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.
Hard to bash Chicago, Boston, and NYC for me. I love those places. Not wild about the weather there though.
One thing the topography out west does is make it easier to get your bearings. Landmarks are more plentiful because if the hills. Makes it easier finding one's way back home...
Obviously there are going to be exceptions. Pittsburgh is a really good one to note.
Many of the cities on the West Coast, though they are hilly as a whole, have much of their population and development in large flat plains.
Also, who considers Vienna flat (as well as several other prominent cities in Central Europe)? Or Rome (it doesn't have soaring heights, or really deep lows, but it was pretty bumpy all over)? And why wouldn't Hong Kong be considered one of the most well-regarded cities? Or the already mentioned LA and SF?
I was talking about backdrops for major cities. Not hills or backdrops for small unheard of cities. I'll admit, some of those pics surprised me but I really was talking about major cities with large skylines. You don't see snow capped peaks in the horizon of Philly or NYC. Thats what i'm talking about.
Do you consider Atlanta a major city? It's obviously an exception too...the terrain here in the foothills of the southern Appalachian Mountains is very hilly.
no, i like it in scenery, but its honestly a chore to walk up and down hills if you are on foot. you also don't get massive tunnel effects with this and urban canyons...
Obviously there are going to be exceptions. Pittsburgh is a really good one to note.
Many of the cities on the West Coast, though they are hilly as a whole, have much of their population and development in large flat plains.
Also, who considers Vienna flat (as well as several other prominent cities in Central Europe)? Or Rome (it doesn't have soaring heights, or really deep lows, but it was pretty bumpy all over)? And why wouldn't Hong Kong be considered one of the most well-regarded cities? Or the already mentioned LA and SF?
I was waiting for your reply. I put "flat" in quotations for a reason.
NYC isn't exactly flat, there are even inclines in Manhattan. I've seen hills in Staten Island...and I've seen some photos of that in Bronx. Vienna and Rome aren't flat either, but compared to the U.S. West Coast the OP was referring to,...they are all flat. RE: Hong Kong, Los Angeles and San Francisco....I said nearly all well regarded cities are flat - not all.
Honestly, I wouldn't want Manhattan to be hilly. It used to be very hilly, but thankfully most of it was shaved off. Walking up hills would kill the urban experience and is nothing more than a nuisance. If you want very hilly terrain, drive 30 miles upstate and enjoy it. Ditto with Paris and London.
Yea, obviously there are going to be exceptions. I did add that most of the population of hilly cities are concentrated on the plains/basins (and LA has pretty huge basins).
It makes sense for a lot of cities to be flat (floodplains and rivers for agriculture, coastal plains for transportation). I do see the OP's point though--a hilly city is built differently. You don't care much for hills or you're too dainty to walk them--but why be such a twit about it?
Vienna (and several other central European cities) not that hilly compared to West Coast cities? Really?
I was not talking about backdrops (i.e. mountains in the background), I was talking about the city itself being hilly, which creates distinct neighborhoods, more vista points, better orientation as someone said.
Hills carve and construct the city in a certain way that allows you to "look in" in a way that you can't do in flat cities (like Chicago, which I think is a great city, btw).
I was not talking about backdrops (i.e. mountains in the background), I was talking about the city itself being hilly, which creates distinct neighborhoods, more vista points, better orientation as someone said.
Hills carve and construct the city in a certain way that allows you to "look in" in a way that you can't do in flat cities (like Chicago, which I think is a great city, btw).
definitely get better views and a better idea of what the city looks like. no doubt, also raises property of said neighborhoods with views.
It also carves cities into distinct districts in ways that flat cities can't. Not that flat cities don't have distinct areas, but something about a hilly topography really changes the feel of how cities are divided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
definitely get better views and a better idea of what the city looks like. no doubt, also raises property of said neighborhoods with views.
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.
