HikeArizona.COM

An interesting topic came up last night while I was talking to a friend. Which city do you think is a better place for a hiking-minded person to live- Phoenix, or Tucson? Why?

I'll post my own answer, but I'm curious to see what others have to say first.

Lizard

Interesting question Lizard

Phoenix – centrally located to just about anything the state has to offer, but maybe more of a drive

Tucson- surrounded with quick access options, but in my mind the options aren’t as unique.

For me it’s Phoenix hands down. Caffeine is no match to the Superstiton Wilderness.

I would think a backpacker would pick Tucson hands down. All those points NE, W & SE of Tucson give it an edge…

Phoenix. More trails. More variety. Closer to other destinations--especially those with flowing water.

J&S

montezumawell wrote:Duh?...
...If you don't like or don't agree with this viewpoint, then "bring it on."

the ol' "gentle touch"

Phoenix. More choices and easier to get out of town.

I didn't like Tucson until about 10 years ago. I like the laid back attitude down there and I LOVE that you can go from cactus to pines, firs, and aspens in approx 45 minutes . But I am not one for the desert so I'd have to say Phoenix. I do 98% of my hiking and all backpacking as far away from the desert as possible. How about throwing Flagstaff in as a third option?

ahh that brings up yet another big question Cindy!

Where is THE best central location period.

Flag is tough to beat with the Grand Canyon nearby

sorry for getting off topic Lizard

Cindy Coons wrote: How about throwing Flagstaff in as a third option?

How about Sedona? It's arguably the best day hiking community in the Southwest.
People actually pick up and pack up and sell out of the Midwest just to move to Sedona to go hiking everyday.

Truth.

j

Haven't had the oppurtunity to do anything in Tucson yet, closest was Picacho Peak. But Phoenix is great, there are so many different hikes to do.

My answer is this:

For quick escapes (under 1/2 hour drive), Tucson is better. Many of the quick escapes around Phoenix are urban trails with lots of people. The areas around Tucson are real wilderness, and if you avoid Sabino Canyon you generally won't have to deal with too many people. Its also possible to be up in cool pine forest in a very short time.

For one day hikes (any distance), Phoenix is better, as it is more central and allows access to more varied areas like Sedona and the Mollogon Rim.

I didn't really consider backpacking since for a backpacking trip I'm generally willing to drive anywhere.

montezumawell wrote: How about Sedona? It's arguably the best day hiking community in the Southwest.

Flagstaff and Sedona are so close that I would lump them into the same catigory. It would only take me 40 minutes to get to Sedona from flagstaff and maybe an hour to get to my hiking destination. Where I am at here in Phoenix it takes me 20 to 60 minutes to get to a good hiking destination. The travel time is the same. I would have to say that Sedona/Flagstaff is the best area around. I have not been to Tucson to do any hiking so I would not know and cannot vote for one or the other.

I would pick Payson. North, South, East, or West there is something close. But between the two, I would say Phoenix. Why? Because it's closer to Payson

Phoenix is by far the better of the two for winter hiking - however I head to Prescott for the best summer hiking (big variety - little crowds)

When you say “centrally located” what do you mean? Are you referring to geographically or as a jumping off point to other locations? Yes, Phoenix is centrally located but Tucson has easy access to mountains, pine trees, snow, etc. I live in Phoenix but I love hiking the Santa Catalina’s, Rincons and other mountains. How many mountains above 7,000 feet are with in a 1-hour drive? I count 32. Phoenix does have more lakes nearby than does Tucson but I can’t walk on water (don’t tell anyone). I have to vote for Tucson.

Years ago I would have agreed with Payson. I love to fish and it is closer to the Rim Lakes and to the White Mtns. There is so much to explore. I also thought , being the mom I am ( I have 7 children) it would be the ideal place to raise my children, i.e., small town atmoshpere, better values (okay, I was naive ), close knit community. I have since changed my mind. Other than leaving the state I think Flag has the best of it all.

Of course my perspective is biased because I have been a Tucson native my entire life, but I would think Tucson to be much more advantageous to a hiker (depending on what is important to one in terms of hiking opportunities). I have been to Phoenix many times, hiked Camelback Mountain and seen parts of the Superstitions, and quite honestly, I was not impressed. Firstly, there are no true forests for at least a 30 mile radius. A relatively short drive from anywhere in Tucson will take you to high-elevation mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests, or, one can hike to 9,157-ft. Mount Lemmon in less than a day's time. It is also nice to have the option of a nearby summertime escape, rather than being forced to pack up the car and drive for at least an hour to find shelter from the brain-frying heat. Lastly, Tucson is surrounded by mountain ranges in all directions, and they all have their own distinct qualities, so one has a more diverse array of flora and fauna to observe.

I have also taken the opportunity to do some urban hiking in Tucson, which I think is much more exciting than walking around the asphalt jungle of metro Phoenix. A jaunt down the Rillito River on the north side of the city provides excellent views of the mountain ranges, and an interesting observation of the desert-urban interface. The more intellectual of urban hikers in Tucson will find such a trip to be a sufficient indicator of the city's sprawl, and how the growth of the urban infrastructure is affecting the natural properties of the desert.

Phoenix certainly has its share of hiking opportunities, but in sum, I see Tucson as being the more diverse of the two in terms of natural areas.

How about throwing Flagstaff in as a third option?

Hey......Prescott has a lot to offer also!! ok....so I'm just a tad bit biased :roll:

hoppy47m wrote:

How about throwing Flagstaff in as a third option?

Hey......Prescott has a lot to offer also!! ok....so I'm just a tad bit biased :roll:

I have recently contemplated the hiking opportunities near Prescott. I have yet to actually make the trip up there from Tucson, but it seems like nice country.

In regards to Flagstaff as a third option, I agree. I look forward to exploring the San Francisco Peaks this summer. I have been to Flagstaff a handful of times, and always loved the area.

The country inbetween Flagstaff and Prescott has a LOT to offer......been hiking it for over 30 years an and I haven't come close to seeing all the neat stuff........