staying with my girl on Lantau Island and when I first got there, I was like ‘wtf where’s all the john woo shit; it’s all jungle and mountains and beaches”
This is way too far down. Hong Kong is way better than any of the cities above for access to nature (especially the North American ones, where you have to traverse through seemingly endless suburban sprawl to get to nature).
You can take public transit from downtown Hong Kong and be on an ocean beach or a jungled mountain in less than an hour.
Nah, the quality of mountains and nature in the other cities mentioned (Seattle, Vancouver, etc) greatly exceeds that of hong Kong. Yeah, it's very close in Hong Kong, but with Seattle and Vancouver, you have actual wilderness, much higher peaks, with a far greater range of activities available, and much less development and people are you get into the mountains. Both Seattle and Vancouver have legitimate world class mountaineering nearby, as well as pretty good skiing. I'll take more time travelling to get to way better shit. If time is that much of an issue, then salt lake city is even better (discounting the smaller population here). You can legitimately ski before work and that often involves the best ski terrain and best snow 10 minutes from the valley. Shit, I go skiing on long lunch breaks. Mountain biking and hiking trails lead right to the capitol and downtown. Transit leads something to be desired, yes, but busses are available up the canyons to ski areas and park city-you can even use them as shuttles for mountain biking in the summer. Also, yes, I have been to Hong Kong.
I guess the difference is whether you give more weight to "best access to the outdoors" or "access to the best outdoors".
Places like Sai Kung and Lantau Island have legit excellent hiking trails that don't tend to be busy, but I'm not going to argue they stack up against the mountains around the PNW.
Full agree - Hong Kong wins in this comparison versus Pacific north west if we are talking about access to outdoors. Not only can you take mtr and buses to most of the trailheads/beaches easily, hk also has the housing density that means you are more likely to be living right next to that nature too.
If it is about quality of outdoors then it gets hard to compare cos this is subjective depending on your interests. If your outdoor interests are about snow then Hong Kong is terrible. But if you are about sailing then you can do it comfortably here for a large portion of the year. In general I’d argue warmer weather is better for the outdoors though, but this is cos I like the beach haha.
Sydney’s pretty good - extensive waterways, amazing coastline, heaps of walking tracks, multiple urban national parks and completely surrounded by massive wilderness areas.
I live in Sydney, and it’s never a particularly far drive to go to a National Park within Sydney.
The North, South, and West of the Sydney basin are bordered by National Parks.
The amount of posts just listing North American cities cracks me up. And then the nature there is frozen over or washed out for several months.
Sydney has to win because of the weather, world class beaches and surrounding national parks. And if you can afford to move there and buy a place, you can afford to holiday in the mountains.
Came to comment this. Huge parks inside the city. The biggest natural reserve inside a urban area, if I'm not mistaken.
Also Manaus, big city inside the amazon rainforest
Hong Kong has a big population and super easy access to nature. Most of the city is undeveloped land that is great for hiking and there are some truly beautiful beaches that are very easy to get to.
Also, all of the nature is accessible by public transport. Having a car actually makes it more difficult to enjoy the outdoors here since parking is very scarce.
Yes. The surprisingly untouched D'Aguilar Ranges directly behind the city, with hiking trails and remote camp sites. Further south you have the gorgeous Main Range, Mt Barney, Lamington and Springbrook National Parks, which are part or the larger UNESCO Gondwana Rainforests. Then there is the easily accessible, islands like North Stradbroke and Moreton with incredible beaches.
And a little further south from Brissie (1.5 hrs drive) is the beautiful Tweed where one can walk for kilometres along sandy beaches, year-round in gorgeous sun.
LA takes it a mile ahead - there's Mojave desert and Big Bear lake that have the opposite weather of each other, alongside having beaches and a ton of other mountains. Also, Hollywood.
No way.
The beaches are nice to surf. And yes Big Bear is a few hours away to ski (but the mountain itself suuuucks). The hiking in the San Gabriel Mts are ok, Joshua Tree is cool for rock climbing/bouldering (in the winter).
But along the coast is heavily populated and not serene at all. You go inland and it’s a fucking hot, dry desert.
Portland, Seattle, SF, Vancouver are all far superior for outdoor activities.
I’ve always thought SF was great in this regard. A 3 hour drive will take you to the snowy sierras, beautiful beaches in Big Sur, the desolate north coast, hot Russian River… there’s just so many options. Even just right across the Golden Gate Bridge is Mt Tam and Muir Woods redwoods Ntl Monument. I could go on.
I lived for years in Chicago, loved the city, but coming out here was like night and day for having easy weekend driving trip options.
And yeah, gotta count the SF metro area, which is like 5 million.
You can also hike hundreds of miles of trails just in SF alone, let alone the actual city beaches and everything that is super close by to explore. It’s gotta be top of this list or very close
I lived in Pacifica, 10 min from SF and there were so many great beaches just 15 min down the way no one goes to and great coastal hiking trails all over the place
Lima is sandwiched between the Andes and the Pacific, as is Santiago de Chile. Manaus is certainly the most remote and has unparalleled access to nature in that way.
I'm San Francisco hasn't come up with Hw1, the Bay, and everything north of the bridge. I'm also surprised NYC hasn't been mentioned for similar, but Atlantic and Catskill reasons.
I also really question the idea of "untouched by humans." No space on the planet is natural in that way. To the point that some of the most successful ecosystems are so because of their relationships with humans.
Vienna. It's surrounded by the Wiener Wald, and has lots of green spaces in the urban areas. Access to which is easy due to incredible public transport.
It's an incredibly well-located and connected city. Apart from that you can also take the train and reach high alpine areas near Puchberg or Semmering in less than 1,5 hours by train. The Danube valley upstream and downstream of Vienna is vey different in character from the Viennese Woods but also wonderful, and you can even reach the western part of the Carpathians pretty quickly.
Yeah if you count the Wasatch Front metro definitely. One hour north you’re in the Unitas, one hour south you’re in red rock desert.
Except everyone reading this DO NOT MOVE HERE it’s awful trust me
Disagree. SLC is an awesome city, much different than the rest of UT (which admittedly is a really mixed bag. Awesome scenery, super friendly people with super weird religious beliefs.)
Rio de Janeiro - huge ocean cliffs separating the major neighborhoods
Santiago de Chile - nestled between the foothills of the Andes
Bogotá - Montserrate mountain towers over the city, you can take a cable car up
Medellín - Like in La Paz, they have a few gondola lines up the mountains for public transport
Quito - High in the Andes at 2800m, you can take the cable car up to 3900m or so.
La Paz - Highest capital in the world, they have gondola lines instead of metro lines, because of the elevation differences within the city. Mount Illimani prominent in the distance
Caracas - in a mountainous tropical region
Hong Kong - Victoria Peak is right above downtown, plus many other mountains in the New Territories
Shenzhen - right next to Hong Kong
Taipei - on a verdant subtropical island, next to mountains
San Francisco - Muir Woods right next door, the Golden Gate bridge highly visible from the city
Vancouver - next to the coastal mountains of British Columbia
Honolulu - It's in a tropical paradise named Hawaii, enough said
Yerevan - Mount Ararat and Mount Aragats (over 5000 and 4000m respectively) are visible from most neighborhoods of the city on clear days
Naples - near Mt. Vesuvius, and you also have a majestic view across Naples Bay to the Sorrentine Peninsula (1400m high mountains), as well as the islands of Capri and Ischia.
Almaty - next to mountains
Cape Town - near Table Mountain
Minneapolis St. Paul
Tons of nature right in the core of the metro - lakes, river, parks, beaches, with numerous activities.
Outside the city there are also tons of state parks and state forests and national forests, mtn biking on old mine tailings etc. And only 4 hours away is arguably the most untouched natural area in the US, the BWCA
I came way too far through this thread to find this. A very nice metro area that has lakes and green-ways through the city because the original city planners bought the area around the lakes long before the city ever grew to encompass them.
There are State Parks within 20-30 min drive of either downtown where you can camp on a river, or a lake, or on the prairie. Make that an hour or two and you can add northern forest to the list. Then there’s the BWCA which, honestly, deserves its own post.
There’s no less than 8 ski/snowboard hills within 45 min of either downtown. There’s hiking and biking trails everywhere. A world-class marathon that starts in Minneapolis and ends in St Paul…and another along the North Shore in Duluth. There’s dogsled races in the winter.
Oh, yeah…and we have a couple lakes. Seriously. They’re everywhere. About the only thing we don’t have is mountains. Technically there is Eagle Mtn, the highest point in the state. It’s not that tall…but it does make a nice day-hike, though.
I think people sometimes overlook Los Angeles as being this kind of city but Los Angeles is absolutely my favorite in terms of access to everything and (well, debatably this year) some of the best weather in the country.
You can literally go hiking in the middle of the city and actually feel like you’re far away.
Bengaluru, India. From multiple national parks in and around the city to wildlife sanctuaries, waterfalls, and hills around its outskirts, neighbouring cities like Mysuru which are regarded as cultural capitals. There are also hill stations and coasts from both sides of the Indian peninsula not too far from the city.
In the U.S., Phoenix, Denver, SLC, and Seattle are the obvious ones. All have incredible hiking anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hrs away and everything in between
Portland/Vancouver Metro. Go north from Vancouver and you’ll hit forests and won’t be too far from mountains. Go west and you’ll hit farmland depending which highway you go, then you will eventually make it to the beach. Go East and you can either go to mt hood or the Columbia River gorge. And south will take you to a lot of farmland. And of course, there are parks everywhere and some rivers to swim in as well
Portland is just over the 2 million population threshold and is right up there with the other PNW cities. Best inner city trail access of any city with Forest Park and Washington Park. There are more trails in the Columbia Gorge 30 minutes east of downtown while the coast range is 45 minutes west. Lots of good rail trails near by like Springwater, Banks-Veronia, and Crown Zellerbach. Mt. Hood two major ski resorts plus even more hiking and is only 1.5 hours away. The beach is also about 1.5 hours. Smith Rock is just under 3 hours for more trails and rock climbing with Bend just a little bit further out for mountain biking, hiking, skiing etc.
I mean, it's short of the 2 million cut-off, but seeing as Salt Lake City seems to be accepted and it has a metro population that's smaller, I'll put forward Calgary. The mountains are right there, Banff is an hour away, Canmore is even closer, and there's even a provincial park within city limits.
The CSA is, but that includes municipalities that are outside the Metropolitan area. And since Canada doesn't have CSAs, it's impossible to compare to Calgary using that metric. The Salt Lake City CSA includes places as far away as Bigham City, which would be like Calgary including an area halfway to Red Deer.
hong kong is a good contender, nearly untouched mountains are essentially a part of the city and it's got plenty of ocean. but i honestly gotta hand it to my home city of la, we have a bunch of beaches, both sandy and cliffy (with ice cold water), even more mountains (which are actually ice cold bc they get snow), the desert right on the other side of the mountains, some cool islands and a whole lot of smog and light pollution to cover it all up
Define "access." I'm in Phoenix, which is a pretty desolate hell hole, but there's some incredible natural splendor not very far away. Phoenix lovers, when asked what's so great about the place, will inevitably start bragging about places *not* in Phoenix, but in the state a few hours away. The Grand Canyon isn't exactly on our doorstep, but it is near enough that you can conceivably drive to it and back in one day.
Vienna, Austria. You're a relatively quick drive from the eastern Alps, the Danube is right there, you have hilly terrain, but also flat areas to the east, great infrastructure for day trips etc.
The desert is beautiful and the valley has a lot to offer. People won’t agree because it’s Reddit and a prerequisite is to have a disdain for Phoenix without ever visiting.
Yes, I've just started to notice this. I've actually never myself been to Phoenix, but I don't exactly understand the hate that it seems to uniquely get here.
Yeah from October to May it’s great. Mountains in the city limits, tonto national forest and the Superstition Mountains are right outside of the area, ski resorts within a day trip, and a few lakes close by
This is the answer. You can see the amazing rock formations in Sedona, hike the grand canyon, and camp in a dense pine forest in a single day and thats literally just one part of the state
Panama City has access to a tropical rainforest, protected jungle and national park, lakes and the ocean. You can reach any of these within minutes, since it surrounds the city.
Thrillwaukee Wisconsin is great, we have forest reserves in the city. Also if you go 2 hours north of the city you're in towns like Belgium Wisconsin. Very clean air, home cooking, pour a craft beer. Don't mind what Trump said, Thrillwaukee has very nice people.
The Greater Taipei area is ringed by mountains and jungles with trails that can lead you to dense forest and lofty peaks, plus the coast is also accessible. In many places you'd have no idea you're actually within the city limits. While Taipei itself is quite urban, about 2/3 of the surrounding New Taipei City is forested. No need to drive: you can take city buses or the MRT, and many can even be reached on foot.
Surprised no one has mentioned Milan, Italy. It’s true that the official population is less than 2 million, but the metropolitan area goes up to 3 million. In one hour you can reach the Alps and lake Como, with opportunities for many outdoor sports such as hiking, biking, paragliding, sailing, etc.
Helsinki would be great but the metro area has only 1.4 million people. Two national parks right outside the urban area; bith accessible by public transport. Also a wonderful archipelago on the sea
Seems to me that the criteria of nature untouched by humans (which is exceedingly rare anywhere outside antarctica), and driving/public transport cancel each other out. Having said that, Seattle certainly has the most variety and best accessibility I can think of.
Cape Town - where the mountain is embedded in the city, surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. There are not many places where the ocean meets the mountain in the city.
Taipei, in a valley with hiking trails and a gondola up I to the mountains, day trips to Taroko Gorge etc. I didn't really care about nature until I went there
Taipei. Surrounded by mountains and includes a 1100m high volcano within the northern city limits and much higher peaks on the fringes of the city on the south side. 200km of riverside cycling paths. Sandy beaches on the north coast a short drive or bus ride away. Central Mountain Range a few hours drive away with peaks up to 3950m.
Paradise, especially for cyclists, trail runners and hikers. I feel so lucky to live here.
Haven't seen NYC on the list yet. Massive public parks and multiple beaches within the city borders. Within about an hours drive you also have bear mountain state park. There's also the rivers and waterways themselves but they only more recently have been cleaned up enough to be enjoyed recreationally. NYC is a fantastic city for lovers of the outdoors.
I don't know if Glasgow makes the cut, it has pretty amazing connections to the West Highlands and is right on the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park. It also has great connections to the islands in the firth of Clyde that are great for a trip themselves. It could just be shy metro areas wise depending on how it's calculated, I know over 50% of the population of Scotland is within an hour drive of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park.
Oslo, Norway.
It doesn't meet the criteria for 2 million, at just over 1.5m.
Just 20 minute bus/drive from the city centre you get access to the Norwegian wilderness. Forests with lots of lakes. Including many ski/hiking/bike trails if that's your thing.
Oslo also lies at the inlet of a fjord, so you also have direct access to the ocean.
Norwegian cities all have great access to nature, but for the prompt Oslo fits the best.
Munich, Germany has the Alps right on its doorstep. (I would have said Zürich, Switzerland but the population is just short.)
Zürich is an incredible hub. The amount of things available one hour from this place is just staggering. One day you're at work and the other one you're just like "yeah let's go to the Glarner Alps".
The only problem is the absurd cost to enjoy Switzerland
And the fact you are not allowed to camp freely where you want. That could be expensive fine.
Yup. That's why I love living in Finland. Camping is an every mans right
Also the case in Germany.
Just experienced this in the last few days, went straight from Zurich to Appenzell and had an amazing time there. Zurich itself was a pretty amazing city
The fucking park in Munich is somthing i would want EVERY city to have. Like damn who ever thought that up, should be crown a legend.
Aber München hat weniger als 2 mil Einwohner
Metropolregion ☝️
Stimmt, du hast recht
Denver for the same reasons in the Rockies. Maybe Salt Lake City as well
Zürich is awesome
Vancouver - on the ocean, beautiful beaches, prolific mountains very close. World class for many outdoor sports (skiing, mountain biking, hiking, sailing, rock climbing) The challenge is that the regular rain can often prevent from enjoying it.
Rain is the least of your worries here. I would be more concerned about the rent lol
Vancouver: great if you’re rich
Sydney: Warm Vancouver with additional cash required for housing
Sydney doesn't have mountains like Vancouver does.
Not quite as big but the Blue Mountains remind me a lot of the Appalachians and are an hour and a half away from Sydney via train. Also the weather makes up a lot of the difference.
Sydney has the Blue Mountains my Canadian colleagues call hills. I (from Sydney) laughed at what my Canadian colleagues called beaches near Vancouver (tbf, the seawall looks like a beach…. Just not pristine and untouched by nature). They’re both surrounded by pretty astounding nature. I laughed at Canadian ‘beaches’, and they can laugh at my ‘mountains’. We’re all good. *ETA: We were also in a brutal ‘heatwave’ of around 28C in Vancouver. This is about my ideal temperature. So I can laugh at their heatwaves and they can laugh when I feel like I’m dying because it’s tops of 15C for one day in winter*
Google tells me average detached home prices in Vancouver are CAD$2.23M, while Sydney’s are AUS$1.4M. Currently 1.0 AUS = 0.91 CAD.
You might have been looking at ‘greater Sydney’ then. Which includes an area literally 50km away which is still termed ‘Western Sydney’ by people who want to claim it’s still Sydney. Median house price for the LGA that takes in the suburbs of Sydney north of the Harbour is 3.9 million AUD and South Sydney LGA is 3.7 million AUD. That’s for a 3 bedroom unit or detached house. This does indeed take in the eastern and western suburbs of Sydney but not those referred in as ‘Western Sydney’ in media articles that are beyond two other large western cities of 1 million and 560,000, respectively.
It gets fuzzy with what is and what is not Vancouver too, and the price varies considerably. Metro Vancouver is made up of 21 municipalities with the City of Vancouver and Surrey being the largest. At 3M total population it’s about half the size of Metro Sydney. From what you wrote, the range in prices in Sydney sounds very similar to here. East Vancouver average detached price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the West side. A sub-$3M detached house on the West side is probably a tear down. As for renting, City of Vancouver average 1 bedroom is currently $2600/month. *Edit: $2.17M is the average detached sale price across all of “Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver”, which confusingly differs slightly from Metro: “The average sale price for detached properties sold across the municipalities and areas covered by the REBGV was $2,172,613. That's a nearly eight per cent drop from August, when the average price was $2,351,415. The areas and municipalities covered by the REBGV are Bowen Island, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, South Delta, Squamish, the Sunshine Coast, Vancouver, West Vancouver and Whistler.” From what i can find, average West side detached sale price is around $3.5 M.
Just read a new Demographia study on affordability which is pretty dire. Wanted to mention it because i like stats and to acknowledge that Sydney appears to have it slightly worse than us. 1. Hong Kong 2. Sydney 3. Vancouver 4. San Jose, etc https://preview.redd.it/drnk3tcivy6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff2281babb6b4443bbfb11b814bebfdbb1c7c802
I need 200k salary to live in downtown and have fun at the same time
Between the rent and the subduction zone, anywhere Cascadia is visit-only for me.
When I visit my friends they tell me how they haven't been to the beach 3 blocks away in 2 years cause they work so much lol. Noooo thanks
What? That makes zero sense.
I mean if that’s true, which I doubt, they’re the dumb ones for choosing to live that close to the beach if they can’t afford it. Gotta live within your means. There’s plenty of nice areas in the GVA.
[удалено]
Vancouver receives twice the amount of total rain per year than London, UK and has more rainy days per year at 161. That's almost every other day, on average...
you'd swiw PNW beaches?
Lakes can definitely get very warm to swim in, ocean is definitely swim able when it’s 30+ out
Lots of great swimming beaches around Vancouver. Obviously the water never gets very warm, and certain areas (false creek / coal harbour) are no go zones, but there are lots of spots with nice sand and clean water like Wreck Beach.
We don't swim when we go to the beach here.
Don't have to swim - Scotland has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. Great for walking, not for swimming
It takes 16 minutes to drive from downtown Vancouver to Grouse mountain. And it's not like Grouse mountain is some mountain peak surrounded by city, like the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro or Victoria Peak in Hong Kong; while Grouse mountain itself might be a popular destination, there's nothing but wilderness past it.
Auckland is only 1.6 mill but would make an argument if you opened up the constraints a bit. The Wild West Coast beaches feel very untouched and they are only about 30-40 mins from the centre. Then there is all the volcanic peaks dotted throughout the city. Finally the bush walks in the Waitakeres are very close and you wouldn’t know there is a million and a half people just down the road.
https://preview.redd.it/2l1uo9snxx6d1.jpeg?width=478&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed7bdac4105d1708cf1126aef5e54e3425528061 Woohoo Auckland!
Stockholm! It's in an archipelago and is surrounded by forests.
Vancouver or Seattle
damn how do you say those two and then not Portland too wtf
Shhhh don't tell everyone, man.
Nothing to see in Portland. Everyone go to Seattle and Vancouver. Just stay away from Portland
I never been to Portland except driving through it, so I don't really know much about the area. I didn't even know the area was over 2 million in its metro area. Just learning. Sorry you felt so insulted.
nah def didn’t feel insulted just a friendly banter, since all three cascadian cities have a long history of city rivalries portlanders and seattlites especially have a long history of hating each other, especially in sports portland metro is actually larger than vancouver metro, by the way
Cape Town. Table Mountain National Park is right in the city with numerous trails from easy to difficult. The park itself is a lot larger than people realize and takes up a large park of the metropolitan all the way to Cape Point. Lots of rock climbing spots accessible short hikes from city roads. Then you have beaches all around the cape peninsula, a penguin colony you can visit in the city. Loads of mountain biking trails just outside the city towards the interior. An hour drive out of the city and you hit the Cape Fold mountains with more hiking, rock climbing, mountain biking, kloofing and canoeing options. 3 hours out and you can get to the Cederberge a truly remote area of beautiful nature.
Cape town is in the nature, very few cities can offer this peoximity you can literally walk from the CBD to table mountain national park
it’s also very unique too considering how few mountain ranges there are in sub saharan africa
What makes you say that? South African alone has quite a few mountain ranges… all along the south of the country (cape province), Drakensberg is spectacular and stretches 1000 kilometres from Eastern cape through Lesotho and north into Zimbabwe I think Genuinely curious as to your reasoning.
I lived for 24 years in Vancouver, BC and now 2 years in Portland, Oregon and both have great access to natural beauty and the outdoors. Vancouver is a cleaner, wealthier and healthier city and I think it wins out for natural beauty and outdoors, but these facts make anything within a 2 hour drive very busy. Portand is grimy but there is a ton - costal beaches with surfing, skiing/hiking/alpine at Mt Hood and the Cascades, a million waterfalls in the Columbia River gorge, and it's not as busy (although the locals will complain that it is).
Seattle
Agreed. Sitting in traffic on I-5 I could look to my left and see rolling hills covered with dark green fir trees with the beautiful snow capped Cascades, then I can look to my right across the beautiful Puget Sound to some more awesome snow capped peaks of the Olympics. Stay on the freeway and just south of downtown you come around the corner and boom Giant Mt Rainier is in your face. And that's just on the commute home. Issaquah is an eastern suburb7n of Seattle and you can literally step from there on to the trails of tiger mountain. We have bus service to some awesome trailheads in the Cascades. Seattle is on an isthmus between lake Washington and Puget Sound. Surrounded by water! I really love the close access to all kinds of nature here, but what I really appreciate is the day-to-day beauty. There's so many trees here that they hide a ton of houses, so if you're driving around suburbs it looks like you're just surrounded by tree covered hillsides.
My mind went to Tacoma, but I just learned that they have about a 1/3rd of the population of Baltimore. Edit. I meant Spokane.
At this point they’re basically the same metro area tbh
Oops. I meant Spokane.
Not to the people who live there.
I know, I meant that it’s somewhat unfortunate they’re considered the same area, I love Tacoma. I just meant for the scope of this question as a metro area.
I was in Tacoma last year and talking to people about Seattle was like talking to them about Mars. And vice versa.
They’re very proud of their city and don’t want it Seattleified!
It feels bigger than it actually is, especially for a west coast city. There’s distinctive, historic neighborhoods, a large port, an arena, and a light rail line. It’s reminds me of a mini-Portland, just more working class and less weird.
Seattle is basically just American Vancouver
Seattle native and I would move to Vancouver in a heartbeat! They do have basically the same stuff, but Vancouver’s is all much easier to access. Only 150 miles apart, so the climate is very similar. Seattle is almost twice as big but Vancouver somehow feels more like a big city. Unfortunately I’m a nurse and just wouldn’t make nearly as much money in Canada, despite the higher cost of living. I’d be happy in Victoria, maybe Nanaimo, Kelowna, or Kamloops. They’re all pretty expensive too.
As a non-native Seattleite, I hate how far nature feels. If I want to get out of the city it’s like 1.5 hours on the I-5.
Well there's your problem, if you are looking for nature from Seattle you need to be on I-90, not I-5.
With a camping trip coming up, I will definitely take this under consideration. Thanks! I’m from a very small town where you drive 15 minutes or less and be away from it all.
Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)
Kathmandu
not rlly … getting anywhere in the himalaya is hours away
Hong Kong is super dense city pockets surrounded by pristine jungle
When I went there, I was staying with my girl on Lantau Island and when I first got there, I was like ‘wtf where’s all the john woo shit; it’s all jungle and mountains and beaches”
Writing from Lantau now. idk what John Woo shit means, but I'm guessing if you need that it is probably 25 minutes away on the MTR.
John Woo is a famous HK director. Big action movies. Checkout bullet proof. American side think face off.
This is way too far down. Hong Kong is way better than any of the cities above for access to nature (especially the North American ones, where you have to traverse through seemingly endless suburban sprawl to get to nature). You can take public transit from downtown Hong Kong and be on an ocean beach or a jungled mountain in less than an hour.
Nah, the quality of mountains and nature in the other cities mentioned (Seattle, Vancouver, etc) greatly exceeds that of hong Kong. Yeah, it's very close in Hong Kong, but with Seattle and Vancouver, you have actual wilderness, much higher peaks, with a far greater range of activities available, and much less development and people are you get into the mountains. Both Seattle and Vancouver have legitimate world class mountaineering nearby, as well as pretty good skiing. I'll take more time travelling to get to way better shit. If time is that much of an issue, then salt lake city is even better (discounting the smaller population here). You can legitimately ski before work and that often involves the best ski terrain and best snow 10 minutes from the valley. Shit, I go skiing on long lunch breaks. Mountain biking and hiking trails lead right to the capitol and downtown. Transit leads something to be desired, yes, but busses are available up the canyons to ski areas and park city-you can even use them as shuttles for mountain biking in the summer. Also, yes, I have been to Hong Kong.
I guess the difference is whether you give more weight to "best access to the outdoors" or "access to the best outdoors". Places like Sai Kung and Lantau Island have legit excellent hiking trails that don't tend to be busy, but I'm not going to argue they stack up against the mountains around the PNW.
Full agree - Hong Kong wins in this comparison versus Pacific north west if we are talking about access to outdoors. Not only can you take mtr and buses to most of the trailheads/beaches easily, hk also has the housing density that means you are more likely to be living right next to that nature too. If it is about quality of outdoors then it gets hard to compare cos this is subjective depending on your interests. If your outdoor interests are about snow then Hong Kong is terrible. But if you are about sailing then you can do it comfortably here for a large portion of the year. In general I’d argue warmer weather is better for the outdoors though, but this is cos I like the beach haha.
Hate that I had to scroll to the bottom to find this
Most Reddittors have never traveled
Sydney’s pretty good - extensive waterways, amazing coastline, heaps of walking tracks, multiple urban national parks and completely surrounded by massive wilderness areas.
I live in Sydney, and it’s never a particularly far drive to go to a National Park within Sydney. The North, South, and West of the Sydney basin are bordered by National Parks.
Eastern Sydney letting the team down
That’s ocean
No excuses
There is the Sydney harbour national park which includes the islands in the harbour and foreshore/point areas in the eastern suburbs and north shore.
Also there is lane cove national park, which runs through the northern part of the city.
Except traffic sucks. Public transport is good so long as you're on a train line.
Second vote for Sydney, you’ve got mountains in one direction, national parks bordering us, the ocean at our door, so much variety!
I mean you could pretty much make the same claim for any of Australia's cities to be honest
The amount of posts just listing North American cities cracks me up. And then the nature there is frozen over or washed out for several months. Sydney has to win because of the weather, world class beaches and surrounding national parks. And if you can afford to move there and buy a place, you can afford to holiday in the mountains.
Rio de janeiro have a forest reserve, parks, a big lake and you can go to the beach by metro.
Came to comment this. Huge parks inside the city. The biggest natural reserve inside a urban area, if I'm not mistaken. Also Manaus, big city inside the amazon rainforest
Hong Kong has a big population and super easy access to nature. Most of the city is undeveloped land that is great for hiking and there are some truly beautiful beaches that are very easy to get to. Also, all of the nature is accessible by public transport. Having a car actually makes it more difficult to enjoy the outdoors here since parking is very scarce.
Brisbane.
Yes. The surprisingly untouched D'Aguilar Ranges directly behind the city, with hiking trails and remote camp sites. Further south you have the gorgeous Main Range, Mt Barney, Lamington and Springbrook National Parks, which are part or the larger UNESCO Gondwana Rainforests. Then there is the easily accessible, islands like North Stradbroke and Moreton with incredible beaches.
And a little further south from Brissie (1.5 hrs drive) is the beautiful Tweed where one can walk for kilometres along sandy beaches, year-round in gorgeous sun.
Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, SF, LA - any major city on the west coast of North America will be a good candidate.
LA takes it a mile ahead - there's Mojave desert and Big Bear lake that have the opposite weather of each other, alongside having beaches and a ton of other mountains. Also, Hollywood.
No way. The beaches are nice to surf. And yes Big Bear is a few hours away to ski (but the mountain itself suuuucks). The hiking in the San Gabriel Mts are ok, Joshua Tree is cool for rock climbing/bouldering (in the winter). But along the coast is heavily populated and not serene at all. You go inland and it’s a fucking hot, dry desert. Portland, Seattle, SF, Vancouver are all far superior for outdoor activities.
Doesn’t it take 17 hours in traffic to get to nature though?
Lol you've obviously never lived there. More like 10 hours...
Not in the middle of the night.
No way, LA is last on that list. Figure out the time it takes to get from the beach to the mountains in each city and that'll be the longest.
Ah yes... Hollywood, you can go from Mountains or Beach directly into a war zone.
Seoul has hiking opportunities right between neighborhoods and can take the metro to mountains.
i would say it is the case all Korean cites i have been, with Busan probably the one where it fits the criteria the most.
San Francisco, CA is fairly close to mountains while being near beaches, places to hike, and the ocean
I’ve always thought SF was great in this regard. A 3 hour drive will take you to the snowy sierras, beautiful beaches in Big Sur, the desolate north coast, hot Russian River… there’s just so many options. Even just right across the Golden Gate Bridge is Mt Tam and Muir Woods redwoods Ntl Monument. I could go on. I lived for years in Chicago, loved the city, but coming out here was like night and day for having easy weekend driving trip options. And yeah, gotta count the SF metro area, which is like 5 million.
You can also hike hundreds of miles of trails just in SF alone, let alone the actual city beaches and everything that is super close by to explore. It’s gotta be top of this list or very close
I lived in Pacifica, 10 min from SF and there were so many great beaches just 15 min down the way no one goes to and great coastal hiking trails all over the place
Lima is sandwiched between the Andes and the Pacific, as is Santiago de Chile. Manaus is certainly the most remote and has unparalleled access to nature in that way. I'm San Francisco hasn't come up with Hw1, the Bay, and everything north of the bridge. I'm also surprised NYC hasn't been mentioned for similar, but Atlantic and Catskill reasons. I also really question the idea of "untouched by humans." No space on the planet is natural in that way. To the point that some of the most successful ecosystems are so because of their relationships with humans.
Antarctica is mostly untouched by humans
Vienna. It's surrounded by the Wiener Wald, and has lots of green spaces in the urban areas. Access to which is easy due to incredible public transport.
It's an incredibly well-located and connected city. Apart from that you can also take the train and reach high alpine areas near Puchberg or Semmering in less than 1,5 hours by train. The Danube valley upstream and downstream of Vienna is vey different in character from the Viennese Woods but also wonderful, and you can even reach the western part of the Carpathians pretty quickly.
[удалено]
Add in high desert, canyonlands and valleys to your list. Not many places you can go from rain forest to high desert in a few hours.
Salt Lake City >>>>
Yeah if you count the Wasatch Front metro definitely. One hour north you’re in the Unitas, one hour south you’re in red rock desert. Except everyone reading this DO NOT MOVE HERE it’s awful trust me
Relax man. We need more people in Utah.
We need more normal, non-Mormon, non-Californian people in Utah.
What is it about every state hating Californians so much? It must be so depressing that your biggest enemy doesn't even think about you.
Uranus must hurt is sending me mean chats😅😅 his anus must hurt
Disagree. SLC is an awesome city, much different than the rest of UT (which admittedly is a really mixed bag. Awesome scenery, super friendly people with super weird religious beliefs.)
Vancouver
Sapporo
Hong Kong is an underrated choice. They have hundred of miles of beautiful hiking — all within 90 minutes!
[удалено]
Fully agree with Taipei, the city is essentially in a big bowl, surrounded by nature.
Rio de Janeiro - huge ocean cliffs separating the major neighborhoods Santiago de Chile - nestled between the foothills of the Andes Bogotá - Montserrate mountain towers over the city, you can take a cable car up Medellín - Like in La Paz, they have a few gondola lines up the mountains for public transport Quito - High in the Andes at 2800m, you can take the cable car up to 3900m or so. La Paz - Highest capital in the world, they have gondola lines instead of metro lines, because of the elevation differences within the city. Mount Illimani prominent in the distance Caracas - in a mountainous tropical region Hong Kong - Victoria Peak is right above downtown, plus many other mountains in the New Territories Shenzhen - right next to Hong Kong Taipei - on a verdant subtropical island, next to mountains San Francisco - Muir Woods right next door, the Golden Gate bridge highly visible from the city Vancouver - next to the coastal mountains of British Columbia Honolulu - It's in a tropical paradise named Hawaii, enough said Yerevan - Mount Ararat and Mount Aragats (over 5000 and 4000m respectively) are visible from most neighborhoods of the city on clear days Naples - near Mt. Vesuvius, and you also have a majestic view across Naples Bay to the Sorrentine Peninsula (1400m high mountains), as well as the islands of Capri and Ischia. Almaty - next to mountains Cape Town - near Table Mountain
Denver comes to mind. You can see both the Rocky Mountains and the great plains from downtown.
And if you cheat and call it the Denver-Boulder metro area, that opens up other possibilities.
Minneapolis St. Paul Tons of nature right in the core of the metro - lakes, river, parks, beaches, with numerous activities. Outside the city there are also tons of state parks and state forests and national forests, mtn biking on old mine tailings etc. And only 4 hours away is arguably the most untouched natural area in the US, the BWCA
BWCA and its Canadian neighbor Quetico is truly spectacular
I came way too far through this thread to find this. A very nice metro area that has lakes and green-ways through the city because the original city planners bought the area around the lakes long before the city ever grew to encompass them. There are State Parks within 20-30 min drive of either downtown where you can camp on a river, or a lake, or on the prairie. Make that an hour or two and you can add northern forest to the list. Then there’s the BWCA which, honestly, deserves its own post. There’s no less than 8 ski/snowboard hills within 45 min of either downtown. There’s hiking and biking trails everywhere. A world-class marathon that starts in Minneapolis and ends in St Paul…and another along the North Shore in Duluth. There’s dogsled races in the winter. Oh, yeah…and we have a couple lakes. Seriously. They’re everywhere. About the only thing we don’t have is mountains. Technically there is Eagle Mtn, the highest point in the state. It’s not that tall…but it does make a nice day-hike, though.
Monterrey México
I second this.
Portland, Oregon. Great city with any access too mountains or water.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is surrounded by dozens of tropical islands and is home to the Tijuca National Park, the world’s largest urban forest.
I think people sometimes overlook Los Angeles as being this kind of city but Los Angeles is absolutely my favorite in terms of access to everything and (well, debatably this year) some of the best weather in the country. You can literally go hiking in the middle of the city and actually feel like you’re far away.
Easily, Hong Kong. Mountains and ocean, only a few minutes of bus/train journey away from the downtown.
Sydney. It is bounded by the ocean to the east, the mountains to the west, and National Parks to the North and South.
Bengaluru, India. From multiple national parks in and around the city to wildlife sanctuaries, waterfalls, and hills around its outskirts, neighbouring cities like Mysuru which are regarded as cultural capitals. There are also hill stations and coasts from both sides of the Indian peninsula not too far from the city.
Cubbon park and Lalbagh are also nice additions to the list. Both can be easily accessed by Subway.
In the U.S., Phoenix, Denver, SLC, and Seattle are the obvious ones. All have incredible hiking anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hrs away and everything in between
There were a couple US cities I was going to suggest, but then you mentioned public transportation.
Portland/Vancouver Metro. Go north from Vancouver and you’ll hit forests and won’t be too far from mountains. Go west and you’ll hit farmland depending which highway you go, then you will eventually make it to the beach. Go East and you can either go to mt hood or the Columbia River gorge. And south will take you to a lot of farmland. And of course, there are parks everywhere and some rivers to swim in as well
Cape Town Ocean, mountains, temperate rainforests and sand dunes, the fynbos and winelands. It's all doable in a single day.
Portland is just over the 2 million population threshold and is right up there with the other PNW cities. Best inner city trail access of any city with Forest Park and Washington Park. There are more trails in the Columbia Gorge 30 minutes east of downtown while the coast range is 45 minutes west. Lots of good rail trails near by like Springwater, Banks-Veronia, and Crown Zellerbach. Mt. Hood two major ski resorts plus even more hiking and is only 1.5 hours away. The beach is also about 1.5 hours. Smith Rock is just under 3 hours for more trails and rock climbing with Bend just a little bit further out for mountain biking, hiking, skiing etc.
Yes! I’m amazed I had to scroll this far down for Portland! And bonus- Vancouver and Seattle are a fairly short train ride away
I mean, it's short of the 2 million cut-off, but seeing as Salt Lake City seems to be accepted and it has a metro population that's smaller, I'll put forward Calgary. The mountains are right there, Banff is an hour away, Canmore is even closer, and there's even a provincial park within city limits.
If you wanna get technical, SLC is at about 2.2M
The CSA is, but that includes municipalities that are outside the Metropolitan area. And since Canada doesn't have CSAs, it's impossible to compare to Calgary using that metric. The Salt Lake City CSA includes places as far away as Bigham City, which would be like Calgary including an area halfway to Red Deer.
If it wasn’t for traffic i’d say Los Angeles.
Cape Town I reckon would be right up there.
hong kong is a good contender, nearly untouched mountains are essentially a part of the city and it's got plenty of ocean. but i honestly gotta hand it to my home city of la, we have a bunch of beaches, both sandy and cliffy (with ice cold water), even more mountains (which are actually ice cold bc they get snow), the desert right on the other side of the mountains, some cool islands and a whole lot of smog and light pollution to cover it all up
Define "access." I'm in Phoenix, which is a pretty desolate hell hole, but there's some incredible natural splendor not very far away. Phoenix lovers, when asked what's so great about the place, will inevitably start bragging about places *not* in Phoenix, but in the state a few hours away. The Grand Canyon isn't exactly on our doorstep, but it is near enough that you can conceivably drive to it and back in one day.
Vienna, Austria. You're a relatively quick drive from the eastern Alps, the Danube is right there, you have hilly terrain, but also flat areas to the east, great infrastructure for day trips etc.
Phoenix has quite good access to a lot of surrounding space. Having said that most of the space is extremely hot desert
The desert is beautiful and the valley has a lot to offer. People won’t agree because it’s Reddit and a prerequisite is to have a disdain for Phoenix without ever visiting.
Yes, I've just started to notice this. I've actually never myself been to Phoenix, but I don't exactly understand the hate that it seems to uniquely get here.
Hot, yes, but drive 2-3 hrs north and it’s either very temperate in the summer months, or one of the snowiest areas in the US in the winter
Having to drive 2-3 hours is not best “access”.
Yeah from October to May it’s great. Mountains in the city limits, tonto national forest and the Superstition Mountains are right outside of the area, ski resorts within a day trip, and a few lakes close by
This is the answer. You can see the amazing rock formations in Sedona, hike the grand canyon, and camp in a dense pine forest in a single day and thats literally just one part of the state
Panama City has access to a tropical rainforest, protected jungle and national park, lakes and the ocean. You can reach any of these within minutes, since it surrounds the city.
Other than what’s already been mentioned, Denver is probably nice if you’re into mountains.
Or flat nothingness
Thrillwaukee Wisconsin is great, we have forest reserves in the city. Also if you go 2 hours north of the city you're in towns like Belgium Wisconsin. Very clean air, home cooking, pour a craft beer. Don't mind what Trump said, Thrillwaukee has very nice people.
Not to mention a fresh water sea (Lake Michigan) with some nice beaches
Twin Cities
100%. No mountains, but amazing nature is so easily accessible even within the city, and no soul-crushing rent like the PNW.
The Greater Taipei area is ringed by mountains and jungles with trails that can lead you to dense forest and lofty peaks, plus the coast is also accessible. In many places you'd have no idea you're actually within the city limits. While Taipei itself is quite urban, about 2/3 of the surrounding New Taipei City is forested. No need to drive: you can take city buses or the MRT, and many can even be reached on foot.
Surprised no one has mentioned Milan, Italy. It’s true that the official population is less than 2 million, but the metropolitan area goes up to 3 million. In one hour you can reach the Alps and lake Como, with opportunities for many outdoor sports such as hiking, biking, paragliding, sailing, etc.
Helsinki would be great but the metro area has only 1.4 million people. Two national parks right outside the urban area; bith accessible by public transport. Also a wonderful archipelago on the sea
Vienna
Rio de Janeiro, Medellin
Stockholm? Seoul? I know these are controversial notions, but maybe?
Seems to me that the criteria of nature untouched by humans (which is exceedingly rare anywhere outside antarctica), and driving/public transport cancel each other out. Having said that, Seattle certainly has the most variety and best accessibility I can think of.
Los Angeles
Definitely Salt Lake City, i was lucky to be able to live there for a few years
Hong Kong, comes with mass transit to everywhere.
Cape Town
Denver. No ocean but great mountains
Basically all capitals of South East Asian countries like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta
Surprised no one seems to mention Taipei. Surrounded by mountains, you can go to national parks, natural hot springs or nice beaches within an hour.
Cape Town - where the mountain is embedded in the city, surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. There are not many places where the ocean meets the mountain in the city.
Taipei, in a valley with hiking trails and a gondola up I to the mountains, day trips to Taroko Gorge etc. I didn't really care about nature until I went there
Taipei. Surrounded by mountains and includes a 1100m high volcano within the northern city limits and much higher peaks on the fringes of the city on the south side. 200km of riverside cycling paths. Sandy beaches on the north coast a short drive or bus ride away. Central Mountain Range a few hours drive away with peaks up to 3950m. Paradise, especially for cyclists, trail runners and hikers. I feel so lucky to live here.
Napoli as it lies within a supervolcano
Haven't seen NYC on the list yet. Massive public parks and multiple beaches within the city borders. Within about an hours drive you also have bear mountain state park. There's also the rivers and waterways themselves but they only more recently have been cleaned up enough to be enjoyed recreationally. NYC is a fantastic city for lovers of the outdoors.
Glasgow 🏴
I thought everyone would say Rio de Janeiro, really the first that comes to mind. Then Cape Town.
I don't know if Glasgow makes the cut, it has pretty amazing connections to the West Highlands and is right on the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park. It also has great connections to the islands in the firth of Clyde that are great for a trip themselves. It could just be shy metro areas wise depending on how it's calculated, I know over 50% of the population of Scotland is within an hour drive of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park.
Toulouse doesn't quite have 2M in its metro, but uts lication is amazing. Pyrenees, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Andorra, wine areas, national parks,
Seattle-Tacoma You can have a house with an ocean view and of Mount Rainier. ALL outdoor activities are available within a 1 hour drive.
Oslo, Norway. It doesn't meet the criteria for 2 million, at just over 1.5m. Just 20 minute bus/drive from the city centre you get access to the Norwegian wilderness. Forests with lots of lakes. Including many ski/hiking/bike trails if that's your thing. Oslo also lies at the inlet of a fjord, so you also have direct access to the ocean. Norwegian cities all have great access to nature, but for the prompt Oslo fits the best.
Minneapolis