Select Cities by Elevation Gap between Lowest and Highest Points

[dimondpark]

I thought Denver and Phoenix would be higher but this is based on city limits from 1980, I wonder if Phoenix may have annexed land since then that makes their figure in this stat higher?

Elevation Gap(in Feet)
Between Lowest and Highest Point:
13,176'-Anchorage, AK
5,200'--Salt Lake City, UT
5,074'--Los Angeles, CA
4,020'--Honolulu, HI
3,563'--Cape Town, ZA
3,360'--Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3,140'--Hong Kong, China
2,125'--San Jose, CA
1,866'--Phoenix, AZ
1,754'--Oakland, CA
1,591'--San Diego, CA
1,283'--Vienna, Austria
1,073'--Portland, OR
934'----San Francisco, CA
800'----London, UK
775'----Nashville, TN
774'----Montreal, QC
700'----Tucson, AZ
674'----Austin, TX
660'----Pittsburgh, PA
564'----Birmingham, AL
527'----Cincinnati, OH
520'----Seattle, WA
495'----San Antonio, TX
489'----Baltimore, MD
479'----Cleveland, OH
444'----Toronto, ON
441'----Philadelphia, PA
410'----New York, NY
409'----Washington, DC
385'----El Paso, TX
379'----Louisville, KY
367'----Long Beach, CA
348'----Atlanta, GA
340'----Denver, CO
330'----Boston, MA
312'----Omaha, NE
300'----Kansas City, MO
296'----Dallas, TX
293'----Minneapolis, MN
284'----Oklahoma City, OK
278'----Newark, NJ
265'----Charlotte, NC
253'----Ft Worth, TX
229'----St Louis, MO
220'----Milwaukee, WI
208'----Columbus, OH
190'----Tulsa, OK
181'----Indianapolis, IN
140'----Memphis, TN
128'----Buffalo, NY
97'-----Detroit, MI
94'-----Chicago, IL
83'-----Houston, TX
40'-----Jacksonville, FL
33'-----New Orleans, LA
30'-----Miami, FL

https://www.usgs.gov/educational-resourc...ation-1980-census?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[dimondpark]

as an aside, years ago, I was looking at the highest inhabited elevation, not just elevation in general because lots of times, they are parks or cant be bult on.

So after a bit of geekery, I came up with this:

Feet above Lowest Elevation...Address, City, State 1,000 ft+
2,976 ft--43201 North Old Mine Road, Cave Creek, AZ
2,529 ft--19090 Bolhman Road, Saratoga, CA
2,118 ft--2034 Tall Woods Court, Draper, UT
1,637 ft--21341 Stonetower Lane, Trabuco Canyon, CA
1,594 ft--16678 Via La Costa, Los Angeles, CA
1,550 ft--6866 Wilton Drive, Oakland, CA
1,501 ft--4552 South Zarahemla Drive, Salt Lake City, UT
1,497 ft--2167 Rimcrest Drive, Glendale, CA
1,428 ft--111 West 57th Street, New York, NY
1,355 ft--2500 Aha Aina Place, Honolulu, HI
1,305 ft--1396 Summit Road, Berkeley, CA
1,289 ft--19356 Overlook Road, Monte Sereno, CA
1,286 ft--432 Park Avenue, New York, NY
1,269 ft--1154 Millstream Road, West Vancouver, BC
1,131 ft--16940 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos, CA

It's not complete, but this is what I digged up at that time...

[Steely Dan]

Kinda hard to believe there are 4 major US cities that are somehow even flatter than Chicago.

But they all make sense I suppose.



Baltimore really stands out to me. I've been there, but it was a LONG time ago, and I don't have any recollection of it being super hilly in an almost Seattle or Cincinnati sort of way.

[Riverranchdrone]

I can see Austin being higher than San Antonio but should not have a higher range than El Paso.

[iheartthed]

You'd think Denver's gap would be bigger. And Dallas, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and maybe one or two others have bigger gaps than I would have guessed.

[pj3000]

As always, city limits is poopy.

Pittsburgh elevation delta is limited by the city proper 58 sq miles. The delta is likely not too much different for Allegheny County though, but probably a 700-750 ft elevation difference.

[Six Corners]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You'd think Denver's gap would be bigger.

Denver is on the Great Plains, which I don't think a lot of people realize. So the region as a whole is on the flatter side. It just happens to be located right next to where the plains end and the mountains begin.

[Crawford]

It's a bit misleading in that relative difference in elevation isn't a proxy for relative hilliness. Cleveland is flat and Seattle is all hills, but their relative ranking is similar.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Kinda hard to believe there are 4 major US cities that are somehow even flatter than Chicago.

But they all make sense I suppose.



Baltimore really stands out to me. I've been there, but it was a LONG time ago, and I don't have any recollection of it being super hilly in an almost Seattle or Cincinnati sort of way.

I actually had the opposite experience, not realizing how hilly the Baltimore area is....not as pronounced as Pittsburgh, but, you notice lil' rolling hills more outside the central area.

Ellicott City is a nice suburb of Baltimore with some hills:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MELXNLMUQZF1qVr29

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Baltimore really stands out to me. I've been there, but it was a LONG time ago, and I don't have any recollection of it being super hilly in an almost Seattle or Cincinnati sort of way.

Yeah, its rank is a bit surprising, but being hilly or not, in and of itself, doesn't have much to do with it.

It's just that Baltimore's lowest point is sea level and its elevation gradually increases... probably like 100' per mile, so you notice that you're going uphill, but nothing dramatic at all... as you move away from the coast. It's the same with DC and Philadelphia (Cleveland too... though with lake level, obviously).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, its rank is a bit surprising, but being hilly or not, in and of itself, doesn't have much to do with it.

It's just that Baltimore's lowest point is sea level and its elevation gradually increases... probably like 100' per mile, so you notice that you're going uphill, but nothing dramatic at all... as you move away from the coast. It's the same with DC and Philadelphia (Cleveland too... though with lake level, obviously).

DC seems much more flat than NYC but they have the same variance between lowest and highest point. Considering that it's a city with a much smaller land area, there must be some relatively large hills jutting out in some part of the DC.

[Comrade]

The lowest point in Salt Lake City is 4,210 feet, which is found out by the airport. The highest point is 9,410 feet, which is Grandview Peak (located in the Wasatch). Both are within the city limits of SLC. That's a difference of 5,200 feet.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Comrade

The lowest point in Salt Lake City is 4,210 feet, which is found out by the airport. The highest point is 9,410 feet, which is Grandview Peak (located in the Wasatch). Both are within the city limits of SLC. That's a difference of 5,200 feet.

Thanks! I'll add it to the list.

[benp]

While Buffalo's elevation change is relatively flat, just going a few extra miles in any direction produces one of the largest elevation changes adjacent to Midwest and interior Northeast cities.

Just 20 miles north of the city limits elevation drops about 450' by the time you get to Lake Ontario; and just about 20 miles SE of the city limits elevation rises about 1250' in the Boston Hills. So in a little over an hour drive there is a 1700' elevation difference between the 2 locations.

Except in a few areas you don't get that concentrated hilly feeling like in the Pittsburgh area, but the regional elevation change total is greater. From certain parts in the city you can see some of the higher elevations. And driving south, by the time you get to suburban Orchard Park you are already looking down into the city.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

as an aside, years ago, I was looking at the highest inhabited elevation, not just elevation in general because lots of times, they are parks or cant be bult on.

So after a bit of geekery, I came up with this:

Feet above Lowest Elevation...Address, City, State 1,000 ft+
2,976 ft--43201 North Old Mine Road, Cave Creek, AZ
2,529 ft--19090 Bolhman Road, Saratoga, CA
2,118 ft--2034 Tall Woods Court, Draper, UT
1,637 ft--21341 Stonetower Lane, Trabuco Canyon, CA
1,594 ft--16678 Via La Costa, Los Angeles, CA
1,550 ft--6866 Wilton Drive, Oakland, CA
1,501 ft--4552 South Zarahemla Drive, Salt Lake City, UT
1,497 ft--2167 Rimcrest Drive, Glendale, CA
1,428 ft--111 West 57th Street, New York, NY
1,355 ft--2500 Aha Aina Place, Honolulu, HI
1,305 ft--1396 Summit Road, Berkeley, CA
1,289 ft--19356 Overlook Road, Monte Sereno, CA
1,286 ft--432 Park Avenue, New York, NY
1,269 ft--1154 Millstream Road, West Vancouver, BC
1,131 ft--16940 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos, CA

It's not complete, but this is what I digged up at that time...

I found 6108 Sister Elsie Dr, Tujunga (within Los Angeles city limits), at 2,212 ft.

In a nearby suburb, I found 6048 Canyonside Rd, La Crescenta, at 2,487 ft.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Kinda hard to believe there are 4 major US cities that are somehow even flatter than Chicago.

But they all make sense I suppose.

It's definitely not surprising when you see those three cities. Jacksonville may be the most surprising, relatively speaking, just because it is an entire county, and you would think there's a little hill at the western end away from the coast.

Originally Posted by benp

While Buffalo's elevation change is relatively flat, just going a few extra miles in any direction produces one of the largest elevation changes adjacent to Midwest and interior Northeast cities.

Just 20 miles north of the city limits elevation drops about 450' by the time you get to Lake Ontario; and just about 20 miles SE of the city limits elevation rises about 1250' in the Boston Hills. So in a little over an hour drive there is a 1700' elevation difference between the 2 locations.

Except in a few areas you don't get that concentrated hilly feeling like in the Pittsburgh area, but the regional elevation change total is greater. From certain parts in the city you can see some of the higher elevations. And driving south, by the time you get to suburban Orchard Park you are already looking down into the city.

I wonder what the difference is in Niagara Falls. Obviously it has to be about the height of the falls.

[BnaBreaker]

Nashville's hills are one of my favorite features of the city, but I didn't think for a second it'd have the biggest elevation discrepancy of any city east of Utah!

[xzmattzx]

Phoenix absolutely cannot be correct. South Mountain and Piestewa Peak are both in city limits.

Is there a reason the 1980 data was used? That was 46 years ago.

[benp]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

It's definitely not surprising when you see those three cities. Jacksonville may be the most surprising, relatively speaking, just because it is an entire county, and you would think there's a little hill at the western end away from the coast.



I wonder what the difference is in Niagara Falls. Obviously it has to be about the height of the falls.

Both Niagara Falls US and Canada are above the Niagara Escarpment, so with the exception of the river itself the land averages between around 550' and 700' with the Canadian side being higher.

At the escarpment (Queenston Heights in Canada and Lewiston in US) the land elevation drops about 300' within a half mile or so and continues a gradual slope afterwards. Here is a picture of the Lewiston-Queenston bridge looking north, which is just above the escarpment (and the original site of Niagara Falls before it cut the gorge).

The river elevation is about 550' at the water intakes upstream of the falls, 500' at the crest, 320' at the base of the falls, 270' near the Lewiston-Queenston bridge, and around 230' at Lake Ontario.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Phoenix absolutely cannot be correct. South Mountain and Piestewa Peak are both in city limits.

Is there a reason the 1980 data was used? That was 46 years ago.

Probably because it was done in 1980 and they just have the data uploaded to the website.