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 08-31-2014, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Aurora, Colorado
5,394 posts, read 7,816,944 times
Reputation: 4378

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The west side of Denver is quite hilly, especially the NW, as are the western suburbs.
Yes. People seem to think that Denver's completely flat (like Miami, Houston, Chicago, etc) just because it's on the plains. Denver the city is pretty flat, however many suburbs aren't flat what so ever. The only area there aren't really hills is by the airport, which is sad because that's what people see first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2014, 12:02 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,160,773 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
If that list is true, then San Francisco has only two streets steeper than Canton Avenue, not five. By the way, are those two streets open to the public?
Not only does SF have steeper streets, and *a lot* more streets above that really steep 25 degree grade, these aren't half-block "driveway" looking streets (like Canton - which honestly looks more like someone's rural driveway). A lot of the steep streets in SF are lined with 5-20 story buildings. No other city can boast that.

SF also has lots of peaks that are a good bit higher than any in Pittsburgh. And these peaks have development all or mostly all the way up to the top. Pittsburgh's biggest hills are mostly forested.

Leaving the "super steep", I can't even think of any other city having a street like California St. It's only a 376 ft peak over ~5 city blocks, but it's packing 400+ ft skyscrapers, signature hotels, and 55,000 ppsm density along it. Anyone who has walked from Union Square or the financial district up Nob Hill knows how good of a work out that is for your glutes and thighs

I should add the streets going from Marina to Pac Heights, Russian Hill, and all around Twin Peaks are pretty amazing. Bullet's famous car chase scene with the hills was filmed coming down from Pac Heights into Marina, I believe. And lots of those city in the backdrop car commercials are filmed on Twin Peaks (or Marin Headlands). I don't think anything comes close to SF. Simply having hills and a few really steep streets is not enough - the cityscape has to be splayed ON those hills to compete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 12:47 PM
 
541 posts, read 1,364,210 times
Reputation: 898
Hilly
Syracuse, NY
Charleston, WV
Asheville, NC
Scranton, PA
Richmond, VA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,949 posts, read 3,672,621 times
Reputation: 3253
I think there needs some clarification between cities that have some really steep inclines for some of its streets and then large areas of flatter terrain versus cities that have gradual inclines on nearly every street.

Los Angeles, for instance, has very steep streets around the Hills, but then the greater LA Basin is fairly flat.

Then you have SF and Seattle which have hilly, inclined streets throughout the entire city. Biking in Seattle is quite the workout because you are always either going up pr down a hill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 07:08 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,045 posts, read 17,383,016 times
Reputation: 14380
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
I don't think anything comes close to SF. Simply having hills and a few really steep streets is not enough - the cityscape has to be splayed ON those hills to compete.
San Francisco bikeability score (terrain)


Pittsburgh bikeability score (terrain)


By the way, if this isn't splayed onto the hills, then nothing is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
5,818 posts, read 7,079,616 times
Reputation: 3568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
San Francisco bikeability map (terrain)


Pittsburgh bikeability map (terrain)


By the way, if this isn't splayed onto the hills, then nothing is.
But you know, people who have never been here and base their opinions off of one street know better than those of us that live or lived here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Downtown LA
1,192 posts, read 1,248,595 times
Reputation: 848
With its lowest point being sea level and its highest point being 5,074 ft, I don't think any other cities can touch Los Angeles' elevation differential. San Francisco's is 934 ft (sea level to 934 ft) and Pittsburgh is 660 ft (710 to 1,370 ft).

The next biggest elevation differential after LA is Honolulu with 4,020 ft (sea level to 4,020 ft).

Source:
Elevations and Distances
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Austin
590 posts, read 639,576 times
Reputation: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt View Post
With its lowest point being sea level and its highest point being 5,074 ft, I don't think any other cities can touch Los Angeles' elevation differential. San Francisco's is 934 ft (sea level to 934 ft) and Pittsburgh is 660 ft (710 to 1,370 ft).

The next biggest elevation differential after LA is Honolulu with 4,020 ft (sea level to 4,020 ft).

Source:
Elevations and Distances
Salt Lake has a greater elevation differential in the city limits. The official elevation (I believe at the airport) is 4226 ft according to wikipedia. Grandview Peak is located in the city limits as well, with at top elevation of 9414 ft. Elevation difference of 5188 ft. Salt Lake is not listed on your list because it is not one of the 50 largest cites. The city is rather small considering the 2.3 million in the area.

Having said that, SLC is not a hilly city overall. Most of the valley is fairly flat with the mountains rising abruptly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 10:59 PM
 
1,000 posts, read 1,455,040 times
Reputation: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticEars View Post
Hilliest:
  • San Francisco
  • Oakland
  • San Diego
  • Seattle
  • Cincinnati
  • Pittsburgh
  • Birmingham, AL
  • Knoxville
  • Chattanooga
  • Asheville
  • Any city in West Virginia
  • Hagerstown
  • Roanoke
  • Blacksburg, VA
  • Santa Fe
  • Flagstaff
  • Santa Cruz


Flattest:
  • Memphis
  • Bakersfield
  • Fresno
  • Sacramento
  • Indianapolis
  • Columbus, OH
  • Cleveland
  • Detroit
  • Chicago
  • Kansas City (MO and KS)
  • Oklahoma City
  • Dallas/Ft. Worth
  • Houston
  • Long Beach, CA
  • San Jose, CA
  • Any city in Florida
  • Hampton Roads region
  • Salt Lake City
  • Denver
  • Wichita
  • Topeka
  • Omaha
  • Sioux Falls
  • Minneapolis/St. Paul
  • Milwaukee

Yes, the western major cities such as SLC and Denver can indeed be quite flat. How else do you think major cities could be built in the intercontinental west?
I wouldn't necessarily group Minneapolis and St. Paul together on this. Minneapolis is pretty much flat, f course, but I wouldn't consider St. Paul to be flat by any means. Large parts of the city are very flat, like most cities, but Downtown and the areas surrounding it and the river are actually very hilly. It is very different than Minneapolis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2014, 08:58 AM
Status: "Welcome Governor Polis!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,695 posts, read 100,126,654 times
Reputation: 32144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bslette View Post
I wouldn't necessarily group Minneapolis and St. Paul together on this. Minneapolis is pretty much flat, f course, but I wouldn't consider St. Paul to be flat by any means. Large parts of the city are very flat, like most cities, but Downtown and the areas surrounding it and the river are actually very hilly. It is very different than Minneapolis.
If you don't think St. Paul belongs on that list, then neither does Denver. It's hillier than St. Paul. Also disagree with Omaha. Whoever put it on the list has never been there.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply

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