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.
The Denver area has alpine forest, desert landscape, hills, rivers, lakes, a glacier, a 14er, and mountains in general. How was that supposed to beat what Denver offers? No city east of here can compete when it comes to recreational and outdoor activities.
Since you ask, I'll repeat the gist of my point: Denver's nearby wilderness probably trumps Boston's, but Boston wins overall because its in-town opportunities are much better.
Very true, might be an underrated comment. Boston is great for the casual outdoor/park person 8 months a year. That's for certain.
Care to explain. That was the feeling I got there during my couple days there and out in Vail.
There are parks in Denver too. Is Denver not great for the casual outdoor/park person? It's known as a very outdoorsy city.
I'm confused as to how between Vail and Denver, that Boston seems like the better city for outdoor activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Since you ask, I'll repeat the gist of my point: Denver's nearby wilderness probably trumps Boston's, but Boston wins overall because its in-town opportunities are much better.
Probably? Nah, it absolutely trumps everything east of here as far as outdoors. I'll definitely give Boston the edge over urban parks but that seems nitpicky just to win the argument. No one goes to Boston for the outdoors and its not like we don't have a nice park system here.
All in all, Denver undoubtedly has better access to diverse landscapes and world class outdoor recreation, Boston Commons isn't hosting the
Olympic training center.
All in all, Denver undoubtedly has better access to diverse landscapes and world class outdoor recreation, Boston Commons isn't hosting the Olympic training center.
How does Head of the South Platte compare to Head of the Charles?
There are parks in Denver too. Is Denver not great for the casual outdoor/park person? It's known as a very outdoorsy city.
I'm confused as to how between Vail and Denver, that Boston seems like the better city for outdoor activities.
Probably? Nah, it absolutely trumps everything east of here as far as outdoors. I'll definitely give Boston the edge over urban parks but that seems nitpicky just to win the argument. No one goes to Boston for the outdoors and its not like we don't have a nice park system here.
All in all, Denver undoubtedly has better access to diverse landscapes and world class outdoor recreation, Boston Commons isn't hosting the
Olympic training center.
Water is a much bigger factor than parks in my opinion.
There are parks in Denver too. Is Denver not great for the casual outdoor/park person? It's known as a very outdoorsy city.
I'm confused as to how between Vail and Denver, that Boston seems like the better city for outdoor activities.
Probably? Nah, it absolutely trumps everything east of here as far as outdoors. I'll definitely give Boston the edge over urban parks but that seems nitpicky just to win the argument. No one goes to Boston for the outdoors and its not like we don't have a nice park system here.
All in all, Denver undoubtedly has better access to diverse landscapes and world class outdoor recreation, Boston Commons isn't hosting the
Olympic training center.
Exactly.
If I'm going out for a hike, I want a trail with a few thousand feet in elevation gain and a scenic overlook at the summit, something like Angel's Rest right outside of Portland. I haven't hiked much near Denver, but I'm certain it has a plethora of such trails. From what I'm seeing, hiking nearby Boston seems mostly like a leisurely stroll through the woods.
If I'm going camping in the summer, I want a lake up in the mountains with crystal clear water and where I won't be eaten alive by mosquitoes. There are hundreds of places like this within 2 hours of Denver. Can this be found nm2 hours outside of Boston?
Sure, Boston has access to nearly all types of outdoor activities, but there's a huge difference between the two metros in the quality of offerings. Didn't think this viewpoint was controversial, but apparently it is on City-Data.
There are parks in Denver too. Is Denver not great for the casual outdoor/park person? It's known as a very outdoorsy city.
I'm confused as to how between Vail and Denver, that Boston seems like the better city for outdoor activities.
Probably? Nah, it absolutely trumps everything east of here as far as outdoors. I'll definitely give Boston the edge over urban parks but that seems nitpicky just to win the argument. No one goes to Boston for the outdoors and its not like we don't have a nice park system here.
All in all, Denver undoubtedly has better access to diverse landscapes and world class outdoor recreation, Boston Commons isn't hosting the
Olympic training center.
Boston has nicer more mature parks, they feel more natural, more wooded, multiple beaches in the city, Boston common and public garden right downtown, the city of Boston from what I’ve seen has nicer lusher parks than Denver. Also some hiking and skiing within a mile of Bostons boundary at the Blue Hill Reservation. Lots of ponds and state reservations as well especially in the south of the city. Boating/sailing in the Charles River. Boston Harbor Islands (yes they are in City of Boston). The city of Denver- in comparison- feels a bit forced, flat and featureless.
When I left Denver it absolutely thrashes MA for hiking/skiing/ mountain biking and tons of stuff. But in the city itself Boston has incredible access to nature for being as urban as it is.
If I'm going out for a hike, I want a trail with a few thousand feet in elevation gain and a scenic overlook at the summit, something like Angel's Rest right outside of Portland. I haven't hiked much near Denver, but I'm certain it has a plethora of such trails. From what I'm seeing, hiking nearby Boston seems mostly like a leisurely stroll through the woods.
If I'm going camping in the summer, I want a lake up in the mountains with crystal clear water and where I won't be eaten alive by mosquitoes. There are hundreds of places like this within 2 hours of Denver. Can this be found nm2 hours outside of Boston?
Sure, Boston has access to nearly all types of outdoor activities, but there's a huge difference between the two metros in the quality of offerings. Didn't think this viewpoint was controversial, but apparently it is on City-Data.
If you like the outdoors. Specifically skiing, hiking, and big mountains you will be surely dissatisfied with Boston.
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.
