Quote:
Originally Posted by edale
San Francisco, yes. Boston has no where near the same levels of hills as a SF, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. The latter two cities have big problems with landslides which make development on the hills very difficult. SF would not be able to be built in a place like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, because the soil is too unstable.
|
Fun fact, Boston was originally much hillier than it is today! Those hills were cut down considerably and used to fill in land that now includes the Bulfinch Triangle, Chinatown, and much of the Back Bay.
https://historyofmassachusetts.org/h...ost-its-hills/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...-maps-history/
Even today, it's still hillier than given credit for. It's probably more on the lines of 1/2 the overall breadth and intensity of a Pittsburgh or San Francisco. There are plenty of steep inclines remaining. Climbing Beacon Hill is always a chore. The ascent from the beach to the Dorchester Heights monument in Southie is short but a doozy. Summit Ave in Brookline, as well as Mission Hill, are quite substantial. Prospect Hill in Somerville is also pretty steep. There are many others.