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.
Minneapolis is nice. I think it has a distinct German/Scandinavian heritage that makes it unique.
However, I'm going with Denver.
More cosmopolitan, and more singles from more diverse backgrounds. And theres so much vast, diverse nature and outdoors to explore in your backyard. Eastern nature is a little dime a dozen/kinda same wherever you go. (trees and water).
For the record, I would say Denver is better than 10-15 years ago, if you are a single guy. More even sex ratio. Its nice to know that "Menver" is an outdated stereotype. Douchey isn't all bad. You stand out better to women who are looking for a down to earth guy
Minneapolis is nice. I think it has a distinct German/Scandinavian heritage that makes it unique.
However, I'm going with Denver.
More cosmopolitan, and more singles from more diverse backgrounds. And theres so much vast, diverse nature and outdoors to explore in your backyard. Eastern nature is a little dime a dozen/kinda same wherever you go. (trees and water).
LOL if you think Denver is cosmopolitan you might be smoking sherm. Or just never spent significant time in Denver. It's like a Sacramento, if the average Sacramento resident earned like 10k more a year, LOL.
I'd probably say Minneapolis is overall slightly more cosmopolitan, and probably more patrons of the arts than Denver.
Denver obviously beats the twin cities soundly in outdoor activities (largely due to the Mountains and more hospitable climate). But other than that, the cities are basically the same thing culturally.
This is one of the best comparisons I've seen here, because the cities share a lot in common - both are northern and border the Midwest, and both are "hub" cities for their regions in a way. Both are pretty sprawled, both have big airports, both have newer public transit systems, and both are home to a plethora of jobs, opportunities and cultures.
Since I am more familiar with cities east of the Mississippi (MSP borders it), I choose MSP, and that's the only reason why. I'd need to personally visit both to make an informed decision however.
LOL if you think Denver is cosmopolitan you might be smoking sherm. Or just never spent significant time in Denver. It's like a Sacramento, if the average Sacramento resident earned like 10k more a year, LOL.
I'd probably say Minneapolis is overall slightly more cosmopolitan, and probably more patrons of the arts than Denver.
Denver obviously beats the twin cities soundly in outdoor activities (largely due to the Mountains and more hospitable climate). But other than that, the cities are basically the same thing culturally.
I have spent significant time in Denver. I went to grad school to the north, and went to Denver for all my big city stuff.
By cosmopolitan, I mean a melting pot of educated people from all parts of the US and around the world.
I'm not one who thinks of east coast/northeastern attitudes or personalities as what it means to be cosmopolitan.
And actually I do think Sacramento is a little more cosmopolitan than people would expect. Its the state capital of California, a state that could be its own country.
Denver has horrible cuisine but is good for snowboarding near by.
Snowboarding/skiing is a less than an optimal entertainment option for a lot of people. The lift tickets are well over $100 for the bigger areas and the traffic is terrible on weekends. It's good if you can take weekdays off and go enough times to get a pass.
As far as winters, they're basically just as long in both spots, just Denver's is sunnier and gets random warm spells. Minneapolis wins with spring and fall and snowy white winters, but I'd give Denver the hands up in the summer.
Denver has a cool downtown as does Minneapolis for the cosmopolitan comparison, but Denver has mainly crap suburbs while a lot of Minneapolis's are pretty neat.
It seems pretty optimal in Denver or any other place near real mountains.
People think skiing is like a replacement for a beach or lakes. Not really. Unless you are dedicated to it, IMO it's too expensive and too crowded and too much of a chance for crap snow for the 3-4 times a year people. There was another thread on here about resorts and CO resorts are like double the price of ones in Canada and Europe.
People think skiing is like a replacement for a beach or lakes. Not really. Unless you are dedicated to it, IMO it's too expensive and too crowded and too much of a chance for crap snow for the 3-4 times a year people. There was another thread on here about resorts and CO resorts are like double the price of ones in Canada and Europe.
It's all about preference. Colorado has excellent snowboarding, and many of the Europa resorts are garbage. High quality resorts in Canada like Whistler are not exactly cheap either.
If you want to hang out on a lake that is fine. I prefer to ride.
It's all about preference. Colorado has excellent snowboarding, and many of the Europa resorts are garbage. High quality resorts in Canada like Whistler are not exactly cheap either.
If you want to hang out on a lake that is fine. I prefer to ride.
Whistler is like $70. The Vail resorts are like $130-$160. Whistler is bigger than any CO resort. It's kinda sad when your airline ticket out to CO is cheaper than the lift ticket.
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.
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.
