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.
Multi-part question here... but first a little background.
"Great" is a somewhat subjective and elusive concept when applied to cities. How do you define it? Academics might have a very different definition than the average individual living somewhere. Here is one attempt to rank cities by their "greatness" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city) --
GaWC Leading World Cities, 2004
An attempt to redefine and recategorise leading world cities was made by PJ Taylor at GaWC (Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network) in 2004.
Global Cities
Well rounded global cities
Very large contribution: London and New York City.
Smaller contribution and with cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
Financial: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo.
Political and social: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, D.C.
World Cities
Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.
Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.
Worldwide leading cities
Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Mumbai, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basel, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, New Delhi, Shanghai.
Anyway as you can see Denver makes the list as a World City with a "Primarily non-economic global contribution" -- whatever that means. At a certain point "great" merely becomes a function of how you define it. Is it Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita income, population, pct. of possible sunshine, crime rate, # of golf courses, # of Ethiopian restaurants... etc. How is it that Atlanta, Denver, and Miami make it on the GaWC list and not Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia or Seattle (they all did from a different GaWC list from 1999).
So here is the multi-part question: 1) Do you consider Denver to be a great city?
2) Why or why not?
3) What other city that you consider comparable (however you want to define it) to Denver would you choose to live in over Denver? Or if Denver is your first choice, what comparable city would be your second choice?
Here are my (very subjective) answers:
I do consider Denver a great city -- not in the sense of NYC or London or Tokyo, but in the sense that:
Denver allows for a variety of lifestyles with a great deal of tolerance for the citizens.
Denver has fairly dense neighborhoods that are pedestrian oriented enough that you can live with minimal use of a car if you so choose.
The Denver region has focused on what I believe to be one of the greatest challenges facing cities similar to Denver -- Transportation; If it were not for the regional transportation system (FasTracks) that is being developed over the next decade, I would not have moved here.
Outdoor recreation is great, and there are enough art, cultural facilities, and restaurants to keep things interesting; people are "pleasant".
The climate is by no means perfect, but it's better than most, at least for me.
Among what I consider to be "comparable" cities my first choice to live in is Denver. Second would be Seattle, but I have a phobia of earthquakes (I lived in the SF bay area for 4 years and earthquakes were constantly in the back of my mind).
1) Do you consider Denver to be a great city? 2) Why or why not?
Short Answer: Who cares?
Long Answer:
Is Denver a "global" or "world" city? No. Is it an economic powerhouse? No. There are 11 fortune 500 companies headquartered in the greater Denver area, and that's actually not too bad for a city of it's size (Phoenix only has 4, San Diego only has 3, and those two cities are bigger than Denver). But it doesn't have the economy of an LA, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, NY, Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta. Does Denver rank high on "Best cities for ...." lists? When it comes to the most physically fit, outdoors-oriented population, yes. Some Denver suburbs consistently come up in "Best Places to Raise a Family" lists (which I think are bogus, BTW). For pretty much everything else, it's about average.
But you know what? Who cares how "high" Denver ranks on some high and mighty list. Who cares whether Denver is good enough for the elites and snobs of the world? Denver has a little bit of everything you need to live a fully functional, diverse, happy life. It's not a cultural zoo like LA or New York, but it has representation from pretty much every nationality, religion, or culture around the world in one part of town or another. Denver has a top gun library, art museum, performing arts center, and city park system. It has a fairly young, fun loving population. It has a lot of civic pride. You can run around the whole world searching for the best, top-ranked, "Great city"-- it doesn't mean you as an individual will be any happier.
Quote:
3) What other city that you consider comparable (however you want to define it) to Denver would you choose to live in over Denver? Or if Denver is your first choice, what comparable city would be your second choice?
That's a question I've asked several times on this forum, and have never once received a response! I guess for me, Phoenix-- since I've already been living in the Phoenix area the past several years going to college. I think I like Denver more, but I like Phoenix too (or I wouldn't have gone there in the first place). I also like Las Vegas and San Diego. On the state level, I like Arizona and Colorado about equally. The two states and the two respective cities are very different when you compare them literally (especially the weather)-- but when you take a step back and think, on a global scale, and with an historical perspective: what does it mean to live in a city like Denver, or a city like Phoenix-- they are very similar. They are both large twentieth century metropolises in the middle of the West. I'm actually back in the Denver area right now as I type this, visiting my family on vacation. I still have no idea where I'm going to end up in 5 months, when I graduate!
Oh yeah, I think all climates are acquired tastes, and totally subjective. I don't think climate is a useful measure at all for "ranking" cities.
I for one am quite surprised that Denver ended up in any list alongside NYC, SF, LA, Atlanta, etc. It might be because the Rocky Mountain West, a major region in the U.S., needs a "capital" to represent itself, and Denver is really the only obvious choice. However, if that was true I'd think Seattle or Portland would have to be on there to represent the northwest, and they are nowhere to be found.
Denver, for all its benefits, simply isn't on the level of any of those major metros, and hopefully never will be.
When looking at large-ish cities, however, I have to balance the amenities offered in the city, the livability of the city, your ability to land a job that will pay your bills, and the proximity to natural recreation. Denver, I believe, offers quite a bit in all those categories.
Other than Denver, I think Portland has a lot to offer, though I have no real burning desire to live there. I am also interested in other (smaller) cities in Colorado as well, though that's kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I agree that Denver has a good balance of large city amenities without having to deal with massive amounts of people. I believe this list is based on many factors not just population but also its area of influence, the amount of money the area generates, things that are produced because of that city. Denver is not very high on that list not even close to the top. All it shows is where a particular city fits in with the rest of the world.
Metro Denver is not a "great" city. In my opinion, it is a mediocre city with the good fortune to be in a very spectacular setting (which it is doing its best to ravage). Take its physical setting away and you have a quite oridnary and sadly typical amorphous, sprawled, automobile-dominated blob of mostly suburbia--just like that you might find just about anywhere in the US. Architecturally, with few exceptions, there has been nothing worthy of note built in Denver in probably the last 50-75 years. Culturally, it is probably about typical for a city of its size, with a few exceptions where it is either better or worse than the norm. It's transportation system is automobile-centric and largely substandard. Metro Denver used to have a reputation of affordability--that has significantly eroded in the last 15-20 years. It sadly seems to be a place increasingly determined to squander its blessings, and nurture its curses.
Metro Denver is not a "great" city. In my opinion, it is a mediocre city with the good fortune to be in a very spectacular setting (which it is doing its best to ravage). Take its physical setting away and you have a quite oridnary and sadly typical amorphous, sprawled, automobile-dominated blob of mostly suburbia--just like that you might find just about anywhere in the US. Architecturally, with few exceptions, there has been nothing worthy of note built in Denver in probably the last 50-75 years. Culturally, it is probably about typical for a city of its size, with a few exceptions where it is either better or worse than the norm. It's transportation system is automobile-centric and largely substandard. Metro Denver used to have a reputation of affordability--that has significantly eroded in the last 15-20 years. It sadly seems to be a place increasingly determined to squander its blessings, and nurture its curses.
Don't be so quick to down play it as you have. Yes many of the suburbs of Denver are your very typical Anytown, USA with its "insert favorite store here" strip malls and shopping centers. However, the city is moving foreward and is making huge investments into the entire region. As far as architecture is concerned..... art museum? convention center? museum of contemporary art? as well as private construction projects as well such as the new 4 seasons hotel and numerous projects being built down there also. Each place has its pros and cons. Denver isn't NYC or LA never will be but compared to other places in the US that have little to no progressive governments or citizens is it really that generic of a place?
Denver isn't NYC or LA never will be but compared to other places in the US that have little to no progressive governments or citizens is it really that generic of a place?
In my opinion, yes. And, by the way, I actually am a Denver native. As for what you mentioned in architecture, the addition to the Denver Art Museum has the dubious distinction of being on a few "worst architecture" lists that I have seen--and I would agree. Lower downtown Denver does have some wonderful historical architecture from the turn of the century--that would be from the 19th to the 20th century, that is. I also like Coors Field's architecture, partly because it is sort of "retro" and actually incorporated part of the old Union Pacific office building into it. It is the exception, in my mind, however. As for metro politics and "progessivity," I'll leave that alone except to say that the sprawl developers still run the show and it is reflected in what the metro area looks like.
When it comes to mass transit, at present rates of development, in 50 years metro Denver may have a mass transit system about the size of what it had in 1920, when the metro area was about 20% of its present population. You gotta love progress like that!
"Metro Denver is not a "great" city. In my opinion, it is a mediocre city with the good fortune to be in a very spectacular setting (which it is doing its best to ravage)."
"In my opinion, yes. And, by the way, I actually am a Denver native. As for what you mentioned in architecture, the addition to the Denver Art Museum has the dubious distinction of being on a few "worst architecture" lists that I have seen--and I would agree. Lower downtown Denver does have some wonderful historical architecture from the turn of the century--that would be from the 19th to the 20th century, that is. I also like Coors Field's architecture, partly because it is sort of "retro" and actually incorporated part of the old Union Pacific office building into it. It is the exception, in my mind, however. As for metro politics and "progessivity," I'll leave that alone except to say that the sprawl developers still run the show and it is reflected in what the metro area looks like.
When it comes to mass transit, at present rates of development, in 50 years metro Denver may have a mass transit system about the size of what it had in 1920, when the metro area was about 20% of its present population. You gotta love progress like that!"
i think this is pretty much right on the money.
it can sometimes seem like people tend to either "not care" or even be aware, or try hard to think it is a great city no matter what (a bit of part of the culture here), and with that it just might wind up as something akin to an inland suburban LA in not too much more time. it's already on it's way. i tend to believe that people can make positive differences and it's worth trying, but at this point, i think anyone interested can look around this thread at what it's basically like in the area, and visit to decide for themselves. and, i would add, do their best to make some of those conscientious impacts here.
In my opinion, yes. And, by the way, I actually am a Denver native. As for what you mentioned in architecture, the addition to the Denver Art Museum has the dubious distinction of being on a few "worst architecture" lists that I have seen--and I would agree. Lower downtown Denver does have some wonderful historical architecture from the turn of the century--that would be from the 19th to the 20th century, that is. I also like Coors Field's architecture, partly because it is sort of "retro" and actually incorporated part of the old Union Pacific office building into it. It is the exception, in my mind, however. As for metro politics and "progessivity," I'll leave that alone except to say that the sprawl developers still run the show and it is reflected in what the metro area looks like.
When it comes to mass transit, at present rates of development, in 50 years metro Denver may have a mass transit system about the size of what it had in 1920, when the metro area was about 20% of its present population. You gotta love progress like that!
Regardless of if you like the art museum or not it is still there and was the creation of a fairly well known architect and will be there for a while and is a part of the city (Im a fan of anything that isn't a variation of brown or tan). As young as the city itself is the stock of historic buildings is impressive. other areas of the western US do not have the amount of older historic neighborhoods.
Unfortunately the mass transit situation is not as great as it once was and the city might have made a huge mistake in removing the street car system when it did. At the same time though that time period was when inner city's suffered. Fastracks won't be as extensive to the city of denver as the street car system was but it serves the needs of a far more larger geographic area and is focused on union station downtown. I doubt it will take 50 years for it to be completed
Regardless of if you like the art museum or not it is still there and was the creation of a fairly well known architect and will be there for a while and is a part of the city (Im a fan of anything that isn't a variation of brown or tan). As young as the city itself is the stock of historic buildings is impressive. other areas of the western US do not have the amount of older historic neighborhoods.
Unfortunately the mass transit situation is not as great as it once was and the city might have made a huge mistake in removing the street car system when it did. At the same time though that time period was when inner city's suffered. Fastracks won't be as extensive to the city of denver as the street car system was but it serves the needs of a far more larger geographic area and is focused on union station downtown. I doubt it will take 50 years for it to be completed
i pretty much agree here, though i'd say there are more buildings of less historical significance that are, nonetheless, BY people or offices of historical significance around the area.
as for mass transit, i wonder how much influence the oil interests and GM/"National City Line" (the not so covert operation by the auto industry to destroy trains/mass transit where it could to bolster automobile dependence...and of course much of the rest of the corporate culture probably didn't complain if it meant more sprawl, more resource use, more growth, more business) mid-last century had on the car-ification of the area. and now, it seems like the car-ification is part of the culture and who it's attracted and how it's affected habits here. the buses are pretty good, though! (not the same, i know)
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.
