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.
In terms of major cities on the East Coast DC is pretty hilly and only 90 minutes from the mountains.
DC, Baltimore, Philly & NYC (to a degree) all literally sit on the fall line between the Piedmont Plateau and the Atlantic coastal plain. Their western sides are substantially rougher/varied geographically than their eastern sides.
DC’s tallest point above sea level is 401’. Baltimore’s is 480’ while Philly’s is slightly lower at 446’.
While not by any means SF/Seattle/Pittsburgh level… a lot of people a surprised just how hilly they can be.
Houston, K.C. Vegas, Phoenix and all of Florida lol. Vegas and Phoenix do have some elevation outside the city limits.
Downtown KC sits atop a 280-foot-high bluff overlooking the floodplain surrounding the junction of the Missouri and Kansas rivers. Said bluff was cut away to allow the original settlement of Westport Landing to expand to the south, but it resumes east of the Paseo. Most of the city north of I-435 consists of rollling hills or valleys formed by current or former stream beds. The Missouri makes its left turn at KC because the great ice sheet that covered everything to its north in the last Ice Age stopped there, and the river flows through a broad floodplain bordered by hills and bluffs on its entire course through the city.
The flat parts of Greater Kansas City lie in the far southern and southwestern parts of the metro.
DC, Baltimore, Philly & NYC (to a degree) all literally sit on the fall line between the Piedmont Plateau and the Atlantic coastal plain. Their western sides are substantially rougher/varied geographically than their eastern sides.
DC’s tallest point above sea level is 401’. Baltimore’s is 480’ while Philly’s is slightly lower at 446’.
While not by any means SF/Seattle/Pittsburgh level… a lot of people a surprised just how hilly they can be.
Downtown KC sits atop a 280-foot-high bluff overlooking the floodplain surrounding the junction of the Missouri and Kansas rivers. Said bluff was cut away to allow the original settlement of Westport Landing to expand to the south, but it resumes east of the Paseo. Most of the city north of I-435 consists of rollling hills or valleys formed by current or former stream beds. The Missouri makes its left turn at KC because the great ice sheet that covered everything to its north in the last Ice Age stopped there, and the river flows through a broad floodplain bordered by hills and bluffs on its entire course through the city.
The flat parts of Greater Kansas City lie in the far southern and southwestern parts of the metro.
Now Chicago — that's flat.
Yeah, I always know that people haven’t been to Kansas City when they say it’s flat. They probably just think it is because it’s on the edge of the Great Plains.
definitely wouldn't call the N/NW side of SA "low rolling hills"
Well, it's definitely "hill country" for sure (though I wasn't aware that SA was in that part of Texas). But the slope of the hills seems to me shallower than the (admittedly smaller) hills in Kansas City that I posted seems to be. Nowhere near as bad as "Mount Sunflower" (the highest point in Kansas), but still relatively gentle slopes from what I can tell. The hill may rise 400 feet, but over how many feet/miles?
Yeah, I always know that people haven’t been to Kansas City when they say it’s flat. They probably just think it is because it’s on the edge of the Great Plains.
What makes it even more amusing is that KC has embraced the fact that it sits at the edge of the Plains:
KCPT's online newsmagazine site is called Flatland.
I've seen this thread get revived over and over again, and it's been interesting to read what some people consider hilly. The link below gives a good perspective using factual data (From ESRI) from which I can tell, is pretty spot on. The cities known to be flat are listed where they should be but I think people may be surprised by some of the cities mentioned towards the top of the list.
Check out the four different metrics used to determine the Composite Score and whether you agree with it or not. Note that this is for city limits only.
Well, it's definitely "hill country" for sure (though I wasn't aware that SA was in that part of Texas). But the slope of the hills seems to me shallower than the (admittedly smaller) hills in Kansas City that I posted seems to be. Nowhere near as bad as "Mount Sunflower" (the highest point in Kansas), but still relatively gentle slopes from what I can tell. The hill may rise 400 feet, but over how many feet/miles?
Not sure what the prominence height of the hills around here are, but the inner city is generally 500-650 feet in elevation, and then some of the hills on the northwest side are 1800-1900 feet. Once you get outside of 1604 (the outer loop here) it's just constant hills. It sort of reminds me of a smaller version of the hills around the Newport Coast or Laguna Niguel area in socal.
Not sure what the prominence height of the hills around here are, but the inner city is generally 500-650 feet in elevation, and then some of the hills on the northwest side are 1800-1900 feet. Once you get outside of 1604 (the outer loop here) it's just constant hills. It sort of reminds me of a smaller version of the hills around the Newport Coast or Laguna Niguel area in socal.
From that perspective, San Antonio looks very hilly indeed, and the hills don't look as low as they did in that broad vista, which I'm guessing was taken from near the crest of one of those many hills.
But equally interesting is that the composite score based on Nate Rasmussen's analysis suggests my describing San Antonio's hills as "low rolling ones" isn't all that inaccurate, or at least the "rolling" part isn't — and that indeed the hills aren't as "rolling" in my hometown of Kansas City, which ranks above SA on his composite score mainly because the slope of the hills in KC is steeper — and because of that bluff on top of which downtown KC sits, which places the city in the No. 3 spot for downtown slope.
I do note that many of those much hillier (based on range and standard deviation) Western cities consist of fairly broad swaths of relatively flat land ringed or penetrated by high mountain ranges on which nothing is built. San Francisco doesn't look like that at all, however, and neither does Pittsburgh, which I would have liked to see in that analysis (so would Nate).
I'd add that the fact that San Francisco and Seattle are both unusual for US cities in that their street grids pay no respect at all to the terrain they cover contribute to the perceived hilliness of both, but especially San Francisco. Pittsburgh comes close, and I suspect Cincinnati would too.
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.
