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’d have a tough time picking between Denver and Seattle. I own a condo at Beaver Creek and Denver is a center for the cable industry where I have a lot of technical expertise and experience. My sister lives in Vancouver. She has a house on Galiano and I have several places to stay at Whistler. Both cities are fine if you can afford the housing. I’d have no problem living in leafy Washington Park walkable to light rail in Denver. Easy to the airport. Easy to Tech Center. The downtown does nothing for me but there’s plenty of amenities in the city. I’ve spent more time in the tech office parks east of Lake Washington than I have in Seattle. I don’t have enough experience to point to a neighborhood in Seattle where I’d want to live. The combination of salt water and mountains is a huge plus though the summer ocean temperatures are too cold for me. I was swimming at high tide yesterday in 72F. Seattle is high 50s.
You clearly either don't live here as I keep seeing your name frequently pop up with incorrect info about the Denver area. As someone who lives here and actually partakes in the outdoor scene on weekends, I'm not imaging things when I'm sitting in traffic Saturday mornings trying to get to a trailhead. There's a reason the guys who work for me leave their houses at 3am to get to the ski lifts and it's not because they like getting up early, it's to fight traffic with everyone else headed to the mountains to ski, hike, etc.
You clearly either don't live here as I keep seeing your name frequently pop up with incorrect info about the Denver area. As someone who lives here and actually partakes in the outdoor scene on weekends, I'm not imaging things when I'm sitting in traffic Saturday mornings trying to get to a trailhead. There's a reason the guys who work for me leave their houses at 3am to get to the ski lifts and it's not because they like getting up early, it's to fight traffic with everyone else headed to the mountains to ski, hike, etc.
There’s nothing incorrect about what she said though. It can take a while to get further into the mountains and ski areas on a weekend. But why ignore that there are much closer trails and outdoor recreation options right in the area that don’t require you to sit in hours of traffic? Doesn’t make sense.
I'm continually mystified by people who rank Denver's or Portland's transit highly. Seattle destroys them in transit commute share. Within city limits, it was 3x Denver's share (which is downright bad) and nearly 2x Portland's the last time I looked at the Census ACS.
I'm continually mystified by people who rank Denver's or Portland's transit highly. Seattle destroys them in transit commute share. Within city limits, it was 3x Denver's share (which is downright bad) and nearly 2x Portland's the last time I looked at the Census ACS.
If Denver and Portland had surface transportation infrastructure that was as lousy as Seattle's is, their transit ridership would be higher. Just sayin'.
1. Our bus system is much better. This is the #1 factor in transit commute shares in most cities. Buses can spider-web everywhere, and they can have HOV lanes in many places. Most Seattle residents are a short stroll from decent bus service, at least to Downtown.
2. We're substantially denser. Our house areas might have similar stats, but Seattle has a much larger number of people in dense nodes, i.e. right next to transit.
3. Our big university is right in town.
4. A large percentage of Seattle's housing (mostly newer) has little or no parking.
5. Major Washington employers are required to actively support and encourage alternative transportation. Many are particularly enthusiastic because they can build less parking.
6. Our leading industry is heavily oriented to young, childless adults, many of whom are straight from college and/or countries with transit cultures.
7. Parking probably costs more.
8. Traffic, as you say.
That's in no order, and isn't a complete list of course. The main certainty is that transit works better in Seattle (at least vs. these two) because of reasons that are as different as the hundreds of thousands of people who ride every day.
I'm continually mystified by people who rank Denver's or Portland's transit highly. Seattle destroys them in transit commute share. Within city limits, it was 3x Denver's share (which is downright bad) and nearly 2x Portland's the last time I looked at the Census ACS.
What about other types of transit trips, like leisure activities or airport trips? In general, I know the Portland TriMet does decently when looking at total transit trips per resident, though not sure how it compares to Seattle.
Commute trips are by far the largest component of just about any transit system's ridership. And they're the easiest to track in a parallel (per capita) way.
That said, Tri Met is pretty friendly for non-commute trips (surface rail is visible and approachable) and maybe that reduces the gap slightly.
I was thinking about the region as a whole, but yes Portland beats Denver as far as city proper goes.
While transit certainly plays a role in a neighborhoods walkability, and while I do hate RTDs design, are the neighborhoods themselves more structurally dense than Denver's? What makes the Pearl District (or the equivalent) more walkable than Cap Hill?
An airport with more connections and options, more pro sports, college D1 school 40mins away, more diverse population, more access to skiing I'd assume, a transit system that has twice any many miles of track and reach more suburbs are some amenities that Portland doesn't have.
Portland doesn't have a coastline but it definitely beats Denver out on water activities. Denver still has water activities in the metro area though.
Some of the amenities are listed above.
I do like how the MAX is built within the city but Denvers reaches further out into the suburbs in every cardinal direction. I would prefer a hybrid of both.
Portland doesn't have a coastline in the actual city, yes, but it's only about an hour and a half away which, from my understanding, isn't that much longer than what it takes to get to the mountains in Denver.
You clearly either don't live here as I keep seeing your name frequently pop up with incorrect info about the Denver area. As someone who lives here and actually partakes in the outdoor scene on weekends, I'm not imaging things when I'm sitting in traffic Saturday mornings trying to get to a trailhead. There's a reason the guys who work for me leave their houses at 3am to get to the ski lifts and it's not because they like getting up early, it's to fight traffic with everyone else headed to the mountains to ski, hike, etc.
I think you're exaggerating the amount of traffic. They're 30min+ non-peak time at most on most Saturday morning or Friday evenings. It might be worse in the winters or at the start or end of long weekends though.
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.
