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.
Fair enough but to get back on topic, Denver is far more disirable, then both cities
How, when nearly three times the number of people choose to live in DFW than in Denver? And when DFW is growing faster? And DFW has significantly superior city amenities? Denver wins for proximity to scenery and great outdoor recreation, but for everything else DFW by quite a long way
I spend a fair amount of time in both cities; roughly 3 or 4 times a year for the last ten years. I was in Denver for a week mid May. It snowed and not a little. I am just home from a weekend in Dallas. They are almost comparable - the capital of the southern plains and the capital of the western plains. The biggest difference is that DFW is more than twice the size of Denver : 7.2 million people v 2.8, and that huge difference is readily apparent. The GDP of DFW is nearly three times the size of the GDP of Denver :500 billion versus 187 billion. They both have boxy 1980s skylines, mediocre downtowns, tons of sprawl, horrible traffic, dodgy air quality etc. Denver always feels to me like a lesser Dallas with a view.
Th economies of scale are most readily apparent in their respective cultural institutions. The DMA in Dallas is a more than respectable art museum. Their permanent collections are fine, not stellar, but the exhibits they get are in a different league to what you find at the DMA in Denver. I went to Dallas this weekend to see the extraordinary modernist Mexican art exhibit. It is the only museum in the U.S., to which it will travel. The Denver museum of art has lesser permanent collections and is not on the global art map in the way that Dallas is, and then you add in the Fort Worth museums, which are spectacular, and then Denver starts looking positively provincial in comparison. The Denver center for the performing arts is a great venue and equivalent to the AT&T center for the performing arts in Dallas, but the former is basically the only game in town in Denver. Dallas has many more equivalent venues - the Winspear, and then you add the Meadows, the Crow, the Nasher, and then there is the Bass in Fort Worth. DFW takes the arts very seriously, Denver not so much.
What's true for the arts is also true for food and nightlife. Denver wins for microbreweries, but for everything else Dallas blows Denver out of the water. There is not a global cuisine that is not represented. Denver, not so much. The DFW area is significantly more diverse, with a much higher foreign born population. There is spectacular Asian food of nearly every kind in DFW. Options in Denver are both less numerous and less diverse, which makes sense given the difference between an MSA over 7 million and one with less than 3 million in population.
Their respective downtowns are both rapidly improving with a lot of urbanesque infill, but while Uptown Dallas is the home of the 30K millionaire and one of the douchebag capitals of the country, it is more walkable and urban than LoDo, and the hip and groovy neighborhoods of Dallas are more numerous than those of Denver. I like Capitol Hill and Highlands in Denver; they are smaller and less lively than their Dallas equivalents: Oaklawn, Lower Greenville, and there is nothing in Denver like Deep Ellum. For a rich intown neighborhood, there is a lot more glamor and money in Highland Park, Dallas than there is in Cherry Creek, Denver.
I would agree with the poster above who said Dallas to live, Denver to visit, but even then Denver to visit because Denver is the gateway to some of the most spectacular mountain scenery in the continent. Most of what makes Denver great is adjacent to and not in Denver. For access to mountains and all the wonderful outdoor recreation that enables, Denver is SO superior to Dallas, it is laughable. Dallas is roughly 3 hours from the Ozarks and the Texas hill country, neither of which can hold a candle to the Rockies. But for every urban amenity, DFW, as one would expect from a MSA more than twice the size, with an economy nearly three times the size, DFW is in a different league, and is growing as fast , if not faster than Denver. DFW is a much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated place. Denver is massively overrated by people who have never been there. They think it is in the mountains, but is flat and often brown. People, who have not spent time in DFW think it is some the bigger the hair the closer to God, Texas redneck boomtown. It isn't. It is the 4th largest MSA in the United States, with all that entails. Denver is the 19th, and the difference is readily apparent. While Dallas is not as liberal as Denver, Dallas county voted over 60% for Clinton with the city numbers quite a bit higher.
While San Antonio is a little smaller and poorer than Denver (San Antonio however is more distinctive): 2.4 million people to Denver's 2.8, its urban amenities are not dissimilar, and it is a much more realistic Texas comparison to Denver than DFW, which by every objective metric and every subjective one, except proximity to beautiful scenery and outdoor recreation, is in a different tier to Denver...
It's your thread now. You owned it with this excellent post. There's so much here I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
The biggest difference is that DFW is more than twice the size of Denver : 7.2 million people v 2.8, and that huge difference is readily apparent. The GDP of DFW is nearly three times the size of the GDP of Denver :500 billion versus 187 billion.
I really enjoyed Colorado when I lived there, and I want to refrain from offending people who rightfully love the place, but Dallas is like Denver to the 3rd power. It's a heavyweight hitter, the fourth largest metro area in the country behind New York, LA and Chicago (Houston is right behind it in fifth place). Bigger is certainly not always better -- as I would easily take Denver over some Dallas-sized places that rub me the wrong way, but Dallas provides all the hustle and bustle of a diverse global business city without sacrificing livability. It's tough to beat!
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
Denver always feels to me like a lesser Dallas with a view.
Ouch. That cuts deep. But I can't say I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
Denver wins for microbreweries, but for everything else Dallas blows Denver out of the water. There is not a global cuisine that is not represented. Denver, not so much.
I was disappointed in Denver as a food city. For a place with such a progressive vibe, I figured it would have more top-notch restaurants. Actually I figured it would have more restaurants period (it seems to be under-served for a metro area of its size). It seems like the dining/eating out culture was all about beer/brewpubs and Rocky Mountain Oysters (I refused to try those, by the way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
The DFW area is significantly more diverse, with a much higher foreign born population.
To Denver's credit, they have a higher than expected Hispanic population. However I believe that aspect of their culture is not celebrated to the extent that it is in DFW, and they don't measure up in terms of diversity with other racial/ethnic groups and nationalities. It's not a knock against Denver, but if hypothetically all else is equal between two areas I'd strongly prefer the more multicultural of the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
there is nothing in Denver like Deep Ellum.
Deep Ellum is a gem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
I would agree with the poster above who said Dallas to live, Denver to visit, but even then Denver to visit because Denver is the gateway to some of the most spectacular mountain scenery in the continent. Most of what makes Denver great is adjacent to and not in Denver.
I'm "the poster". And you hit the nail on the head here. As nice as Denver is, when I lived there both residents and visitors treated it like base-camp for the Rockies more so than like a metro area that was sophisticated and compelling in its own right. Now, the Rockies are every bit as impressive as advertised, so if you're into them you're good to go. However if you're not the outdoors type, Denver could easily come across as less compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
But for every urban amenity, DFW, as one would expect from a MSA more than twice the size, with an economy nearly three times the size, DFW is in a different league, and is growing as fast , if not faster than Denver. DFW is a much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated place. Denver is massively overrated by people who have never been there. They think it is in the mountains, but is flat and often brown. People, who have not spent time in DFW think it is some the bigger the hair the closer to God, Texas redneck boomtown. It isn't.
Denver within the actually city is pretty flat and brown. Few trees. Little water. Just think about the state that borders Colorado. Eastern Colorado looks like Kansas! And yes, it's incredible how many people presume DFW lacks sophistication. Then they move here and they go something like, "Oh never-mind, this is actually much more sophisticated than where I'm from." I'm not trying to get political, but the national media does seem to have an anti-Texas bias and it brainwashes a lot of people. I sometimes can hardly suppress the smile when I'm on the East Coast talking with other minority professionals and their faces appear fearful when I suggest Dallas might be a good fit for them. I then explain to them that Dallas is southern but it's not considered the Deep South, it's considered Texan. And this is not 1864.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx
While San Antonio is a little smaller and poorer than Denver (San Antonio however is more distinctive): 2.4 million people to Denver's 2.8, its urban amenities are not dissimilar, and it is a much more realistic Texas comparison to Denver than DFW, which by every objective metric and every subjective one, except proximity to beautiful scenery and outdoor recreation, is in a different tier to Denver...
San Antonio is another place I've lived, and while I'd easily take Denver over San Antonio, you're correct that those two cities are more appropriate comparisons / similar tiers. I like Denver a lot. I'm mesmerized by DFW -- city on the plains with a big hat, lots of money to spend, plenty of swagger, and hungry enough to swallow the expanse of north central Texas.
How, when nearly three times the number of people choose to live in DFW than in Denver? And when DFW is growing faster? And DFW has significantly superior city amenities? Denver wins for proximity to scenery and great outdoor recreation, but for everything else DFW by quite a long way
IMNSHO you're confusing desirability and practicality.
My definition of desirability is a place where people say "I've always wanted to live in<blah>." I've never in my life encountered anyone who's uttered that sentence about DFW. The same cannot be said about Denver.
IMNSHO you're confusing desirability and practicality.
My definition of desirability is a place where people say "I've always wanted to live in<blah>." I've never in my life encountered anyone who's uttered that sentence about DFW. The same cannot be said about Denver.
Purely anecdotal. You need to get out of Colorado more. Neither of these cities have global pull, but Dallas, for good and bad, has more global recognition than Denver. They are both strong regional draws. And just like Denver is THE city of the western plains, Dallas while not so much THE city of Texas ( there is too much competition for that), it is very much THE city of the southern plains.
We kinda got dueling 1980s trashy tv shows here: 'Dallas" vs "Dynasty."
How, when nearly three times the number of people choose to live in DFW than in Denver? And when DFW is growing faster? And DFW has significantly superior city amenities? Denver wins for proximity to scenery and great outdoor recreation, but for everything else DFW by quite a long way
So bigger populations make a city better? That's basically what you're saying. With your logic, Phoenix must be one of the best cities in the U.S. because so many people choose to live there. People live in Dallas for many reasons, and it doesn't mean they want to live there. Maybe they have family they don't want to leave, or maybe they can't afford to move to a better city. Point I'm trying to make is that population is not accurate in how great a city is.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenBronco8
So bigger populations make a city better? That's basically what you're saying. With your logic, Phoenix must be one of the best cities in the U.S. because so many people choose to live there. People live in Dallas for many reasons, and it doesn't mean they want to live there. Maybe they have family they don't want to leave, or maybe they can't afford to move to a better city. Point I'm trying to make is that population is not accurate in how great a city is.
What's with the knock on Phoenix? This is a great city, not NYC or Singapore, but it's not the crudhole you make it out to be
Denver within the actually city is pretty flat and brown. Few trees. Little water. Just think about the state that borders Colorado. Eastern Colorado looks like Kansas! And yes, it's incredible how many people presume DFW lacks sophistication. Then they move here and they go something like, "Oh never-mind, this is actually much more sophisticated than where I'm from." I'm not trying to get political, but the national media does seem to have an anti-Texas bias and it brainwashes a lot of people. I sometimes can hardly suppress the smile when I'm on the East Coast talking with other minority professionals and their faces appear fearful when I suggest Dallas might be a good fit for them. I then explain to them that Dallas is southern but it's not considered the Deep South, it's considered Texan. And this is not 1864.
I would have to disagree. Denver isn't as flat as you suggest it to be. There are many parts in the city in Metro that are hilly. Denver is only brown in the winter. In the summer, there is plenty of greenery and trees. I don't know where you get that from. The metro area has trees everywhere.
Also in response that Denver doesn't have a neighborhood like Deep Ellem. It's is pretty much the equivelant to Rino in Denver except Rino is newer and has a lot of potential to grow and improve in a few years.
Last edited by DenBronco8; 06-13-2017 at 12:05 AM..
What's with the knock on Phoenix? This is a great city, not NYC or Singapore, but it's not the crudhole you make it out to be
I wasn't knocking Phoenix. He said that more people live in Dallas so it must be better. I was just making an example of Phoenix because it has a high population. I don't know how I made it seem like a crudhole.
Last edited by DenBronco8; 06-13-2017 at 12:06 AM..
I spend a fair amount of time in both cities; roughly 3 or 4 times a year for the last ten years. I was in Denver for a week mid May. It snowed and not a little. I am just home from a weekend in Dallas. They are almost comparable - the capital of the southern plains and the capital of the western plains. The biggest difference is that DFW is more than twice the size of Denver : 7.2 million people v 2.8, and that huge difference is readily apparent. The GDP of DFW is nearly three times the size of the GDP of Denver :500 billion versus 187 billion. They both have boxy 1980s skylines, mediocre downtowns, tons of sprawl, horrible traffic, dodgy air quality etc.
If you were here during that snow in May (The only time it snowed that month) then you know that it melted and was 60+ Degrees the next day (And in the 80s a few days later). Don't leave that part out
But yes, Dallas is a much larger city and therefore offered more. That doesn't mean Denver doesn't offer what it needs and more for a city of it's size though. Could you explain what you mean by Denver having a mediocre downtown? That's not true at all.
Quote:
Denver always feels to me like a lesser Dallas with a view.
In order for that to be true, Denver would have to be trying to be like Dallas. No shade, but no one wants that. I don't see how Dallas is a better version of Denver when it's less urban, more suburban/sprawly, etc...but to each their own. Denver is perfectly comfortable being the center of it's region
Quote:
Th economies of scale are most readily apparent in their respective cultural institutions. The DMA in Dallas is a more than respectable art museum. Their permanent collections are fine, not stellar, but the exhibits they get are in a different league to what you find at the DMA in Denver. I went to Dallas this weekend to see the extraordinary modernist Mexican art exhibit. It is the only museum in the U.S., to which it will travel. The Denver museum of art has lesser permanent collections and is not on the global art map in the way that Dallas is, and then you add in the Fort Worth museums, which are spectacular, and then Denver starts looking positively provincial in comparison. The Denver center for the performing arts is a great venue and equivalent to the AT&T center for the performing arts in Dallas, but the former is basically the only game in town in Denver. Dallas has many more equivalent venues - the Winspear, and then you add the Meadows, the Crow, the Nasher, and then there is the Bass in Fort Worth. DFW takes the arts very seriously, Denver not so much.
What's true for the arts is also true for food and nightlife. Denver wins for microbreweries, but for everything else Dallas blows Denver out of the water. There is not a global cuisine that is not represented. Denver, not so much. The DFW area is significantly more diverse, with a much higher foreign born population. There is spectacular Asian food of nearly every kind in DFW. Options in Denver are both less numerous and less diverse, which makes sense given the difference between an MSA over 7 million and one with less than 3 million in population.
I'll give you that. Once again, the Metroplex has a about 1.5M more people than the entire state of Colorado, so it's clearly going to offer more. Basically what you're suggesting with this post is that bigger is better, and that's just not always true. Dallas has more shopping, food options, better nightlife than many cities that are more desirable.
Quote:
Their respective downtowns are both rapidly improving with a lot of urbanesque infill, but while Uptown Dallas is the home of the 30K millionaire and one of the douchebag capitals of the country, it is more walkable and urban than LoDo, and the hip and groovy neighborhoods of Dallas are more numerous than those of Denver. I like Capitol Hill and Highlands in Denver; they are smaller and less lively than their Dallas equivalents: Oaklawn, Lower Greenville, and there is nothing in Denver like Deep Ellum. For a rich intown neighborhood, there is a lot more glamor and money in Highland Park, Dallas than there is in Cherry Creek, Denver.
I don't see what the significance of this is unless you're rich, which I am not. But Uptown Dallas and LoDo are two different types of districts. UD is an upscale district while LoDo is a mixed use historic district with nightlife. Cherry Creek and Highland Park also aren't really comparable because CC is build around the shopping center whereas HP isn't.
Btw, Cherry Hills Village in Denver is one of the most upscale/expensive areas in the USA, in a sea of zip codes dominated by NY and CA. Just as or more upscale than anything in TX...
Quote:
I would agree with the poster above who said Dallas to live, Denver to visit, but even then Denver to visit because Denver is the gateway to some of the most spectacular mountain scenery in the continent. Most of what makes Denver great is adjacent to and not in Denver. For access to mountains and all the wonderful outdoor recreation that enables, Denver is SO superior to Dallas, it is laughable. Dallas is roughly 3 hours from the Ozarks and the Texas hill country, neither of which can hold a candle to the Rockies. But for every urban amenity, DFW, as one would expect from a MSA more than twice the size, with an economy nearly three times the size, DFW is in a different league, and is growing as fast , if not faster than Denver. DFW is a much more cosmopolitan and sophisticated place. Denver is massively overrated by people who have never been there. They think it is in the mountains, but is flat and often brown. People, who have not spent time in DFW think it is some the bigger the hair the closer to God, Texas redneck boomtown. It isn't. It is the 4th largest MSA in the United States, with all that entails. Denver is the 19th, and the difference is readily apparent. While Dallas is not as liberal as Denver, Dallas county voted over 60% for Clinton with the city numbers quite a bit higher.
What makes Denver a great place to visit is that 95% of attraction are in or very close to Downtown. You don't have to travel great distances. People always try to make it seem like everyone who's ever visited Denver is there to go straight through to the mountains. That's not always the case. A lot of people come to Denver experience the city. The mountains are a plus.
It's unfair to use Denver stereotypes to make it seem like a boring place and then turn around suggesting that the ones about Dallas aren't true The 4th largest MSA leaves something to be desired on a national level. There's a reason cities like Houston, Philly, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, DC, etc are all seen as more important cities despite being smaller. Dallas punches below it's weight in some ways, while Denver doesn't.
Quote:
While San Antonio is a little smaller and poorer than Denver (San Antonio however is more distinctive): 2.4 million people to Denver's 2.8, its urban amenities are not dissimilar, and it is a much more realistic Texas comparison to Denver than DFW, which by every objective metric and every subjective one, except proximity to beautiful scenery and outdoor recreation, is in a different tier to Denver...
Perhaps it's a better comparison when it comes to scale. But again, size isn't everything.
I would have to disagree. Denver isn't as flat as you suggest it to be. There are many parts in the city in Metro that are hilly. Denver is only brown in the winter. In the summer, there is plenty of greenery and trees. I don't know where you get that from. The metro area has trees everywhere.
Also in response that Denver doesn't have a neighborhood like Deep Ellem. It's is pretty much the equivelant to Rino in Denver except Rino is newer and has a lot of potential to grow and improve in a few years.
I don't get why they always run with the "Denver is flat and brown" line, as if it's the only city in the country that loses it's greenery during Winter. Dallas literally looks the same way, but they don't have cold/snow as an excuse for why it looks that way...Plus Dallas is just as flat.
As for the hilly part, I feel like they just truly don't know much about the metro. All you have to do is look at a map and you'll see that the south/west/southeastern suburbs aren't completely flat. Not to mention the metro area extends into the foothills/mountains. Denver also sits lower than it's surrounding suburbs (Even on the East), so you can see the city from a higher elevation almost everywhere.
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.
And you hit the nail on the head here. As nice as Denver is, when I lived there both residents and visitors treated it like base-camp for the Rockies more so than like a metro area that was sophisticated and compelling in its own right. Now, the Rockies are every bit as impressive as advertised, so if you're into them you're good to go. However if you're not the outdoors type, Denver could easily come across as less compelling.
And yes, it's incredible how many people presume DFW lacks sophistication. Then they move here and they go something like, "Oh never-mind, this is actually much more sophisticated than where I'm from." I'm not trying to get political, but the national media does seem to have an anti-Texas bias and it brainwashes a lot of people. I sometimes can hardly suppress the smile when I'm on the East Coast talking with other minority professionals and their faces appear fearful when I suggest Dallas might be a good fit for them. I then explain to them that Dallas is southern but it's not considered the Deep South, it's considered Texan. And this is not 1864. 
The 4th largest MSA leaves something to be desired on a national level. There's a reason cities like Houston, Philly, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, DC, etc are all seen as more important cities despite being smaller. Dallas punches below it's weight in some ways, while Denver doesn't. 
