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 09-01-2014, 09:04 AM
 
2,601 posts, read 3,956,910 times
Reputation: 2275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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.
Definitely...it cracks me up that people will write down a city that they've never been to. Nothing flat about Omaha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2014, 10:37 AM
 
1,000 posts, read 1,454,794 times
Reputation: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
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.
Denver (the city itself) is not hillier than St. Paul. The Rockies are, of course, but they are not in the city limits. The city's elevation may change gradually, so that it has a larger difference between its highest and lowest elevations, but St. Paul has much more prominent and steep hills, cliffs, and bluffs within the city. Denver really is almost entirely flat.

These are the downtowns of both cities:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denve...+Colorado&z=15

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=St+Pa...esota&t=p&z=15

And here's the entire city limits of both cities (I made it at the same zoom level for accurate comparison, so you have to move around a little to see all of Denver) :

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Denve...+Colorado&z=13

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=St+Pa...esota&t=p&z=13
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2014, 02:25 PM
Status: "Welcome Governor Polis!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,691 posts, read 100,126,654 times
Reputation: 32139
You know, I'm not that good at computer graphics, but I refer you back to my earlier post about west Denver, inside the city, especially NW Denver. I lived there for two years. I've been to St. Paul several times, including just this past summer. Was not impressed for many reasons. Summit Ave. doesn't seem like much of a summit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2014, 10:16 AM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,045 posts, read 17,379,778 times
Reputation: 14380
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).
Elevation differential ≠ amount of flat land. Los Angeles has a tall mountain range that slices through its city limits, but it still has a much larger percentage of flat land than Pittsburgh does, because it's flat everywhere that the mountain range is not. Here's the bikeability score for Los Angeles based on terrain:



Lots of green on that map despite the mountain range. You can compare that to Pittsburgh's bikeability score above and notice the difference. In Pittsburgh, if you're not going uphill, chances are you're going downhill. And 660' might not seem like a large elevation differential, but a road with a 6% grade would have to be about two miles long to have a similar elevation change. A 300'-tall cliff is still a cliff. The difficulty of Pittsburgh's terrain cannot be accounted for by its elevation differential, because the changes in elevation are almost constant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
5,818 posts, read 7,078,027 times
Reputation: 3568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Elevation differential ≠ amount of flat land. Los Angeles has a tall mountain range that slices through its city limits, but it still has a much larger percentage of flat land than Pittsburgh does, because it's flat everywhere that the mountain range is not. Here's the bikeability score for Los Angeles based on terrain:



Lots of green on that map despite the mountain range. You can compare that to Pittsburgh's bikeability score above and notice the difference. In Pittsburgh, if you're not going uphill, chances are you're going downhill. And 660' might not seem like a large elevation differential, but a road with a 6% grade would have to be about two miles long to have a similar elevation change. A 300'-tall cliff is still a cliff. The difficulty of Pittsburgh's terrain cannot be accounted for by its elevation differential, because the changes in elevation are almost constant.
It also looks like a lot of the red areas on that map don't have much in the way of population or streets for that matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 07:14 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,160,537 times
Reputation: 790
^^^That was my point earlier. Pittsburgh's smaller hills are way more sparsely populated than SF's taller hills. SF basically puts densities rarely if ever achieved in Pittsburgh's flat parts, ON top of these hills. That's what I meant when I said the cityscape was splayed out over all of the different elevation changes, and someone from Pittsburgh posted that city's elevation map and posed a straw man question, asking if that wasn't the case for Pittsburgh, as well.

Perhaps there is a greater percentage of SF that is "flat", relatively speaking (though flat here is definitely more like the "hilly" that people are using to describe Omaha or Saint Paul), but unlike Pittsburgh, or *anywhere else* in the country, SF makes pretty darn full use of its hills. That is why SF is more well known for its hills than anywhere else.

Nice try, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,949 posts, read 3,671,892 times
Reputation: 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
^^^That was my point earlier. Pittsburgh's smaller hills are way more sparsely populated than SF's taller hills. SF basically puts densities rarely if ever achieved in Pittsburgh's flat parts, ON top of these hills. That's what I meant when I said the cityscape was splayed out over all of the different elevation changes, and someone from Pittsburgh posted that city's elevation map and posed a straw man question, asking if that wasn't the case for Pittsburgh, as well.

Perhaps there is a greater percentage of SF that is "flat", relatively speaking (though flat here is definitely more like the "hilly" that people are using to describe Omaha or Saint Paul), but unlike Pittsburgh, or *anywhere else* in the country, SF makes pretty darn full use of its hills. That is why SF is more well known for its hills than anywhere else.

Nice try, though.
Well if you look at a map of the sections of SF that are built on landfill, you'll see that the only relatively flat part of the city, practically the entirety of Downtown SF, is built on landfill. It actually frightens me a little to know that so much of SF is infill, but it makes sense given the topography.

And then there is Seattle, a city where the pioneers pretty much sliced the tops of it's central hills back in the 1900s to level the city. Downtown Seattle is all man-made terrain given that the pioneermen had to turn Seattle's hills into a slurry and push all that land into the waterfront in order for the steep hills to even be developed. The interesting result of their terrain-altering efforts is a downtown with all avenues running North-South being relatively flat, and all streets running East-West being quite steep. If you were to remove all the buildings from downtown and observed only the form of the land, it would sort of resemble a multi-leveled pyramid.

Terra-forming is fascinating, yes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
5,818 posts, read 7,078,027 times
Reputation: 3568
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
^^^That was my point earlier. Pittsburgh's smaller hills are way more sparsely populated than SF's taller hills. SF basically puts densities rarely if ever achieved in Pittsburgh's flat parts, ON top of these hills. That's what I meant when I said the cityscape was splayed out over all of the different elevation changes, and someone from Pittsburgh posted that city's elevation map and posed a straw man question, asking if that wasn't the case for Pittsburgh, as well.

Perhaps there is a greater percentage of SF that is "flat", relatively speaking (though flat here is definitely more like the "hilly" that people are using to describe Omaha or Saint Paul), but unlike Pittsburgh, or *anywhere else* in the country, SF makes pretty darn full use of its hills. That is why SF is more well known for its hills than anywhere else.

Nice try, though.
Um that was a map of LA I was commenting on. Nice try though, I live here so you dont need to tell me what my city is like. Thoigh a lot of Pittsburgh hillsides are way too steep to build anything on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 08:24 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,854 posts, read 40,406,591 times
Reputation: 14711
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
^^^That was my point earlier. Pittsburgh's smaller hills are way more sparsely populated than SF's taller hills. SF basically puts densities rarely if ever achieved in Pittsburgh's flat parts, ON top of these hills. That's what I meant when I said the cityscape was splayed out over all of the different elevation changes, and someone from Pittsburgh posted that city's elevation map and posed a straw man question, asking if that wasn't the case for Pittsburgh, as well.

Perhaps there is a greater percentage of SF that is "flat", relatively speaking (though flat here is definitely more like the "hilly" that people are using to describe Omaha or Saint Paul), but unlike Pittsburgh, or *anywhere else* in the country, SF makes pretty darn full use of its hills. That is why SF is more well known for its hills than anywhere else.

Nice try, though.
From photos, Pittsburgh hills blend into the natural landscape, San Francisco's stay urban. With many exceptions, of course. There was a thread about this that showed it well:

Pittsburgh vs. San Francisco....urban topography

On the first page, one poster posted a link of Pittsburgh street stairs that looked more urban than I expected for Pittsburgh. Checked the weblink title. It was from The Bronx.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
Also, you may not be aware, but Pittsburgh has way way more urban stairs/steps/sidewalks than San Francisco.

http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/wordp...1-1024x768.jpg

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pitt...w=1366&bih=638
New York City doesn't really belong either "flattest" or "hilliest".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2014, 02:19 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,202,706 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
then there is Seattle, a city where the pioneers pretty much sliced the tops of it's central hills back in the 1900s to level the city. Downtown Seattle is all man-made terrain given that the pioneermen had to turn Seattle's hills into a slurry and push all that land into the waterfront in order for the steep hills to even be developed.
I wonder how common that was. Kansas City did the same thing. Sliced the tops off the bluffs and ridges and filled the gullys and hollows.
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