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.
Very few people in the US actually live on or directly nearby a mountain. The costs involved with developing mountains are pretty much cost prohibitive everywhere, even in Colorado most of the mountain development is the result of a ski area. The towns are in flat valley basins. Denver for instance, by this threads definition, is a flat land city, which is next to hills (the foothills) which are next to mountains. Mount Evans starts 15 miles from the western edge of the city.
Come to think of it, despite how much of Nevada's surface area is covered by mountains, I can't think of any towns that are actually on a mountainside other than Virginia City, which has like two hundred residents and is only where it is because of the bountiful silver mining right there and the lack of any nearby flatlands. Well, some suburban developments in Reno are sort of on mountainsides, but they don't go up very far.
Phoenix is mostly flat with a couple mountains here and there which is the best solution for a city. You don’t have prohibitive development costs/hurdles or accessibility issues and in addition you get all the recreational benefits and views that mountains can provide. And if you are rich enough, you can live on the mountainside.
Cave Creek, a suburb of Phoenix, is 1000’ higher in elevation, but you’d never tell because it’s so gradual. This works for me. But cities are hard to build and plan for with excessive hills.
I live in a hilly area and its terrible when it snows. I'm looking to move somewhere a little more flat in the same city. Mountain side is quite a bit more expensive (same city) but doesn't appeal to me
Either one as long as it's low humidity and no snow. And minimal fire hazard.
Interestingly, Sacramento is a very flat city, but because of all of the trees, it fools you into thinking there are hills. I don't much like an obviously flat city. Just not pretty visually.
Redding, CA is very pretty. The town is hilly, and there are mountains nearby that give beautiful views (Mt. Shasta and Lassen), but it rarely snows there. It's too hot in summer for my taste, but it's so pretty.
I'm in Silicon Valley and it's pretty flat in town, but you can see the hills and be in the hills quickly.
I guess mainly I want to at least see hills. And if there is snow, I want to see it off in the distance, but never have to deal with it at home.
I lived in the mountains in WA for nearly 20 years and it's a pain. Beautiful to be sure. But, a pain to live there.
Very few people in the US actually live on or directly nearby a mountain. The costs involved with developing mountains are pretty much cost prohibitive everywhere, even in Colorado most of the mountain development is the result of a ski area. The towns are in flat valley basins. Denver for instance, by this threads definition, is a flat land city, which is next to hills (the foothills) which are next to mountains. Mount Evans starts 15 miles from the western edge of the city.
Essentially, flat land is required for a large metro (cities like Pittsburgh are the exception). For instance, if the Willamette Valley did not exist and there were coastal mountains all the way from the coast to the Cascades, Oregon would have less than 1 million people for my best guess.
Seattle is another city that is getting pushed into the mountains since the area has expanded north/south to about as far as it could and all that is left is going east.
Seattle is another city that is getting pushed into the mountains since the area has expanded north/south to about as far as it could and all that is left is going east.
God, those areas are really pretty! I don't know if those count as mountains or hills, they look in between . It seems like they'll put houses on mountain / hillsides as people like the views and will fork over extra $$$ to live there, but commercial centers are almost always in the valley below.
Being in the valley surrounded by tall mountains is pretty nice...you're getting usable agricultural land, easier to get water, less chance of summer frosts for the garden, and can do things with your parcel actually, while getting mountain views and recreation access. Septic can be a headache on the hillside, they might make one install expensive engineered septic.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,520,768 times
Reputation: 3107
The hills of PA are just right. I wish the mountains in the laurel highlands and some other areas were maybe like, 1000 feet taller at their peak, but overall I think the very large hills in Pa Are great
Florida is surprisingly hilly despite it having no mountains. The Panhandle is very hilly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It seems like they'll put houses on mountain / hillsides as people like the views and will fork over extra $$$ to live there, but commercial centers are almost always in the valley below.
