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.
Calling Cos a suburb of Denver is quite a stretch though.
I know, I know, it's just a joke, a reality check. But seriously, there's some cities with such an inflated ego that they claim everything that's nice (a ski resort, for example) that's within two hours of them as part of their metro area.
True. I have seen that in some places. Denver has enough fun stuff to do in their region, they don't include Cos in their literature. They do list the Pikes Peak region as things to do nearby in literature and web sites.
True. I have seen that in some places. Denver has enough fun stuff to do in their region, they don't include Cos in their literature. They do list the Pikes Peak region as things to do nearby in literature and web sites.
I think Denver would be a very cool place if you're into skiing, hiking, and mountain climbing. If you're a homebody, then Denver would not be for you.
Atlanta seems to offer more culturally (although to be fair, that's largely because it's twice the population in the MSA). Since I'm more of a city guy and prefer museums, history, the symphony over the mountains, I'll take Atlanta. And Atlanta's actually not too shabby for outdoor activities, either. Plenty of hiking to be had in certain areas. If you want even more you could head to North Georgia--well within 2 hours' drive. Again, I've only been to Atlanta, but not Denver, but I think both cities have a lot to offer. Just comes down to whether you like the climate, scenery, and food/history of the West or the South more.
I think Denver would be a very cool place if you're into skiing, hiking, and mountain climbing. If you're a homebody, then Denver would not be for you.
Atlanta seems to offer more culturally (although to be fair, that's largely because it's twice the population in the MSA). Since I'm more of a city guy and prefer museums, history, the symphony over the mountains, I'll take Atlanta. And Atlanta's actually not too shabby for outdoor activities, either. Plenty of hiking to be had in certain areas. If you want even more you could head to North Georgia--well within 2 hours' drive. Again, I've only been to Atlanta, but not Denver, but I think both cities have a lot to offer. Just comes down to whether you like the climate, scenery, and food/history of the West or the South more.
If you are a homebody then ANYWHERE is a good place as long as you have a HOME.lol
If you are a homebody then ANYWHERE is a good place as long as you have a HOME.lol
Well, sometimes you'll still invite your family and friends over to be at your home, playing video games, watching TV. BUT if it's Denver--your family and friends are all too busy enjoying the great outdoors to want stick themselves at your home all the time.
I think Denver would be a very cool place if you're into skiing, hiking, and mountain climbing. If you're a homebody, then Denver would not be for you.
Atlanta seems to offer more culturally (although to be fair, that's largely because it's twice the population in the MSA). Since I'm more of a city guy and prefer museums, history, the symphony over the mountains, I'll take Atlanta. And Atlanta's actually not too shabby for outdoor activities, either. Plenty of hiking to be had in certain areas. If you want even more you could head to North Georgia--well within 2 hours' drive. Again, I've only been to Atlanta, but not Denver, but I think both cities have a lot to offer. Just comes down to whether you like the climate, scenery, and food/history of the West or the South more.
Although Atlanta is still better on this front, Denver isn't lacking in any type of museums, history, symphonies, galleries, conventions, all pro sports, and a huge airport which is a hub for United and Southwest. It seems to have most of the same amenities as cities in the 4-6 million MSA range. Denver offers more than outdoors, I'm not into the outdoors and I enjoy it here.
Also, Many would consider Denver to be more urban than Atlanta.
Last edited by annie_himself; 03-28-2020 at 04:00 PM..
I think Denver would be a very cool place if you're into skiing, hiking, and mountain climbing. If you're a homebody, then Denver would not be for you.
Atlanta seems to offer more culturally (although to be fair, that's largely because it's twice the population in the MSA). Since I'm more of a city guy and prefer museums, history, the symphony over the mountains, I'll take Atlanta. And Atlanta's actually not too shabby for outdoor activities, either. Plenty of hiking to be had in certain areas. If you want even more you could head to North Georgia--well within 2 hours' drive. Again, I've only been to Atlanta, but not Denver, but I think both cities have a lot to offer. Just comes down to whether you like the climate, scenery, and food/history of the West or the South more.
I will have to admit that the Colorado Rockies > North Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains. You just can't compare the "4-ers" of Georgia to the 14-ers of CO. Even Brasstown Bald, GA's highest point is a few hundred feet shy of a mile, hence the summit is lower in elevation than Denver itself.
Since Denver is up 5 already, I'd call those 9ers...nice but they don't exactly loom on the horizon like a 14er from sea level.
It has a better downtown, but fewer urban districts.
Denver has more consistent urban development throughout the core while Atlanta's is broken up or not in Atlanta proper. Atlanta also seems to be more new urbanism developments and Denver is able to use it's built form to gentrify neighborhoods. It does have better transit though, Denver's light-rail is a waste of money and effort to me.
Since Denver is up 5 already, I'd call those 9ers...nice but they don't exactly loom on the horizon like a 14er from sea level.
It has a better downtown, but fewer urban districts.
Definitely fewer urban districts. Denver doesn't have an equivalent to Buckhead or Midtown. However I'd say Denver has a more consistent urban fabric due to having less trees and being on a grid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
Griffith Observatory has an impressive city view but yep, it's still Stone Mountain for me.
COS has Pikes Peak, which is pretty darn impressive at how you can drive up a 14'er peak just by car. Or take the cogwheel incline up it. COS is a Denver suburb after all, right? Nearby, only an hour and a half away!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCHP
Pikes Peak does have the International Auto Hillclimb, the Ascent marathon, Santa's Workshop amusement park, mumerous reservoirs for non-motorized water recreation, several small towns around its base to include the victorian era town of Manitou with the Mt Manitou incline which is a fitness junkie magnet and Cave of the Winds which does have summer laser light shows on the massive rock walls of Williams Canyon.
Calling Cos a suburb of Denver is quite a stretch though.
Oh yeah, I didn't even think of the Pike's Peak area. It is more in the vein of Stone Mountain than anything in Denver. The mountains near Colorado Springs in general have a lot more fun/touristy things to do than the ones close to Denver.
Last edited by Mezter; 03-28-2020 at 05:37 PM..
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.
