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.
I get what you're saying here, but if SF is at 52' above sea level and Mt. Davidson rises up to 938', then the hill is 886' tall. The view you get from the top of it or on top of Twin Peaks is amazing and you can see the entire city surrounding you, including the parts that are at sea level. That's significantly taller than any of the hills in Pittsurgh from what I'm reading here. And the other 14 of SF's hills that rah listed earlier would still rise higher than Mt. Washington if it is really only 367' higher than its surrounding terrain. I wish I could see the Pittsburgh hills to make a realistic comparison b/c its kind of hard to do this just by looking at numbers and pictures.
^Right...it's the difference between the maximum elevation of a peak, and the "prominence" of a peak. Pittsburgh's hills are technically taller, seeing as Pittsburgh itself is at a much higher elevation than SF, but the prominence of it's peaks, or rather how tall they are in relation to Pittsburgh's lowest elevation, is actually much shorter than SF's peaks are in relation to sea level. You can stand at 0 feet above sea level at the beach in SF, and look at multiple 900+ hills in the distance (all of them built out to around the 800 foot mark), whereas in Pittsburgh the prominence of the hills is not nearly so great...you're looking at 300-400 foot hills max. It's the difference between standing two thirds of the way up a mountain and looking towards the peak (Pittsburgh), or standing way at the bottom of a mountain, and looking at the peak (SF)...the fact that Pittsburgh is at a higher elevation does not make it's hills seem "bigger" when for all intents and purposes they really aren't...unless you have super telescope vision, and can see Pittsburgh from the ocean. And that still wouldn't change the fact that the range of elevation that's built out in Pittsburgh is lower than in SF.
Pittsburgh is amazing, but I think with all things Considered SF takes it for most and tallest hills. "Best" is subjective of course.
Mt. Washington is about 450 ft above downtown Pittsburgh, but it is an entire neighborhood up there and its right next to downtown, which is why the views are second to none.
Again, once you're atop Mt. Washington, the elevation doesn't rise much more from there. So you are only talking about a 400' vertical rise from the lowest point in Pittsburgh. Views of DT Pittsburgh from there are nice, but it doesn't take your breath away like it does from highest point in San Francisco. Then there's Marin County, across the Golden Gate Bridge from SF and it's even more majestic there. Sorry, but the hills of Pgh are pretty insignificant when compared to the SF Bay Area.
^Right...it's the difference between the maximum elevation of a peak, and the "prominence" of a peak. Pittsburgh's hills are technically taller, seeing as Pittsburgh itself is at a much higher elevation than SF, but the prominence of it's peaks, or rather how tall they are in relation to Pittsburgh's lowest elevation, is actually much shorter than SF's peaks are in relation to sea level. You can stand at 0 feet above sea level at the beach in SF, and look at multiple 900+ hills in the distance (all of them built out to around the 800 foot mark), whereas in Pittsburgh the prominence of the hills is not nearly so great...you're looking at 300-400 foot hills max. It's the difference between standing two thirds of the way up a mountain and looking towards the peak (Pittsburgh), or standing way at the bottom of a mountain, and looking at the peak (SF)...the fact that Pittsburgh is at a higher elevation does not make it's hills seem "bigger" when for all intents and purposes they really aren't...unless you have super telescope vision, and can see Pittsburgh from the ocean. And that still wouldn't change the fact that the range of elevation that's built out in Pittsburgh is lower than in SF.
Pittsburgh is amazing, but I think with all things Considered SF takes it for most and tallest hills. "Best" is subjective of course.
I totally agree and that's a good explanation. From the high points in SF you can pretty much always see a point that's at or near sea level, so the total height of SF's highest hills are always in effect. Even if they have a gradual increase before you get to their steeper parts. If you didn't have that gradual increase SF would look like a mini version of the Grand Canyon lol.
I know this is off-subject, but I gotta say its nice to see someone who knows and uses the expression "all intents and purposes" correctly. Lately I've seen "all intensive purposes" and "all extensive purposes," and just found it funny. Its like that Family Guy episode when Stewie called people out for saying "expecially" and "all of the sudden." They're all close to being correct, but they're not quite there and a lot of people say them lol.
Again, once you're atop Mt. Washington, the elevation doesn't rise much more from there. So you are only talking about a 400' vertical rise from the lowest point in Pittsburgh. Views of DT Pittsburgh from there are nice, but it doesn't take your breath away like it does from highest point in San Francisco. Then there's Marin County, across the Golden Gate Bridge from SF and it's even more majestic there. Sorry, but the hills of Pgh are pretty insignificant when compared to the SF Bay Area.
LOL so now we are comparing the hills of Pittsburgh to the entire Bay Area? Doesn't that include several mountain ranges? Haha, the point here was to discuss the best hills in city, and And its actually around 500' above downtown for some hills in Pittsburgh. So SF's tallest few are really not that much higher. But I have already conceded SF has the tallest, the question is who has the "most" and "best" that are still debatable here. If you are saying the tallest couple in SF have better views, well that's also debatable, and they might... I wouldn't mind seeing some pictures though.
its actually around 500' above downtown for some hills in Pittsburgh. So SF's tallest few are really not that much higher.
Well actually they are since downtown SF is pretty much at sea level (its surrounded by water and piers on its north, east and partially on its south sides), and you get to overlook it from views like Twin Peaks and Mt. Davidson (as rah has posted pics of), and Potrero Hill, just to name a few. 900+ feet is significantly higher than 500 or less, so I cannot agree with you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SewickleyPA
the question is who has the "most" and "best" that are still debatable here. If you are saying the tallest couple in SF have better views, well that's also debatable, and they might... I wouldn't mind seeing some pictures though.
The "most" hills I believe clearly is SF as rah has posted how many there are within city limits. Unless you have info that would show Pittsburgh as having over 70 hills (or even 50 since I didn't even know SF had around 70 lol), but I haven't seen anything describing it as having nearly that many hills. I actually haven't seen any total number of hills for the city of Pittsburgh, so if you do know I'd be curious to find out.
The "best" is completely subjective, but my vote obviously goes to SF, and it still would even based on pictures alone. Although I do admit that I don't think I can truly make a fair assessment without having seen Pittsburgh's hills up close b/c I know that can make all the difference. But simply basing it on facts and pictures, SF's look more impressive by those alone. Even if I'm not taking my own experiences into account.
The views of SF's downtown from Twin Peaks allows you to see the flat lands like SOMA or the Financial District that are only slightly above sea level, but throughout the City there are hills with amazing views too. Even within SF's downtown loop (between Van Ness, Fisherman's Wharf and The Embarcadero) there are fantastic hills such as Russian Hill and Telegraph Hill. Then there are other really famous views like from Noe Valley or Alamo Square (where you see the "Painted Ladies" they show in the Full House intro), or Bernal Heights park. There's even a spot next to Potrero Hill that we used to drink at called Snake Hill that gave an anti-romantic view of the ghettos that was like a bizarro version of Twin Peaks lol. So the hills in SF definitely get my vote.
There's even a spot next to Potrero Hill that we used to drink at called Snake Hill that gave an anti-romantic view of the ghettos that was like a bizarro version of Twin Peaks lol. So the hills in SF definitely get my vote.
Snake Hill? haha, I've never heard of that one. Is it up at the park/rec center above the Potrero Hill projects?
Bernal Heights is good for a similar non-typical view of the city too...you have the Mission sprawling out before you, and Potrero Hill off to the right, with downtown in the distance. If drinking though, It can be a b!tc# trying to stumble back down the hill in the dark
One thing I love is going up to twin peaks, Corona Heights, or Bernal Heights on the 4th of July, and watching all the illegal fireworks getting set off over the Mission, and of course you can see the fireworks over in Oakland and stuff too.
Snake Hill? haha, I've never heard of that one. Is it up at the park/rec center above the Potrero Hill projects?
Bernal Heights is good for a similar non-typical view of the city too...you have the Mission sprawling out before you, and Potrero Hill off to the right, with downtown in the distance. If drinking though, It can be a b!tc# trying to stumble back down the hill in the dark
One thing I love is going up to twin peaks, Corona Heights, or Bernal Heights on the 4th of July, and watching all the illegal fireworks getting set off over the Mission, and of course you can see the fireworks over in Oakland and stuff too.
Ha! 2 or 3 years ago for the 4th I went up to Corona Heights to do exactly that. So I agree, good call.
That's exactly what we loved about that view b/c you get to see both shows. It was tight. And one of the coolest parts was afterwards, driving down 101 and being able to see all the fireworks in the BV/HP, like close to the police station over there. We ended up exiting the freeway just to watch it all. Its insane how many fireworks folks got in the hood.
Oh, and Snake Hill is just what the people I was with called it; I'm not sure if that's an official name. Its at San Bruno and 20th where there's this little tiny park you walk through and on the other side of it is where we kicked it. This was like back in '96 or '97 though so I have no idea how it looks now.
LOL so now we are comparing the hills of Pittsburgh to the entire Bay Area? Doesn't that include several mountain ranges? Haha, the point here was to discuss the best hills in city, and And its actually around 500' above downtown for some hills in Pittsburgh. So SF's tallest few are really not that much higher. But I have already conceded SF has the tallest, the question is who has the "most" and "best" that are still debatable here. If you are saying the tallest couple in SF have better views, well that's also debatable, and they might... I wouldn't mind seeing some pictures though.
Well, the hills don't all of sudden stop at the edge of city limits in either place, right?
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 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.
.
