Everyone is aware of Eugene and Boulder and Flagstaff or even Boston, which are all college towns. What city in the USA which does not have a major college running program in town is a good running area? Please don't give me suburbs of any of the above cities.
Boulder, Eugene and Flag are all based largely around their universities but Boston is not really a "college town" any large city is going to have a university in it, and most towns listed are probably going to have a university or college located in them also. But in saying that I'll throw one out there-Sturgis SD, lots of good logging roads to run on, and it's only busy one week a year.
Colleges Towns Run Our Sport wrote:
Everyone is aware of Eugene and Boulder and Flagstaff or even Boston, which are all college towns. What city in the USA which does not have a major college running program in town is a good running area? Please don't give me suburbs of any of the above cities.
ROCHESTER HILLS MICHIGAN
GRAND RAPIDS
-has GVSU, Aquinas, Cornerstone and Calvin. But no Big Ten, SEC type universities.
Bellingham, WA
Although it does have a college, WWU is D2. Most people in bellingham would agree that running is good here because of the best system of trails in the lower 48 states, not because of the college. A wet temperate climate and a hippie outdoorsy culture also make bham a good running town.
Mammoth Lakes, California
Obviously San Francisco.
Palo Alto, CA
Though it has Stanford and a major college program it doesn't really have a college town atmosphere and is often overlooked when discussing Eugene, Boulder...You'll hit like 10 different parks(open space preserves) within a 15 minute drive.
Reno, Nevada has several mountain trails from 5,000 to over 10,000 feet elevation all within 15 mins driving time. Great area to get outdoors.
San Francisco is the best city in the US for a number of reasons, but running is not one of them.
Anyway, what about Bend? Plus, there's got to be some good places in Utah.
Colorado Springs
We have colleges, but it is not a college town as I think of one.
No, it's a military and bible-thumper bigot town, which is even better.
I agree with the people who said Reno NV and Bellingham WA. Both have great trails. Reno has altitude, but B'ham has a better year round climate. I have trained and lived for several years in both locations.
The only other town that I'm familiar with that isn't on the list is Arcata CA. It also has great trails, beaches and dunes, and the temperature basically never gets out of the 50-70 F range.
Colorado Springs.....I would give it to them hands down. So many trails, a great # of parks, TONS of road and trail races throughout the year (every weekend). The only downside is the snow, and people still find a way to train through the few days that it gets dumped on. The altitude benefit provides yet another plus.
I no longer live there, but would still have to give it to the city hands down.
count chocula wrote:
Reno, Nevada has several mountain trails from 5,000 to over 10,000 feet elevation all within 15 mins driving time. Great area to get outdoors.
My impression of Reno was always dumpy-casino-city-with-an-airport, but maybe i'll have to give it a shot.
south bend indiana
I don't know if it's the best, but Colorado Springs is worth another mention.
How do places like Boston, Palo Alto, and South Bend end up on a list of "NON college running towns"?
(By the way, I don't how anyone could put Boston on the list. I spent seven years in Cambridge, and also ran on the Boston side of the Charles a lot. I don't recall ever finding a decent trail there. Just pavement and concrete.)
Well it does take a few brain cells to realize that there's a dirt path next to the asphalt for practically the entire length of the Charles, for a good part of Fresh Pond, for a good stretch of the Minuteman Bikeway, for much of the emerald necklace, and that there are plenty of dirt or gravel trails in Arnold Arboretum, around Jamaica Pond, around the Brookline Reservoir and Franklin Park.
But I guess not everyone can cut it in Boston.
I think it's also reasonable not to consider Boston a college town. I lived there as a student and as a professional. Frankly, the city is a lot more geared towards its working population than its students. On the other hand, it's fair to say that much of the working population depends on the universities in some way (especially the hospitals)
Even though I spent almost all of my time on the smart side of the Charles, I ran on the Boston side enough to know that the opportunities for high-quality, high-mileage training on soft paths were extremely limited. And I did run everywhere you mentioned. The Boston area simply does not come close to a place like Colorado Springs for good training. Obviously, many of the best distance runners in the country used to train in the Boston area, but that wasn't because Boston is particularly conducive to good training.
The statement that Boston is not a college town is a joke. Literally. Here's an exchange from Rob Reiner's great mockumentary "This is Spinal Tap":
--The Boston gig has been cancelled.
--What?
--Yeah. I wouldn't worry about it though. It's not a big college town.
That was supposed to be FUNNY. I know I laughed. Perhaps you wouldn't have.
Between the Presidio, Golden Gate Park, and having the Marin Headlands a short jog, bike, or drive over the GG Bridge, San Francisco easily beats any other city (not town) for running, as for nearly everything else.