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.
Just curious, and I have no interest in a fight so responses that are snarky, sarcastic, or below the level of common decency, I won't respond, but I am serious, is it really that hard to believe that MSP is an outdoorsy city/metro? I'm curious because Iv'e been to several cities throughout the country coast to coast and it's above average regarding it's population and it's physical activity level (or maybe that just doesn't equate to being outdoorsy). It's been listed as either the most fit metro in the country, or in the top 5 for the past 5 years by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) which doesn't get much more objective than that. I get that there are several places to alpine ski, and mountain bike in Denver, and or around Seattle, and I would assume Phoenix as well (MTB) what else do they offer? Again I'm curious because there is a checklist of activities that one can do in MSP that most people will travel to do (Iv'e been to Tahoe/Truckee, Bend, Asheville where you can pretty roll out of bed and hit a trail) and other than downhill MTB for 20 miles I could still do the same thing there as in MSP. Is it because MSP is Midwestern, is it a quality thing? I know there are national parks within a day or half a days drive but from the standpoint of grabbing your bike (MTB/Road), tent, kayak, hiking boots, etc... and heading out for the weekend how different is it from the MSP. Again I am genuinely curious what do the other three places offer not so much number of places to go but what is different from my experience here, and why is it difficult to believe that MSP can be active. Of all the cities I know the least about Phoenix but seriously what qualifies as outdoorsy, what's the criteria. Thanks.
I know Denver is always listed as the top or near the top for most fit. And definitely number 1 for least obese as well. Actually, most of these cities are among the most fit in the US.
Just curious, and I have no interest in a fight so responses that are snarky, sarcastic, or below the level of common decency, I won't respond, but I am serious, is it really that hard to believe that MSP is an outdoorsy city/metro? I'm curious because Iv'e been to several cities throughout the country coast to coast and it's above average regarding it's population and it's physical activity level (or maybe that just doesn't equate to being outdoorsy). It's been listed as either the most fit metro in the country, or in the top 5 for the past 5 years by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) which doesn't get much more objective than that. I get that there are several places to alpine ski, and mountain bike in Denver, and or around Seattle, and I would assume Phoenix as well (MTB) what else do they offer? Again I'm curious because there is a checklist of activities that one can do in MSP that most people will travel to do (Iv'e been to Tahoe/Truckee, Bend, Asheville where you can pretty roll out of bed and hit a trail) and other than downhill MTB for 20 miles I could still do the same thing there as in MSP. Is it because MSP is Midwestern, is it a quality thing? I know there are national parks within a day or half a days drive but from the standpoint of grabbing your bike (MTB/Road), tent, kayak, hiking boots, etc... and heading out for the weekend how different is it from the MSP. Again I am genuinely curious what do the other three places offer not so much number of places to go but what is different from my experience here, and why is it difficult to believe that MSP can be active. Of all the cities I know the least about Phoenix but seriously what qualifies as outdoorsy, what's the criteria. Thanks.
No, you're right. Minneapolis offers just as much as the others when it comes to being outdoorsy. I'd imagine the only reason it's not as nationally known for being outdoorsy as the other cities is because it doesn't have mountains nearby. I think it offers just as much though.
Well, I not necessarily much closer. That's probably an exaggeration. However, I think that overall, the Denver metro is closer to the mountains than the Seattle metro is.
How much closer is it?
The beginning of the Issaquah Alps (which connects to the Cascades) actually is about 30 min drIve from Seattle.
The beginning of the Issaquah Alps (which connects to the Cascades) actually is about 30 min drIve from Seattle.
Not that much closer. If we're talking about the distance from the Downtown area, DT Denver is about 15 minutes away from South/North Table mountain. The foothills are about 20 minutes away from Downtown.
1. Employment: Minneapolis; Seattle; Denver; Phoenix (MSP has lowest unemployment rate in USA plus a pretty high average wage)
2. Cost of living: Phoenix, Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle (Although comparing utility costs with a friend in Phoenix mine are lower in Minneapolis)
3. Professional sports: Denver ties Minneapolis, Seattle and Phoenix pretty much wash each other out.
4. Climate: Denver; Minneapolis; Seattle; Phoenix (MN winters are no joke but the rest of the year is awesome. Denver has nice winters where the snow usually melts off in days and you can have 70 degree days in January)
5. Outdoors: To me Denver ties Minneapolis and not sure who to pick over Phoenix or Seattle. Both MSP and DEN are top ranked for active and healthy residents. Denver is based right at the foothills of the Rockies and MSP share the Mississippi river along with countless trail surrounded lakes. Both are top bike friendly cities to boot.
Taxes: Seattle; Denver; Phoenix; Minneapolis (MSP has a high income tax rate but provides a fairly high level of service which you may or may not find valuable. CO has a 4.3% flat IT where WA has no state IT.
Transit: Denver; Minneapolis; Seattle; Phoenix
Skylines: all cities except Phoenix have nice skyscrapers. Phoenix on its own is comparable to St Paul. However, if you factor in both Minneapolis and St Paul then I would rank the TC as having the most picturesque skyline.
I moved to MSP from DEN and if I could make a completely lateral move I would go back to Denver. I have good friends in both Seattle and Phoenix but have not been to either so I am basing ranking on discussion and online rankings and data points. Denver has a slightly more favorable climate to me. I like the arid western vibe and the lack of muggy dew points. If the winters in MSP weren't so extreme I would probably be quite content. The MSP metro is a really nice place overall. You have great quality of life, affordable housing, good wages and overall job market, nice mix of urban forestry with scenic rivers and lakes. It isn't super flat as the SP side has river bluffs. With the other exception of Phoenix all of these metros mentioned consistently rank towards the top of national rankings for Quality of life, careers, and residents health.
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.
