Minneapolis: flat or rolling hills? (St. Paul, Duluth: neighborhoods, move to, suburbs)

[ajf131]

Just curious about Minneapolis' geography. Since it is a river city, I would figure it and much of its suburbs to be on a series of rolling hills, but I'm not sure...is Minneapolis all flat or is it hilly? It doesn't seem flat from photos...

[3three3]

Since no one seems to be responding...

...Minneapolis (proper) is pretty much flat. There are a few pockets here and there with hills, but that is a bit subjective. They certainly are not the kind of hills you find in San Francisco (Duluth, along the shores of Lake Superior is more like San Fran). St. Paul is a bit more hilly than Minneapolis, I think...but again, nothing like San Francisco (except for Ramsey...that's a killer hill).

[Minnehahapolitan]

The city of Minneapolis is mostly built on an oak savannah, with a few pockets of prairielands. The bluffs between the downtowns on the Mississippi are tall, and the river is narrow and generally inaccessible topographically. Further away from the river, things are somewhat flat, but not like Denver or Chicago. Saint Paul's downtown is high above the river, while the original port that was the city's reason for existence is below the city. The area surrounding downtown is hilly, but is flatter in the city neighborhoods. On a metropolitan scale, the Cities are are the convergence of the state's three biomes: deciduous forest, coniferous forest and prairie.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Just curious about Minneapolis' geography. Since it is a river city, I would figure it and much of its suburbs to be on a series of rolling hills, but I'm not sure...is Minneapolis all flat or is it hilly? It doesn't seem flat from photos...

I grew up in east Minnetonka off Williston Road, and that whole area is hilly and full of trees. Glacial moraine. Many of the western suburbs are similar.

The area along the MN River Valley which cuts across the southern part of the metro between Bloomington and Burnsville is very nice with fairly high bluffs on north and south edges of the valley and a large wildlife preserve in the valley itself.

[Midwesterns45]

Minneapolis and most of hennepin county is pretty flat..some of the south burbs have some little hills but its nothing that you could see if you were flying over it. Saint Paul has more bluffs and rolling hills because of its location to the east of the river and on the western edge of the La Crosse bluffs.

[Oildog]

Flat. I thought KS was flat but it has rolling hills. MN and IA are very flat states.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Go up to Duluth and tell me how flat Minn. is, or go down the river to Dubuque and tell me how flat Iowa is.

[knke0402]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Go up to Duluth and tell me how flat Minn. is, or go down the river to Dubuque and tell me how flat Iowa is.

Right. But generally speaking, Iowa and Minnesota are disgustingly flat. I never really grasped how flat MN is until I went to Upstate NY and Western PA. Both have mountain ranges compared to MN.

Obviously there are areas with slight hills, but nothing to brag about.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by knke0402

Right. But generally speaking, Iowa and Minnesota are disgustingly flat. I never really grasped how flat MN is until I went to Upstate NY and Western PA. Both have mountain ranges compared to MN.

Obviously there are areas with slight hills, but nothing to brag about.

Even a few smallish hills are far better than none, in my opinion.

I would also say that the desirability of hills is sometimes overrated, especially in the wintertime when one is trying to drive up and/or down them.

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by knke0402

Right. But generally speaking, Iowa and Minnesota are disgustingly flat. I never really grasped how flat MN is until I went to Upstate NY and Western PA. Both have mountain ranges compared to MN.

Obviously there are areas with slight hills, but nothing to brag about.

Well I hope you never plan to move to Miami, Chicago or Denver then...