U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-04-2009, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Just Outside of Chicagoland
77 posts, read 238,783 times
Reputation: 56

Advertisements

hilliest goes to pittsburgh. the steepest street in the U.S is on pittsburghs south side. plus if anyones ever been to the southside slopes neighborhood they knowt hat there are stair cases for roads.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2009, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
683 posts, read 698,018 times
Reputation: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam View Post
Some other hilly cities
Honolulu, Des Moines (around the capitol), Baltimore, Boston, St. Paul, Billings, Cincinnati, Providence, Knoxville, And Richmond
I agree Baltimore is hilly
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,014 posts, read 6,308,212 times
Reputation: 3222
If Seattle isn't the hilliest, then it's definately in second or third place.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 09:09 PM
 
4 posts, read 16,840 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyserSoze View Post
Richmond doesn't get over 300 feet. Neither does most of Baltimore. A few changes in elevation hilly does not make.



Neither is this a list of cities with highest points above sea level. The highest point in Baltimore is 480 feet, while its lowest is 0 feet. Obviously, this is a 480 foot differential.

Don't get me wrong, I've been to Pittsburgh, San Fran and Seattle. In the hilly department, Baltimore is not remotely in the same class as these, but it is hillier than Philadelphia (about a 400 foot differential), Boston (330 foot differential)and Washington (409 foot differential). This is notable, as these cities, with the exception of Boston, are located on the fall line between coastal plain and piedmont (french for foot - hill, the rolling hills between coastal plain and mountain). One third of Baltimore is on coastal plain (Fells Point, Inner Harbor, Little Italy, Federal Hill, Curtis Bay, etc), while two thirds are on piedmont (West Baltimore, Mt. Vernon, Bolton Hill, Druid Hill, Park Heights, Mt. Washington, Lauraville, Hamilton), which doesn't even take into account that a deep valley cuts through the piedmont from the northwest corner of the city to the coastal plain... a valley, mind you, that is cut by the Jones Falls, which is white water. Flat geography typically does not have rapids.

Last edited by dukiebiddle; 07-05-2009 at 09:54 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 09:20 PM
 
542 posts, read 1,262,418 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukiebiddle View Post
Neither is this a list of cities with highest points above sea level. The highest point in Baltimore is 480 feet, while its lowest is 0 feet. Obviously, this is a 480 foot differential.

Don't get me wrong, I've been to Pittsburgh, San Fran and Seattle. In the hilly department, Baltimore is not in the same class as these, but it is hillier than Philadelphia (about a 400 foot differential) and Boston (330 foot differential). This is notable, as all 3 cities are located on the border between coastal plain and piedmont. One third of Baltimore is on coastal plain (Fells Point, Inner Harbor, Federal Hill, Sandy Point, etc), while two thirds are on piedmont (West Baltimore, Mt. Vernon, Bolton Hill, Mt. Washington, Lauraville, Hamilton), which doesn't even take into account that a deep valley cuts through the piedmont from the northeast corner of the city to the coastal plain... a valley, mind you, that is cut by the Jones Falls, which is white water. Flat geography typically does not have rapids.
http://geology.com/state-map/maps/ma...-state-map.gif

That all goes without saying. Most of Baltimore is not above 300 feet. Elevation ties into topography, and when most of the city doesn't even reach above 300 feet, your "hills" are going to be a few gradual shifts in elevation. It doesn't even remotely start to get hilly until you're in the North/Northwest part of the city limits. The topography begins to change -- coincidentally that's where the city crosses the fall line.

So is Baltimore hilly? It has hilly areas, but calling the entire city hilly, when it isn't, is a big stretch.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 10:23 PM
 
4 posts, read 16,840 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyserSoze View Post
http://geology.com/state-map/maps/ma...-state-map.gif

That all goes without saying. Most of Baltimore is not above 300 feet. Elevation ties into topography, and when most of the city doesn't even reach above 300 feet, your "hills" are going to be a few gradual shifts in elevation. It doesn't even remotely start to get hilly until you're in the North/Northwest part of the city limits. The topography begins to change -- coincidentally that's where the city crosses the fall line.

So is Baltimore hilly? It has hilly areas, but calling the entire city hilly, when it isn't, is a big stretch.
How is it that you have decided that only hills that exceeds a determined elevation, chosen by you, define what a hill is and whether it is signifigant?

Is the entire city hilly? No, only two thirds of the city are hilly. One third is flat. The map you linked to clearly shows this: one third is flat, you have a jagged zig zagging line that goes up and down, shoots up and bisects the city and then zig zags again to the eastern border, that is between 150 and 300 feet and then you have two zones, one large and one small that are between 300 and 600 feet. Mind you, a similar map of Seattle would show the same 3 zones, as its highest point is only 40 feet higher than Baltimore's, and Seattle is one of the hilliest.

Two thirds of Baltimore is located on peidmont, not just the corner or Reiserstown and Cross Country Blvd., as you just stated above. Your are mistaking peidmont with areas above 300 feet, as though God decided that a hill isn't allowed to roll under 300 feet. Rolling hills are rolling hills are rolling hills. Two thirds of Baltimore is made up of rolling hills... rolling hills are typically hilly. If you are going up and down 200 foot hills, one after another on a bicycle, you are in a hilly area.

Last edited by dukiebiddle; 07-05-2009 at 10:42 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2009, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
683 posts, read 698,018 times
Reputation: 548
you really know Baltimore i'm from here and i just know its hilly lol
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 08:21 AM
 
542 posts, read 1,262,418 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukiebiddle View Post
How is it that you have decided that only hills that exceeds a determined elevation, chosen by you, define what a hill is and whether it is signifigant?

Is the entire city hilly? No, only two thirds of the city are hilly. One third is flat. The map you linked to clearly shows this: one third is flat, you have a jagged zig zagging line that goes up and down, shoots up and bisects the city and then zig zags again to the eastern border, that is between 150 and 300 feet and then you have two zones, one large and one small that are between 300 and 600 feet. Mind you, a similar map of Seattle would show the same 3 zones, as its highest point is only 40 feet higher than Baltimore's, and Seattle is one of the hilliest.

Two thirds of Baltimore is located on peidmont, not just the corner or Reiserstown and Cross Country Blvd., as you just stated above. Your are mistaking peidmont with areas above 300 feet, as though God decided that a hill isn't allowed to roll under 300 feet. Rolling hills are rolling hills are rolling hills. Two thirds of Baltimore is made up of rolling hills... rolling hills are typically hilly. If you are going up and down 200 foot hills, one after another on a bicycle, you are in a hilly area.
I haven't determined anything as gospel. That's just simply the truth because the map says so. Only a third of the City of Baltimore can be considered hilly. Any area with an elevation of 150-300 feet is not hilly. Not pancake flat, but not all that far from it either. If that's the case, then those areas of Anne Arundel, Charles, and Prince George's Counties between those elevations are not truly on the coastal plain -- which we know is not true. All portions of those counties lie on the coastal plain. Heck, where I live, the elevation is 341 feet, and it's the exact same way. A few dips, but I'd hardly call it hilly. The most 150-300 feet could afford you is a few dips here and there, but certainly not in qualification to being a hilly city, or even of the most hilliest.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2009, 01:47 PM
 
902 posts, read 2,392,355 times
Reputation: 350
I can't imagine any city being more hilly than SF.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2009, 10:04 AM
 
4 posts, read 16,840 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyserSoze View Post
I haven't determined anything as gospel. That's just simply the truth because the map says so. Only a third of the City of Baltimore can be considered hilly. Any area with an elevation of 150-300 feet is not hilly. Not pancake flat, but not all that far from it either. If that's the case, then those areas of Anne Arundel, Charles, and Prince George's Counties between those elevations are not truly on the coastal plain -- which we know is not true. All portions of those counties lie on the coastal plain. Heck, where I live, the elevation is 341 feet, and it's the exact same way. A few dips, but I'd hardly call it hilly. The most 150-300 feet could afford you is a few dips here and there, but certainly not in qualification to being a hilly city, or even of the most hilliest.
You read maps in very interesting ways. You also site strange examples.

Here is another map:

<a href="http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122EUSMISR.html"]Fall line map</a>

The map is clear and explicit. The majority of the city is NOT on coastal plane.

It seems to you that an elevation of 150-300 can only indicate the highest points on coastal plane, and you site 3 counties that have vast and wide expanses of coastal plane to make your case. The problem with this is in areas in Baltimore where you see that elevation have absolutely no geologic resemblance to your sited examples. Areas in Baltimore that are between 150-300 feet are a thin ribbon. They are not coastal plane hilltops, but rather they are either hillsides connecting areas that are as low as 0 feet with areas that are up to 480 feet, or a deep chasm that separates two separate zones that rise above 400 feet.

2/3rds of Baltimore bare no resemblance to the geography of your examples, but rather to to the topography of Howard, Baltimore, York and Lancaster Counties. To make you case you should site examples that are on piedmont, but that would be impossible, as the case itself is empty.

Last edited by dukiebiddle; 07-12-2009 at 10:15 AM..
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top