Denver is a better place to live than Chicago

1. ine, lower humidity, and winters that feel milder despite similar temperatures.
2. Denver provides easier access to outdoor recreation - Rocky Mountains for skiing, hiking, camping, climbing, and mountain biking within an hour.
3. Denver has better air quality than Chicago due to less industrial pollution and lower population density.
4. Downtown Denver offers abundant, affordable parking compared to Chicago's expensive and limited options.
5. Denver's light rail system has expanded significantly, providing good public transportation alternatives.

❌ Top Reasons to Disagree

1. Housing costs in Denver have skyrocketed - the market may be in a bubble, with home prices and rents becoming unaffordable for average workers.
2. Chicago offers vastly superior cultural amenities - world-class museums (Art Institute, Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium), architecture, theater district, and music venues.
3. Denver's downtown feels less safe than Chicago's Loop - visible homelessness and public drug use near shelters in the city center make women and families uncomfortable, especially at night.
4. Denver's street layout is confusing - the grid doesn't align consistently, mixing diagonal streets following the river with standard north-south orientation.
5. Denver's restrictive zoning artificially inflates housing costs and forces sprawl, creating longer commutes and more pollution than necessary.
6. Denver residents exhibit provincial self-righteousness - bumper stickers saying "Native," reverential attitudes toward local sports teams, and assumptions that their city is uniquely superior.

Each reason is a belief with its own page of pros/cons, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Each argument is scored by the truth, linkage, and importance of their linked pro/con sub-arguments.

---

⚖️ Core Value Conflict

Supporting Values

Advertised:

1. Quality of life through outdoor access and natural beauty
2. Health and wellness - active lifestyle enabled by climate and geography
3. Work-life balance in a smaller, more manageable city
4. Environmental consciousness and clean air

Actual:

1. Preference for suburban/car-oriented western lifestyle over dense urban living
2. Prioritizing recreation over cultural depth
3. Acceptance of higher housing costs in exchange for mountain access

Opposing Values

Advertised:

1. Cultural sophistication and world-class urban amenities
2. True urban diversity and cosmopolitan experience
3. Economic opportunity in a major financial/business center
4. Public transit and walkability over car dependence

Actual:

1. Appreciation for density, architecture, and established urban infrastructure
2. Preference for deep cultural institutions over outdoor recreation
3. Great Lakes water access matters as much as mountain access

Advertised values are what supporters and opponents claim motivates their position. Actual values are what evidence suggests truly drives them, based on their actions rather than stated reasons.

---

💡 Interests & Motivations

Supporters

1. Outdoor enthusiasts - skiers, climbers, hikers, mountain bikers who prioritize weekend recreation
2. People seeking sunshine and lower humidity for health or preference reasons
3. Those with family connections to the Rocky Mountain region
4. Workers in Denver's tech and aerospace sectors who need to live near employment
5. Those fleeing Midwest winters or seeking a "western" lifestyle

Opponents

1. Cultural professionals - artists, academics, museum workers who depend on major institutions
2. People who prioritize walkable urban density over suburban sprawl
3. Those with established careers in Chicago's larger economy
4. Fans of Great Lakes recreation - sailing, fishing, beach access
5. People concerned about Denver's housing affordability crisis

Understanding interests and motivations is essential for conflict resolution. We must identify what each side truly wants and needs to develop solutions that address underlying concerns rather than surface positions.

---

🔗 Shared vs. Conflicting Interests

Shared Interests

1. Both cities offer access to significant natural/water features (mountains vs. Great Lakes)
2. Both provide strong job markets in different sectors
3. Both have growing food and craft beer scenes
4. Both offer professional sports teams and urban amenities

Conflicting Interests

1. Denver prioritizes outdoor recreation access; Chicago prioritizes cultural institution depth
2. Denver accepts sprawl and car dependence; Chicago maintains walkable density
3. Denver's climate appeals to some; Chicago's true four seasons appeal to others
4. Denver's smaller scale feels manageable; Chicago's major-city scale provides more opportunity

---

📜 Foundational Assumptions

Required to Accept This Belief

1. Access to outdoor recreation is more valuable than access to world-class cultural institutions
2. Climate and sunshine have significant impact on quality of life and are worth prioritizing
3. A smaller, more manageable city is preferable to a major metropolitan center
4. Proximity to family (for this particular person, in Boise) matters more than other factors

Required to Reject This Belief

1. Cultural depth, architecture, and urban sophistication are more valuable than mountain access
2. True urban density and walkability are superior to car-dependent sprawl
3. Major economic opportunities in finance, law, and corporate headquarters matter more than tech/aerospace jobs
4. Great Lakes water access provides equivalent recreational value to mountain access

These assumptions highlight foundational disagreements - what each side must assume to defend their view.

---

🔄 Similar Beliefs

Stronger Versions

1. Denver is the best city to live in the United States
2. Mountain access makes any Rocky Mountain city superior to any Midwest or coastal city

Weaker Versions

1. Denver is a better fit for outdoor enthusiasts specifically, but Chicago is better overall
2. Denver and Chicago are both good cities with different strengths for different people

Grouping similar belief statements prevents fragmented debates and ensures comprehensive analysis.

---

🔬 Evidence & Objectivity

🧪 Top Objective Criteria

1. Days of sunshine per year (measurable climate data)
2. Cost of living / housing affordability relative to median income
3. Number and quality of cultural institutions (museums, theaters, concert halls)
4. Crime rates and public safety statistics
5. Access time to recreational amenities (mountains, lakes, parks)
6. Public transportation coverage and ridership

Measurable standards for evaluating this belief objectively, independent of personal values or preferences.

---

📂 Evidence Quality Assessment

Supporting Evidence

1. Denver averages 300 days of sunshine annually vs. Chicago's 189 days
2. Denver provides access to multiple ski resorts within 1-2 hours
3. Denver's air quality index is generally better than Chicago's
4. Forbes ranked Denver metro #5 for doing business

Opposing Evidence

1. Chicago's median home price to income ratio is more favorable than Denver's (Denver housing costs have increased faster than wages)
2. The Art Institute of Chicago ranks among the top 10 museums globally; Denver has no equivalent institutions
3. Chicago's public transit serves 1.6 million daily riders; Denver's serves approximately 100,000
4. Chicago's Loop is consistently rated as safer for pedestrians at night than downtown Denver near homeless service centers

---

📉 Cost-Benefit Analysis

📕 Potential Benefits of Choosing Denver

1. More sunshine and lower humidity improve mood and enable year-round outdoor activity
2. World-class skiing, hiking, and mountain recreation within an hour
3. Cleaner air and generally better environmental quality
4. Less confusing for drivers outside downtown (though downtown itself is confusing)
5. Closer to family in Boise and other mountain west connections

📘 Potential Costs of Choosing Denver

1. Significantly higher housing costs without proportional wage increases
2. Lack of world-class cultural institutions - fewer museums, theaters, architectural landmarks
3. Homeless service delivery model creates visible problems in downtown core, affecting women and families' sense of safety
4. More car-dependent sprawl results in longer commutes and more pollution
5. Provincial attitudes and "Native" bumper sticker culture can feel exclusionary to newcomers

---

🎯 Short vs. Long-Term Impacts

Short-Term

1. Denver's sunshine immediately improves mood and enables outdoor activity
2. Housing costs create immediate financial stress for renters and buyers
3. Cultural limitations may not be felt immediately but become apparent over time

Long-Term

1. Outdoor recreation access provides sustained quality-of-life benefits for active people
2. Housing affordability crisis may force middle-class workers to leave or commute from distant suburbs
3. Lack of deep cultural institutions limits long-term intellectual and artistic growth
4. Denver's growth trajectory may make it more like the cities people moved here to escape

---

🤝 Intelligent Compromise Solutions

Solutions Addressing Core Concerns

1. Personal circumstances matter most - neither city is objectively "better." Denver works for this person because of family proximity and outdoor recreation priorities. Chicago works for others with different values.
2. Denver could address homelessness more effectively by decentralizing services away from the downtown core where families and workers need to feel safe.
3. Denver should reform zoning to allow more housing construction, reducing costs and shortening commutes.
4. Acknowledge trade-offs honestly - Denver residents should recognize Chicago's cultural superiority; Chicago residents should acknowledge Denver's climate and recreation advantages.

Evidence-based solutions that address the legitimate interests of both sides, derived from cost-benefit analysis and shared concerns.

---

🚧 Primary Obstacles to Resolution

Barriers to Supporter Honesty/Compromise

1. Denver residents' provincial self-righteousness makes them defensive about the city's weaknesses
2. Sunk costs - people who paid high prices for Denver homes have financial interest in believing they made the right choice
3. Outdoor recreation is genuinely important to supporters, making other factors hard to weigh fairly

Barriers to Opposition Honesty/Compromise

1. Chicago residents may dismiss outdoor recreation because they don't personally prioritize it
2. Some people have never lived outside their home region and can't fairly compare
3. Career investments in Chicago-specific industries make relocation impractical regardless of quality of life

Specific factors preventing each side from engaging honestly and finding mutually beneficial solutions.

---

🧠 Cognitive Biases

Affecting Supporters

1. Confirmation bias - noticing sunshine and mountains while ignoring cultural limitations
2. Choice-supportive bias - justifying the decision to move to Denver by exaggerating its benefits
3. Availability heuristic - recent outdoor adventures feel more salient than absence of museums

Affecting Opponents

1. Status quo bias - preferring Chicago simply because it's familiar
2. Cultural superiority complex - dismissing outdoor recreation as less sophisticated than museum visits
3. Sour grapes - Chicago residents may minimize mountain recreation because they can't access it easily

---

📚 Media Resources

📈 Supporting

Songs

1. "Rocky Mountain High" by John Denver

Articles

1. Forbes ranking Denver metro #5 for doing business

📉 Opposing

Articles

1. Various analyses of Denver's housing affordability crisis
2. Rankings of Chicago's cultural institutions

---

⚖️ Legal Framework

Supporting Laws

1. Colorado's outdoor recreation economy protection statutes

Contradicting Laws

1. Denver's restrictive zoning ordinances that limit housing supply and drive up costs

---

🧭 General to Specific Belief Mapping

🔹 Most General (Upstream)

Support

1. Mountain cities provide better quality of life than Midwest cities

Oppose

1. Major metropolitan centers provide better opportunities and experiences than mid-size mountain cities

🔹 More Specific (Downstream)

Support

1. Denver specifically is better than Chicago specifically for people who prioritize outdoor recreation and family proximity to the mountain west

Oppose

1. Chicago specifically offers cultural and economic opportunities that Denver cannot match

---

📬 Personal Note

For me personally, Denver is better than Chicago because it's closer to my family in Boise and my job brought me here. I recognize this doesn't make Denver objectively better - it makes it better for my specific circumstances.

I appreciate Denver but bristle at the "Native" bumper stickers and self-righteousness. Every city has strengths and weaknesses. Denver has mountains and sunshine. Chicago has museums and architecture. Both have value. Neither makes its residents superior to the other.

📬 Contact me to contribute to the Idea Stock Exchange.

Independence Plaza in Denver is a great place to work

Best reasons to agree: +

1. It close to 16th street mall
2. It offers good views of the city
1. Reasons to disagree
1. The view to the south west is blocked by the Westin

Best reasons to disagree: -

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

                                                                                      

Best webpages that agree: +

1. http://www.independenceplaza.com/toc.cfm

Images that agree:

 A view to the South West from the 16th floor.

Images that disagree:

Chicago has better public art than Denver (-2.5)

Best reasons to agree: +5

1. Chicago has the cloud gate which a giant mirror type reflective culture that is sort of in the shape of a bean, but underneath it does weird mirror reflections... It lets you take cool pictures of yourself with the Chicago Sky line.
2. Chicago has a frank gehry pavilion  right in the middle of down town.
3. Chicago has a giant Picasso.
4. Chicago has a river that goes through it.
5. Chicago has more cool buildings, and more interesting architecture. 

Best reasons to agree: +1

1. Denver has a blue bear that looks in a window for some reason.
2. Denver has murals, but to be fair they are mostly commercial in nature, promoting the building they are painted in.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to disagree: -1

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -3/2 = -1.5

Total Idea Score: -2.5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Best webpages that agree: +	Best webpages that disagree: +
This link shows all the public art in the Chicago loop. There are also links for public art in the Chicago southwest, near south side, south east side, and north side.  The Chicago Public Art Program's website.

Images that agree:

This picture is typical of the murals that you see in down town Denver. It is OK, but doesn't really compare to the art you see in Chicago. Its fine that Denver couldn't afford a large Picasso sculture, but if you want to see famous, or renowned public art, you should go to Chicago, not Denver. 

They have similar cows in every big city that get painted for that city for some reaosn

Kind of a Mexican Gang flavored public art. 

There is a lot of dumb graffiti in Denver. 

Best reasons to agree: +

1. 
   

Background Context and Assumptions
Government shouldn't spend money on Public Art. 
Best reasons to agree: +5

1. This is just taking money from the poor and middle class to support the interest of the Rich. 
2. If people want art in their lives they can buy it themselves. When government subsidizes art they have to make choices. The people making these choices are experts who are trying to make decisions for the public. They invariably look down on the public, because in general the public is not interested in spending much money on original art. 

Denver has good Public Transportation

Best reasons to agree: +3

1. Denver has a good bike system, with bike lanes, and bikes you can borrow. +1-1=0
1. Reasons to Agree +1
1. This image is proof that Denver has a "borrow a bike system"
2. Reasons to disagree:
1. Every big city has public bike rentals, and the Denver ones are too expensive
2. There is a lot of good low cost parking down town Denver, which is cool. 
3. Denver has a good bus system +0
1. Reasons to Agree
1. The hybrid electric buses are cool.  
2. Reasons to disagree
1. The buses that let more than one person out at a time are cool.
2. The Denver bus and train stops could easily be improved.
1. Reasons to agree:
1. Going to Denver buss stop is a free learn to smoke clinic. I'm surprised that they are not directly sponsored by Marlboro cigarettes.
2. I have been riding the train for about a year. I have been checked for a train ticket 3 times. When you don't check for train tickets, you get a lot of homeless people riding the trains. For this to work as a reason to support the belief that the trains should be improved, you have to first assume that they should be improved for those who are not homeless, and that the trains should not be free. Lets assume that we believe the trains should be payed for by those people that ride them, and that there should not be exceptions for the homeless. Lets assume that we all agree that the homeless are a subgroup of the very poor that are too poor to keep it together even a little bit, because most anyone should be able to keep it together for enough to live on government assistance with a little bit of help, and all those people who have mental health problems so bad that they can't keep it that much together, should be assisted in a facility where there needs should be met, and they shouldn't be riding public transportation as a way to pass the time, unless they have somewhere important to go, between care facilities, but even then people should probably be supervising them. I have only seen people having to talk a crazy drunk and high person 3 times in the last 9 months of riding the train, but that is too many times. 
2. Reasons to disagree:
1. The convention center train stop is nice
1. Reasons to agree: +1
1. See the photos below, showing that the Convention Center train stop is pretty nice, has nice view, low ratio of homeless people, etc.

Best reasons to disagree: -

1. The outdoor mall on 16th street seems like sort of a bad idea. You have to get off your bike when your bike lane crosses it. But that is only because their are a lot of pedestrians going the other way, which is a good thing. 
1. Reasons to Disagree
1. The lengths of 16th street mall are long enough that the buses are nice.
2. Homeless people make the 16th street outdoor mall feel less safe.
1. Outdoor malls in the suburbs, that are too far to walk to, are more resistant to the homeless. You have only two choices Denver: 1) Make a space welcoming to the homeless or 2) Make a space welcoming to Women and Children. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be welcoming to the homeless, you shouldn't do it in the middle of your city.
2. Denver could be more accommodating of pedestrians and bicyclist. 
1. Reasons to Agree
1. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +1

# of reasons to disagree: -2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -3/2=-1.5

Total Idea Score: +-2.5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

                                                                                      

Best webpages that agree: +

1. http://www.rtd-denver.com/    Good info, but biased
2. https://www.facebook.com/RideRTD  Good info, less controlled

                                                                                      
Interest of those who agree: +

1. Promoting Denver, if they like it.
2. Patting themselves on the back, if they work for RTD

Interest of those who disagree: -

1. Criticizing Denver, if they don't like it.

                                                                                      

Best Videos that agree: +

                                                                                      

Images that agree:

There is a lot of good low cost parking down town Denver, which is cool

Images that agree:

 $5/day, $10 evenings

It is very hard to find $4 parking in Chicago (except for the $1/hr at Northerly Island)

Best reasons to agree: +

1. It shouldn't cost you tons to just get to a city. Until public transportation is much better, cities that don't want to exclude young or middle class individuals, should try to make parking affordable. 

Best reasons to disagree: -

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

                                                                                      
Interest of those who agree: +

1. Saving money, getting around, and figuring out a town, without having a very specific plan, and needing the flexibility of a car.

Interest of those who disagree: -

1. Not paying for parking.
2. Not having to deal with a lot of other cars down town.

                                                                                      

Podcast that disagree: -

1.   Parking is Hell

We should allow some development in our beautiful places +5

Best reasons to agree: +6

1. Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty. 
2. We shouldn't build if there is a delicate echo system, but it is OK if the echo system is strong. 
3. It is better to build in beautiful places, so that people can enjoy them, than to build in productive farm land. 
4. People who want to protect our beautiful places for future generations, should not try to keep them as prim-eval forest, but well cared for gardens. They can regulate the heck out of development, and only allow LEED certified, well thought out beautiful buildings. But a place's beauty should not automatically disqualify development, as long as the development is well thought out and managed, and public spaces are preserved for the poor to also enjoy the beauty. 
5. Echo-tourism can be a sustainable way for us to fund wild-life habitat. 
6. Our country needs, and will make money. We have choices. You can't make decisions in a vacuum. If we make more money from tourism, we won't have to make as much money from Natural Gas and Oil exploration. 

Best reasons to agree: +6

1. We should have people live in our cities that we already have. We don't need to make new cities in our beautiful places. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +6

# of reasons to disagree: -1

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Images that agree:

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty

Images that agree:

                                                                                      

Songs that agree: +

1. Nothing but Flowers by the Taking Heads

Songs that disagree: -

1. They paved paradise to put in a parking lot

                                                                                      

Best books that agree: +

1. 
   

Best books that disagree: -

1. 
   

                                                                                      
Best webpages that agree: +

1. 
   

Best webpages that agree: -

1. 
   

                                                                                      
Interest of those who agree: +

1. 
   

Interest of those who disagree: -

1. 
   

                                                                                      

Best Videos that agree: +

1.  

Best videos that disagree: -

1.  

                                                                                      

Poems that agree: +



Poems that disagree: -

                                                                                      

Podcast that agree: +

1. 
   

Podcast that disagree: -

1.   

Denver's weather is *better than Chicago's +3

Background, Context, and Assumptions

*Better will be different to different people. You can see my assumptions below. Obviously, employment opportunities, cultural events, and other opportunities are better in Chicago. But if your just a kids and don't care about anything in the summer time, but having nice weather to ride your bike around in, consider the discussion points below.

I got my info from here: http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/ or http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/denver_co/chicago_il/climate

Best reasons to agree: +5

1. The comfort index (with higher numbers being better) is 68 in Boise, 57 in Denver, but only 47 in Chicago. 
1. I attribute that to how windy it is in the winter, and how the humidity will really get you in the summer, which everyone knows, but also gets you (I assert) in the winter. Places that get lots of rain are nice to look at in the summer, with all the green plants, but they aren't as comfortable outside if your kids just want to be outside doing stuff... 
2. Chicago has 189 sunny days, Boise Idaho has 206, only 17 more than Chicago. 
1. While Denver has 246. The average in the USA is 205, but 17 days a year is 1/2 a month each year of sunny weather... 
3. Boise only has 11.7" of rain, but Chicago has 35.9" of rain, or 3.1 tunes the amount of rain of Boise. 
1. Of course if you are a farmer you might like the rain. However, if you have a back yard and are a kid, usually rain is not so great. Especially if your parents don't have a concrete floor that can be hosed off periodically. Denver gets 12.6".
4. Chicago gets 27.5". Boise gets about 70% as much with 19.5". Denver gets 54".
1.   will say less is better. Especially because Boise is in the foothills and is much closer to world class skiing, snow mobiling, and anything that might make snow good. Boise does get enough to let you go sledding once a year, and gets many feet of snow in the mountains. 
5. The Average high in July in Chicago is 83 and 90 in Boise. 86 in Denver. But it is a dry heat, and because of the high elevation it gets much cooler at night time, which makes sleeping comfortable. Megan hates (I think) summers in Chicago. Average January low is 22 in Boise and 18 in Chicago. So I guess Boise is 7 degrees hotter in summer and 4 degrees hotter in winter. Denver actually has a higher temperature in the Winter than Chicago, which surprises my friends from Chicago. 
6. The springs are so rainy and short that you can't really enjoy them... It seems that you go strait from bitter cold to unbearable heat... The spring time is very painful, because you are dying to get outside after a long winter, but it is soo freakin rainy... No I'm not just talking about a little Seattle drizzle... it is a freakin torrential downpour. Rivers over-run their bounds, peoples basements get flooded... that just doesn't happen in Boise... Maybe it is because Lucky Peak dam stops the river from flooding. Maybe people in Boise are just smarter, and don't build their homes in flood planes, but every spring you hear about homes around the Chicago area getting flooded, so that the 1st level is almost completely under water. Maybe I just didn't pay attention when I was a kid, but I don't think that hardly ever happens in Idaho. Flash floods can kill campers who are near creeks... at least in the scouts that was a fear, but the girl who cleans my teeth's parents and aunt had their house totally covered with water with the stop sign out in-front of their street totally submerged... 

Best reasons to disagree: -

1. Sure, if you live somewhere that gets lots of rain, you might get flooding. However, if you live in the West, your whole state might burn down each summer. So pick your poison: too much or not enough rain.
2. Denver get more snow than Chicago, which can be bad for traffic, but is good for skiing and sledding and stuff. 
3. Because Chicago gets more rain, you see less places that are just left to go to weeds in Chicago. Everything is green, and generally people mow their grass in Chicago. In Denver, people don't water that grass, it dies, goes to weeds, and sometimes looks crappier than Chicago. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +6

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +3

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Images that agree:

Our back yard turns to a pond every summer.


Bolingbrook is a bit like Venice Italy


Its kind of hard to see, but through the aches you can see the bleacher that are mostly covered.

Best Videos that agree: +1