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.
Los Angeles wins because it has more hills than any city. That whole area between Hollywood and the Valley. You can fit Cinceenati, San Fran and Pittsberg inside it. So more hills that that whole cities combined.
That really wasn't the premise of the thread at all....
That list is suspect to say the least. Spokane at #3? San Diego hillier than San Francisco? St. Paul at #8? I see that they tried to have a thorough and defensible methodology but the results don't really pass the sniff test.
My guess is that for SD, they gave a lot of weight to the big drop off in elevation between the area south of the 8 and the area north of the 8 (Mission Valley). The thing is, it’s so steep that land cannot be developed. There are definitely some fairy dramatic elevation gains south of the 8 as you go eastward from the harbor, and particularly in neighborhoods like Mission Hills and the USD campus. But much of SD is pretty flat east of Balboa Park. North-South from Hillcrest to downtown is also fairly even.
My guess is that for SD, they gave a lot of weight to the big drop off in elevation between the area south of the 8 and the area north of the 8 (Mission Valley). The thing is, it’s so steep that land cannot be developed. There are definitely some fairy dramatic elevation gains south of the 8 as you go eastward from the harbor, and particularly in neighborhoods like Mission Hills and the USD campus. But much of SD is pretty flat east of Balboa Park. North-South from Hillcrest to downtown is also fairly even.
I agree, it’s not San Francisco.
Exactly! Same thing with LA most of the actual hills are not that developed because they are REAL hills, it's actually very difficult to develop hills in the 1000-2000 ft elevation range. I don't think any of the other cities even have hills over 1000 ft.
Exactly! Same thing with LA most of the actual hills are not that developed because they are REAL hills, it's actually very difficult to develop hills in the 1000-2000 ft elevation range. I don't think any of the other cities even have hills over 1000 ft.
Hills, technically that is the Santa Monica mountain range separating the L.A. City basin from the rest of the city, known by the rest of the world as the San Fernando Valley. Considering that we say L.A. Basin points to why the hills are mostly ignored
Hills, technically that is the Santa Monica mountain range separating the L.A. City basin from the rest of the city, known by the rest of the world as the San Fernando Valley. Considering that we say L.A. Basin points to why the hills are mostly ignored
I'm aware, but I was going under the impression that MTNS constitute peaks over 2000 ft, and most of the portion of the SaMo mountains that lie within the LA city limits lie under 2000 ft especially the Hollywood Hills. Most of actual mountains start pass Topanga, and run along Malibu into Ventura County.
I still think it's pretty freaking awesome that LA has an entire Mountain range bisecting the city, most aren't aware of this. Heck, I used to frequent up there all the time, and i didn't even know it was a whole Mtn range in the middle of the city. We have those to partially thank for abysmal traffic.
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.
