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.
Duluth, much easier to grow things and have massive trees in your yard, way less fire prone than Denver and a freshwater lake. Denver has a climate change train wreck coming up.
For natural beauty, I’m partial to the Great Lakes. I like to see water.
The rugged shoreline of Lake Superior is one of my favorite places in the whole country.
Denver has a pretty backdrop, but Duluth is more interesting all around.
Yeah if we're talking about the cities themselves (i.e. not trying to claim Golden/Evergreen as part of Denver), Duluth wins IMO. The way the town is platted on a large hill overlooking a vast, dramatic lake - it's quite breathtaking every time I'm there. It's also way greener, because trees grow naturally there.
Other than the mountains in the distance, the scenery of in-town Denver is pretty meh.
I have been to Duluth several times over the years and it is an exellent scenic city. Lots of interesting brick homes, The massive Lake Superior, the huge hills and lushness of the city plus the parks are really nice.
It is a huge summer tourist destination in that part of the Midwest, but flies under the radar nationally. But it is a very appealing and scenic from the late Spring into middle Fall for those who don't prefer cold weather.
The steep hills, historic rowhouses and huge 19th century homes with large lush gardens along Lake Superior. Enger Park with it's huge gardens, brick walkup building with views of Lake Superior.
Denver proper is mainly a flat city on the plains with Panoramic views of the mountains from a medium distance. They had a massive tree planting program a century ago so it's rather green in older neighborhoods for a semi-arid city but the eastern half of the city is very dry looking for more than half the year.
There are areas on the Eastside of Denver after a few dry months where there are few trees and the grass looks like hay and this can go on for months, the South-West side of the city is far more scenic.
I think that even with the pictures of Denver all over the internet that many of them are zoomed in because they are much smaller when one is actually there. Based on zoomed in photos of the mountains from Denver many of the photos online looked zoomed-in because in much of the city they are quite far in the distance.
The mountains are in the distance and they offer an opn panoremic view but it is quite far in the distance compared to other Western cities. Parts of East Denver the mountains look really, really far in the distance.
I just don't understand the appeal at all personally of the scenery in the city of Denver proper. The scenery adjacent to Denver is very nice and the views are decent in the majority of the city itself but nearly a vast majority of western cities have really nice mountain views.
Personally, Denver doesn't really have a very good parks system either. I have never understood why average run of the mill parks that aren't anything special like Washington, Chessman and City park command a fortune for just living with-in a few miles of those parks.
In my opinion, the foothills and open Mountains with wide views of the Rockies themselves are the real scenic showcase of Colorado, not Denver.
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.
