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.
Having visited all three cities, I would pick Seattle.
The OP specifically stated that he hates hot and humid summers. Seattle easily has some of the most mild and nice summers in the Lower 48.
As far as cold and snow goes. I know it does not snow as much in downtown Seattle as Denver, or Minneapolis. However you can experience plenty of snow (way more than Minnesota) and cold by driving a short distance to the mountains surrounding Seattle.
When you get sick of it, just drive 30 minutes back home and enjoy your cold 40 degree rain.
The OP specifically said he wanted to hike and bike. Well I can say without a doubt that both Seattle and Denver blow Minneapolis out of the water when it comes to nice hiking trails that offer great scenery.
When it comes to water, yes Seattle is surrounded by water. But keep in mind that Puget Sound, and the lakes around the Seattle area are very cold (requiring a wet suit), even in summer. Minnesota has plenty of lakes, but the beauty IMO does not compare to the PNW.
Having visited all three cities, I would pick Seattle.
The OP specifically stated that he hates hot and humid summers. Seattle easily has some of the most mild and nice summers in the Lower 48.
As far as cold and snow goes. I know it does not snow as much in downtown Seattle as Denver, or Minneapolis. However you can experience plenty of snow (way more than Minnesota) and cold by driving a short distance to the mountains surrounding Seattle.
When you get sick of it, just drive 30 minutes back home and enjoy your cold 40 degree rain.
The OP specifically said he wanted to hike and bike. Well I can say without a doubt that both Seattle and Denver blow Minneapolis out of the water when it comes to nice hiking trails that offer great scenery.
When it comes to water, yes Seattle is surrounded by water. But keep in mind that Puget Sound, and the lakes around the Seattle area are very cold (requiring a wet suit), even in summer. Minnesota has plenty of lakes, but the beauty IMO does not compare to the PNW.
Blows Minneapolis out of the water for hiking trails with scenery? Are we talking city/metro proper here or way out into the mountains/lakes? Either way, while I agree that both Denver and Seattle have better hiking options than Minneapolis, I think you're overstating that fact here somewhat. For instance, one could walk (not hike) around the Chain of Lakes for half the day in Minneapolis and still be able to walk home for supper -- it's that accessible. There are also true hiking trails in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, and I believe it's St. Paul's that has trails along the Mississippi River bluffs, which is the edge of the Driftless Region, which is quite scenic and very accessible for Twin Cities residents:
Again, there's no denying Denver and Seattle have suprior trails and vistas (I won't even research that), but there ARE options in the Minneapolis area. As for lakes or snow, please don't discount Minneapolis simply because you find Seattle to be more beautiful. The lakes are a cultural gem there, and I'd argue Minneapolis has a better lake culture and better lakes than either Seattle or Denver, as they're literally everywhere and literally everyone utilizes them at least 3 seasons of the year (and sometimes 4). And snow in both Denver and Minneapolis is a part of life there, whereas in Seattle it's treated more like a natural disaster. They're not equal or equatable in any way, and being able to drive an hour or two just to touch snow is not a great selling point for being "better" in that regard. I'm not sure how many people actually pack up their car just to experience micro climates like those offered in mountainous areas -- does anyone have some perspective on that (objective and/or comprehensive, explaining how it's done and how likely/often it happens).
Sorry I'm picking on your particular statement (I hate when people do that to me without offering their own viewpoint), but I'm using it to offer information more than I am trying to say you're "wrong".
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 03-21-2014 at 08:31 AM..
Blows Minneapolis out of the water for hiking trails with scenery? Are we talking city/metro proper here or way out into the mountains/lakes? Lake Pepin Area
I'm not sure how many people actually pack up their car just to experience micro climates like those offered in mountainous areas -- does anyone have some perspective on that (objective and/or comprehensive, explaining how it's done and how likely/often it happens).
Sorry I'm picking on your particular statement (I hate when people do that to me without offering their own viewpoint), but I'm using it to offer information more than I am trying to say you're "wrong".
I'm just stating that if you really like to "hike" you will find Denver and Seattle more more enjoyable than Minneapolis. You can drive 20-30 minutes from both cities and do some amazing hikes. That being said, Minneapolis has some nice short hikes.
As far as snow goes. I stick to what I said earlier. If you really like snow sports I would stick to Seattle or Denver.
I've lived in the Midwest, and I have lived on the west coast. Seattle is very similar to Vancouver B.C. in that YES people do normally drive to the mountains (which happen to be really close), to experience the snow. If you work in Downtown Seattle, you can work an 8 hour day in April, ski on 100+ inches of snow, and go hiking all in the same day. The same can't be said for Minnesota. The ski season there is very short, with really not much snow. Just some cold ice.
Keep in mind that Seattle and Denver are both big ski cities. Lots of people who board/ski live in both places. Yes I know that Minneapolis has people who ski, but it is not the same. The mountain culture just doesn't exist there.
Of course it snows in Minneapolis. But if a person has any real serious interest in snow sports it would be hard to really find Minneapolis enjoyable compared to Denver or Seattle. Now if all you want to do is see snow fall in your city limits that is a different story.
I'm just stating that if you really like to "hike" you will find Denver and Seattle more more enjoyable than Minneapolis. You can drive 20-30 minutes from both cities and do some amazing hikes. That being said, Minneapolis has some nice short hikes.
As far as snow goes. I stick to what I said earlier. If you really like snow sports I would stick to Seattle or Denver.
I've lived in the Midwest, and I have lived on the west coast. Seattle is very similar to Vancouver B.C. in that YES people do normally drive to the mountains (which happen to be really close), to experience the snow. If you work in Downtown Seattle, you can work an 8 hour day in April, ski on 100+ inches of snow, and go hiking all in the same day. The same can't be said for Minnesota. The ski season there is very short, with really not much snow. Just some cold ice.
Keep in mind that Seattle and Denver are both big ski cities. Lots of people who board/ski live in both places. Yes I know that Minneapolis has people who ski, but it is not the same. The mountain culture just doesn't exist there.
Of course it snows in Minneapolis. But if a person has any real serious interest in snow sports it would be hard to really find Minneapolis enjoyable compared to Denver or Seattle. Now if all you want to do is see snow fall in your city limits that is a different story.
Just my two cents.
I guess, if you consider alpine skiing and snowboarding to be the only "snow sports." As i'm sure you know, snow skiing is divided into two main types, alpine and Nordic. The Nordic skiing "culture" in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan is massive, with Denver and especially Seattle not even coming remotely close. The only other places in the country with similar Nordic scrnes are the northeast and occasionally Alaska. The terrain and climate here in the Upper Midwest/Upper Great Lakes is very similar to Scandinavia, actually one of the closest places to those conditions that young really can get elsewhere in the world. That being said, the scnene here is massive, with civilian races constantly throughout the winter, nationally famous races, and globally famous races. There are groomed trails everywhere throughout the Twin Cities and Minnesota. Minneapolis and St. Paul are probably the best major cities in the country for skiing within the core city. Theodore Wirth Park in Minneapolis and Battle Creek Park in St Paul are easily some of the best urban ski race courses in the country. There are countless other parks, golf courses, trails, and lakes that you can ski on. The high school Nordic programs are massive, and the athletes are the best in the country, along with New England. The collegiate programs are also big, but limited since college skiing overall isn't very popular. Many US Olympic athletes come out of Minnesota and the surrounding region. What Minneapolis may lack in alpine skiing it excels in Nordic skiing. The opposite applies for Denver and Seattle.
I guess, if you consider alpine skiing and snowboarding to be the only "snow sports." As i'm sure you know, snow skiing is divided into two main types, alpine and Nordic. .
Yes yes you are right. Minnesota and the upper midwest does have great access to cross country (Nordic Skiing).
The main reason that the western states/provinces don't have as many people focused on Nordic skiing comes down to the fact that you have much better access to Alpine Terrain out west. Alpine skiing is much more varied, and exciting.
Given the choice, the average young adult today would much rather board, than cross country ski.
I do give credit to Minneapolis though for being a great place to learn how to Nordic Ski. But if you want to expand your options than Denver, or Seattle is a much better fit.
I would rather have access to Aspen, Whistler, Crystal and Mt. Baker over Lutsen.
This doesn't in any way diminish the great city of Minneapolis. It is just not as exciting a place to live if you really want to get out and enjoy skiing/boarding on a consistent basis.
When it comes to water, yes Seattle is surrounded by water. But keep in mind that Puget Sound, and the lakes around the Seattle area are very cold (requiring a wet suit), even in summer. Minnesota has plenty of lakes, but the beauty IMO does not compare to the PNW.
In the summer, Puget Sound gets almost to 60° which for some may be too cold. However, our lakes are in the low to mid 70s degrees and some can get up to 80°... if that requires a wet suit, then just... WOW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus
They're not equal or equatable in any way, and being able to drive an hour or two just to touch snow is not a great selling point for being "better" in that regard. I'm not sure how many people actually pack up their car just to experience micro climates like those offered in mountainous areas -- does anyone have some perspective on that (objective and/or comprehensive, explaining how it's done and how likely/often it happens).
It's a great selling point for someone who likes snow, but doesn't want to live in and deal with it. Since the OP specifically mentioned wanting 4 seasons, I don't think it makes for as strong an argument for Seattle.
Since you asked for perspective: You're right, snow *IN* Seattle almost makes for a natural disaster event, the hills upon hills with our temperate weather (meaning the snow refreezes every night, making for a very thick ice pack), the gov't lack of ability to effectively deal with snow (plow service is pretty sparse), coupled with the people in Seattle who can't drive for **** in the snow and doesn't have the necessary equipment to deal with the snow; the media that plays up some hysteria... Bleh, I was only too glad not to deal with snow *IN* Seattle every year. Now for those years where it doesn't snow, going up to the mountains makes for a nice treat, I90 (and other heavily used passes) is guaranteed to be plowed and plowed a lot-- the budget is there to deal with snow. And you're likely to deal with pragmatic and cautious drivers, not the morons who's going 50+ mph on chains/bald tires. Where I lived, it only took about 45 mins to the mountains. Stevens Pass was less than 2 hours drive. Honestly, the drive isn't that big a deal anyways, it's all about the destination. The weekends were always busiest, which is why I did weekdays night skiing so it wouldn't be as crowded. There's also Leavenworth which has their wintry and Xmas events which are extremely popular with Seattleites and other Washingtonians.
In the summer, Puget Sound gets almost to 60° which for some may be too cold. However, our lakes are in the low to mid 70s degrees and some can get up to 80°... if that requires a wet suit, then just... WOW.
.
I specifically meant to say Puget Sound (not Lake Washington etc.. etc..). In the summer time it mostly runs in the 50s.
It is not desirable to swim in Puget Sound, even in summer. You could easily get hyopthermia and die, even in the middle of August.
Yes yes you are right. Minnesota and the upper midwest does have great access to cross country (Nordic Skiing).
The main reason that the western states/provinces don't have as many people focused on Nordic skiing comes down to the fact that you have much better access to Alpine Terrain out west. Alpine skiing is much more varied, and exciting.
Given the choice, the average young adult today would much rather board, than cross country ski.
I do give credit to Minneapolis though for being a great place to learn how to Nordic Ski. But if you want to expand your options than Denver, or Seattle is a much better fit.
I would rather have access to Aspen, Whistler, Crystal and Mt. Baker over Lutsen.
This doesn't in any way diminish the great city of Minneapolis. It is just not as exciting a place to live if you really want to get out and enjoy skiing/boarding on a consistent basis.
This is entirely based off of one subjective point: that alpine skiing is better and more fun. I would disagree, but that's unrelated to this thread and we definitely don't need to get into an alpine vs. Nordic argument .
As I said earlier, Denver and Seattle are great for alpine. And, in turn, Minneapolis is better for Nordic. In your third paragraph, you mentioned that Minneapolis is "a great place to learn how to Nordic ski." Does that mean that Minneapolis is good mostly just for learning? That is far from the truth. As I said before, some of the largest professional races are held in and around Minneapolis and throughout the region. The American Birkiebiner, the largest ski race in North America, one of the longest ski races in North America, and one of the most difficult in the world, is held less than two hours away in Hayward, WI. In 2011 the Junior Olympics for Nordic skiing were held at Theodore Wirth Park in Minneapolis with the opening ceremony in the IDS Crystal Court. The 2013 Nordic Combined and Ski Jumping Junior Olympics were also held in Minneapolis. Battle Creek Park in St. Paul hosts part of the USSA SuperTour Race Series, which is the premier race series in the US and consists of Olympic level skiers. Large civilian races, such as the Twin Cities Championships, take place throughout the entire season. Minneapolis hosts a large ski festival, the City of Lakes Loppet. The Upper Midwest has some of the nicest, most famous, challenging, and scenic Nordic ski trails in the world, topped of course by Scandinavia.
As far as "expanding your options go," you're right, there are places to Nordic ski in the mountains. Sure, the mountains are good for some more mountainous scenery and high altitude training, but the overall amount of ski trails is much smaller. Also, since they are in the mountains, they are not easily accessible from the core cities. The only thing you gain there is different, perhaps more exciting scenery and less oxygen, which is the main reason the Olympic Qualifiers and Nationals are held out west. In every other aspect, Minneapolis and the entire Upper Midwest are more ideal for Nordic skiing. If you want to "get out and enjoy skiing on a consistent basis," then Minneapolis and St. Paul are much better. The scenery in the cities is wonderful for Nordic, the terrain is wonderful for Nordic, and there are trails and race courses everywhere. The snow cover is consistent without requiring high altitudes, and you can either ski in a remote forest and hills on a daily basis or choose to ski with a view of downtown skyscrapers on a daily basis. There are nationally-renowned ski trails here that are accessible by public transportation. Theodore Wirth Park will even be accessible by rapid transit in the next 7-10 years. The same level of a Nordic skiing scene cannot be found in Seattle or Denver. If you are a Nordic skier, Minneapolis and the surrounding region is very much an exciting place to live.
Have you decided yet? What did you decide? I lived in Seattle for a while and what hasn't been mentioned is the significant increase in rents and housing prices in the Seattle area over the past 10 years. Also - about the weather in Seattle, it doesn't constantly rain, it's just a constant overcast. If you like the sun or if you're craving 4 seasons, Seattle isn't it.
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.
.
