Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Denver/Atlanta
6,083 posts, read 10,694,910 times
Reputation: 5872

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.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2014, 11:02 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,642,300 times
Reputation: 817
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 11:47 AM
 
542 posts, read 1,682,658 times
Reputation: 923
Hilly
Syracuse, NY
Charleston, WV
Asheville, NC
Scranton, PA
Richmond, VA
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,985 posts, read 4,882,532 times
Reputation: 3419
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 06:08 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
14,186 posts, read 22,730,784 times
Reputation: 17393
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
6,327 posts, read 9,149,700 times
Reputation: 4053
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Downtown LA
1,192 posts, read 1,642,139 times
Reputation: 868
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
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Austin
603 posts, read 930,997 times
Reputation: 1144
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 09:59 PM
 
1,000 posts, read 1,863,055 times
Reputation: 751
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.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2014, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,704,934 times
Reputation: 35920
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.
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.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top