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.
Perhaps the Op has not spent time in Sacramento, redding, chico, modesto, stockton, bakersfield, fresno, etc...Some of the flattest country in the USA can be found in california. And it is even more pronounced when surrounded by mountains every where else.
As far as East coast cities with hills-- Pittsburgh of course, but when I went to Providence I was shocked by how steep College Hill was! That's definitely a San Francisco-calibre hill, even if it's the only one.
As for highly regarded world cities with hills, Istanbul, Turkey is built almost entirely on green hills that slope down to the Bosphorus. It means its bridges look like this:
You need a life if you're in NYC and the "flat" terrain occupies your thoughts.
There are some things (lack of things) in some of those cities that take me back by surprise too. I've lived in very hilly towns, and I've never thought much (or cared) about hilly terrain. It's at the very bottom of what I look for within a city.
Now that I think about it, nearly all of the highest regarded world cities are all flat - New York, London, Paris, Tokyo. Berlin, Singapore, Amsterdam, Rome, Vienna, Sydney etc are too all "flat".
Tokyo is built right next to Mount Fuji and not far from a large mountain range.
Tokyo is built right next to Mount Fuji and not far from a large mountain range.
Well... not QUITE "right next to". Three hours from central Tokyo to Mount Fuji--that's 136 km (according to Google Maps, which centers Tokyo around Shinjuku).
That's about 25 miles greater, say, than the distance between Mt. Rainier and Seattle--or twenty less than that between Mt. Rainier and Portland.
You can see Mt. Fuji from tall buildings in Tokyo, but only on a nice clear day!
As for highly regarded world cities with hills, Istanbul, Turkey is built almost entirely on green hills that slope down to the Bosphorus. It means its bridges look like this:
After living in NY for a year, I gotta say I didn't really notice how flat the place was. What I did notice was that there was water everywhere, giving NYC a unique geography unmatched by anywhere in the United States. How many cities can be said to be a mini-archipelago ?(Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn/Queens on Long Island, and the Bronx, a peninsula on the mainland). If you took the Staten Island ferry every morning like I had to, this becomes even clearer.
In short, its easier to try to appreciate places for what they are, instead of what you want them to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo
Perhaps the Op has not spent time in Sacramento, redding, chico, modesto, stockton, bakersfield, fresno, etc...Some of the flattest country in the USA can be found in california. And it is even more pronounced when surrounded by mountains every where else.
True that. Even the LA Basin is a relatively flat coastal plain that has some of the most comfortable weather in the nation, which is why it became as developed and populated as it did relative to other parts of California. However, unlike cities east of the Rocky Mountains, there is a drastic change in elevation within a relatively short distance. Even the Central Valley, going from east to west, is around 50 miles of flatland (but 400 miles going north to south). This is why smog is such a huge problem in California.
Ahh geography..it's wonderful until you have to deal with it.
After living in NY for a year, I gotta say I didn't really notice how flat the place was. What I did notice was that there was water everywhere, giving NYC a unique geography unmatched by anywhere in the United States. How many cities can be said to be a mini-archipelago ?(Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn/Queens on Long Island, and the Bronx, a peninsula on the mainland). If you took the Staten Island ferry every morning like I had to, this becomes even clearer.
In short, its easier to try to appreciate places for what they are, instead of what you want them to be.
True that. Even the LA Basin is a relatively flat coastal plain that has some of the most comfortable weather in the nation, which is why it became as developed and populated as it did relative to other parts of California. However, unlike cities east of the Rocky Mountains, there is a drastic change in elevation within a relatively short distance. Even the Central Valley, going from east to west, is around 50 miles of flatland (but 400 miles going north to south). This is why smog is such a huge problem in California.
Ahh geography..it's wonderful until you have to deal with it.
Uhh you are in California, the obvious answer is San Francisco, doh... same with people taking larkspur ferry, etc.
Uhh you are in California, the obvious answer is San Francisco, doh... same with people taking larkspur ferry, etc.
San Francisco is unique in the sense that its built on a hilly peninsula, but it isn't an archipelago like NYC. If Treasure and Angel Island had thousands upon thousands of people on it, then it would be. However, no one really lives on islands in the Bay as much as New Yorkers live on Manhattan, Long Island, or Staten Island. It's different in terms of scale. That doesn't make SF any less magnificent (trust me, its one of my most favorite cities), but its geographically set up differently than NYC.
Bay Area commuters, as far as I know, don't take the ferries as much as commuters from Staten Island or even NJ take theirs to Manhattan.
In some cites that are pretty flat (NYC, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phila) I don't notice the flatness so much. In other flat cities, like Miami and NOLA, seems like you are reminded of the flatness at every turn. I do prefer a 3-dimensional city, tho.
Although Boston's hills have been levelled significantly since the colonial era, they still do have some relevance in terms of socioeconomic housing patterns and so on. For example, Beacon Hill is arguably the most exclusive and expensive neighborhood in the city.
Charlestown, a Boston neighborhood historically known as being a little rough around the edges, is actually crowned by lots of very exclusive real estate at the top of Bunker Hill:
Similarly, College Hill in Providence is still the city's most prestigious neighborhood:
I definitely agree with the OP's interest in the topography of West Coast cities. But I have to say that after years of living in Los Angeles, that city seemed much more like an endlessly flat sprawl than Boston or the other East Coast cities I've spent a lot of time in. Even though LA has some pretty dramatic topography, so much of the city is located in the massive Los Angeles basin. Driving across the SoCal metropolis is pretty dang monotonous IMO!
At any rate, interesting topography is a big draw in cities for me. But I think a more important criterion, personally, is a more haphazard or "organic" street layout -- I get really weirded out by the strict, expansive grid patterns in most US cities, since these are not very common in New England.
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.
