Better Vacation: Minneapolis and MN Lakes or Denver and CO Mountains? (suburbs, area)
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.
I find that hard to believe, only because the few times I've been to Denver the air was thick yellowish-brown coming in from the airport or I-80 (driving). I'm sure there are statistics somewhere about this. But I HAVE heard something similar about the air above LA, so I can believe that Denver has cleaned up some since 2000, but not to the point where it eradicated it entirely and is now one of the cleanest in the country.
It was the air quality and the desert-like feeling of the Denver region that turns me off from it, otherwise I'd probably love it like everyone else does.
It's mostly in the winter. During anyother time, the air quality is pretty decent. If you went anytime after March in 2012, the air pollution you saw from the airport was most likely from the wildfires. It was pretty bad from March-December.
I'm sure Minneapolis-St. Paul has just as much air pollution. The mountains seem to highlight the pollution in Denver and other places with mountains.
In Denver, we have access to mountains with lakes AND lakes in the city. Denver wins
I loved the Colorado Mountains, we call the pines in our Minnesota woods "evergreens", however in Colorado, I noticed that the predominant tree was an "everbrown" which I thought a bit drab looking and left the view feeling a bit sad looking.
I loved the Colorado Mountains, we call the pines in our Minnesota woods "evergreens", however in Colorado, I noticed that the predominant tree was an "everbrown" which I thought a bit drab looking and left the view feeling a bit sad looking.
What's an everbrown? If that's referring to the way some of the evergreen trees look, that's because pine beetles are sucking the life out of a lot of them, which is ashame.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter
What's an everbrown? If that's referring to the way some of the evergreen trees look, that's because pine beetles are sucking the life out of a lot of them, which is ashame.
I was out there last September and was so upset at the number of trees that had succumbed to the Pine Beetle. I was told that warmer than average winters have failed to kill them off. I guess all that can be done is for the dead trees to fall and decay.BTW, tough choice here. I love both of these cities. Sounds like a no-lose situation to me.
In Denver, we have access to mountains with lakes AND lakes in the city. Denver wins
They aren't really lakes (not real ones anyways), and the amenities these lakes have can't compare to those in the Twin Cities. In this instance, one city's lakes does not equal the other city's lakes. Similarly, we're not considering the bluffs along the Mississippi River or the large hills along Lake Superior (2.5 hours drive away, just like some mountains in CO to Denver) as equivalent to Denver's mountains. I'd put it this way:
In order of "greatness" (to average American):
-Denver Mountains
-TC Lakes
-Denver Lakes
-TC "mountains" (Hills)
It's mostly in the winter. During anyother time, the air quality is pretty decent. If you went anytime after March in 2012, the air pollution you saw from the airport was most likely from the wildfires. It was pretty bad from March-December.
I'm sure Minneapolis-St. Paul has just as much air pollution. The mountains seem to highlight the pollution in Denver and other places with mountains.
No, it really doesn't have nearly as much pollution. It's quite clean, which is refreshing when you've lived in a polluted city (like Chicago or Cleveland, where I've lived).
I was out there last September and was so upset at the number of trees that had succumbed to the Pine Beetle. I was told that warmer than average winters have failed to kill them off. I guess all that can be done is for the dead trees to fall and decay.BTW, tough choice here. I love both of these cities. Sounds like a no-lose situation to me.
So this is due to Global Climate Change? I know that's also the cause of Dutch Elm Disease (I think), which destroyed the Elm trees in much of the North and their "territory" keeps receding to the North year after year.
I agree with the "no-lose" comment....you can't really go wrong with either. I think Minneapolis is extremely underrated in terms of natural beauty and access to nature, and I think it's quite possibly more accessible to natural beauty and activities than Denver, but it's very hard to deny the greatness that mountains provide a region.
They aren't really lakes (not real ones anyways), and the amenities these lakes have can't compare to those in the Twin Cities. In this instance, one city's lakes does not equal the other city's lakes. Similarly, we're not considering the bluffs along the Mississippi River or the large hills along Lake Superior (2.5 hours drive away, just like some mountains in CO to Denver) as equivalent to Denver's mountains. I'd put it this way:
In order of "greatness" (to average American):
-Denver Mountains
-TC Lakes
-Denver Lakes
-TC "mountains" (Hills)
I wasn't trying to make it seem like Denver's reservoirs were the equivalent to the lakes in the TCs. But there are still a few bodies of water around her, and people use them for recreation. That's why I think Denver does slightly better for an outdoor vacation experience. You can get the mountains and "lakes" (and no, not all Denver's lakes are reservoirs) with in or near Denver.
With that said, Minneapolis leaves Denver in the dust when it comes to lakes, but they still exist. The mountains in Minneapolis don't exist however. That is not a knock to the TCs, because they don't need mountains to be an outstanding place for recreation. I just think Denver offers a bit more for someone who wants to vacation for outdoor activities.
I'd say Denver and the Rockies. I do like Minneapolis more than Denver, but they're really not all that different. And as nice as Minnesota's lakes area, they're not that different from lakes elsewhere...whereas the Rockies aren't exactly replicated elsewhere.
I wasn't trying to make it seem like Denver's reservoirs were the equivalent to the lakes in the TCs. But there are still a few bodies of water around her, and people use them for recreation. That's why I think Denver does slightly better for an outdoor vacation experience. You can get the mountains and "lakes" (and no, not all Denver's lakes are reservoirs) with in or near Denver.
With that said, Minneapolis leaves Denver in the dust when it comes to lakes, but they still exist. The mountains in Minneapolis don't exist however. That is not a knock to the TCs, because they don't need mountains to be an outstanding place for recreation. I just think Denver offers a bit more for someone who wants to vacation for outdoor activities.
Can you humor me and tell me which lakes are "real"? I researched this a bit ago and found they were all man-made (the ones I researched).
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.
