Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=koookooo;16771173]Yes, i know what ur thinking. "these two cities arent even compareable." But i'm going to disagree with that What metro do you think is better? Denver or Los Angeles? To me it just seems like Denver is L.A. without a coast line.
Skyline: LA
Downtown area: I'm actually gonna go with Denver here. Seemed a little more lively.
Shopping: LA easily
Entertainment: LA
Things to do: Both have a lot to do, just depends on what you prefer
Suburbs: I might go with Denver on this one too. Boulder, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Golden seem to offer more than LA, which seems to be much more sprawled
Places to see: LA
Diversity: LA
Food: Likely LA because of sheer size
Culture: LA by a longshot on high culture/museums
Family Orientation: ??? I suppose Denver, a little more stable maybe?
Scenery: Denver, but pretty darn close
Worst Pollution: Denver is better on this I'd guess
Airport: Even (Not Sure), I've heard CRAZY things about Denver's airport
Weather: I think this is a big one. for LA. Apart from weather these two are pretty close
Although, with that being said, I think it's entirely possible that the Denver area is more livable.
Don't forget there is no earthquakes or natural disasters in Denver.
I'm a Denver homer, but I gotta call this one out. Denver has its fair share of natural disasters - damaging hail, flash floods, and wildfires are the most common, and tornadoes near the metro area are not unheard of.
The Front Range may not be anywhere near as seismically active as the West Coast, but that doesn't mean the area is earthquake-free. There's a fault somewhere in Rocky Mountain National Park that caused a MM 6.6 tremor near Estes Park in the 19th century, and scientists believe there are probably hidden faults in the state capable of producing a MM 6-7 quake. Overall, though, the odds of it happening are exponentially low.
I'm a Denver homer, but I gotta call this one out. Denver has its fair share of natural disasters - damaging hail, flash floods, and wildfires are the most common, and tornadoes near the metro area are not unheard of.
The Front Range may not be anywhere near as seismically active as the West Coast, but that doesn't mean the area is earthquake-free. There's a fault somewhere in Rocky Mountain National Park that caused a MM 6.6 tremor near Estes Park in the 19th century, and scientists believe there are probably hidden faults in the state capable of producing a MM 6-7 quake. Overall, though, the odds of it happening are exponentially low.
Agreed.
All 4/5 tornado warnings I've been in in my life have been in Denver. Re: earthquakes, it always amazes me how uninformed people are about geology. Those huge mountains just West of Denver? The wind didn't blow them in, just because it's been a long while since major earthquakes have happened doesn't mean they don't/can't happen in the region. Europeans have only inhabited what is now Colorado for about 4-500 years, that's nothing on a geological timescale.
That being said and back on topic, Denver is on my short list of cities I'm looking at after college, Los Angeles doesn't even crack the top 5 in California that I would ever live in.
I am in the San Fernando Valley, population 1.8 million.
Quote:
Last time I checked it's summer throughout most of the year there.
The warmest/hottest months are typically June through September. The variation in temperature is quite a bit more than a city such as Miami.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.