4 ms·

Also, there is absolutely nothing “flat” about Salt Lake City.

by LastTrain 3y ago

cobaltoxide 3y ago
It's surrounded by mountains, but the urban part of the city is indeed very flat.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Maybe a decade ago, but there are now over a dozen buildings over 300 feet in downtown SLC[1]. I was there last week; it's not a "big" city by any means, but it's also certainly not flat by any means. Compare this to Buffalo, which is bigger, older, and still has fewer buildings over 300 feet[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Salt_Lake_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_S... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_B...
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Pretty sure we're talking about ground elevation, not building height.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      The original context was "flat and squat," so I assumed we were including building height. But it's entirely possible that was wrong!
      - jjulius 3y ago
        Fair, I may have missed "squat"!
jjulius 3y ago
Huh? The city itself is really flat - I've been through it, and a quick image search confirms as much. There are mountains nearby, but saying "there is absolutely nothing 'flat'" about it is pretty disingenuous.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  I mean, sure, there are flat parts - as with all cities. But if we are ranking cities by flatness, SLC would be somewhere in the bottom 10 percent. "Flat" is just a horrible descriptor for that city.
xeromal 3y ago
I lived in SLC city and it is flat in a similar way a bowl is "flat" The middle valley is very flat with a pretty steady elevation around 4500 ft or so IIRC but nestled between 2 very big mountain ranges and the great salt lake up north. See for yourself https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-nptp/Salt-Lake-City/?center=40.70042%2C-111.88339&zoom=10 https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-nptp/Salt-Lake-City/?c...

Also, there is absolutely nothing “flat” about Salt Lake City.

cobaltoxide 3y ago

It's surrounded by mountains, but the urban part of the city is indeed very flat.

woodruffw 3y ago
Maybe a decade ago, but there are now over a dozen buildings over 300 feet in downtown SLC[1]. I was there last week; it's not a "big" city by any means, but it's also certainly not flat by any means. Compare this to Buffalo, which is bigger, older, and still has fewer buildings over 300 feet[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Salt_Lake_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_S... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_B...
- jjulius 3y ago
  Pretty sure we're talking about ground elevation, not building height.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The original context was "flat and squat," so I assumed we were including building height. But it's entirely possible that was wrong!
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Fair, I may have missed "squat"!

jjulius 3y ago

Huh? The city itself is really flat - I've been through it, and a quick image search confirms as much. There are mountains nearby, but saying "there is absolutely nothing 'flat'" about it is pretty disingenuous.

LastTrain 3y ago
I mean, sure, there are flat parts - as with all cities. But if we are ranking cities by flatness, SLC would be somewhere in the bottom 10 percent. "Flat" is just a horrible descriptor for that city.

xeromal 3y ago

I lived in SLC city and it is flat in a similar way a bowl is "flat" The middle valley is very flat with a pretty steady elevation around 4500 ft or so IIRC but nestled between 2 very big mountain ranges and the great salt lake up north. See for yourself https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-nptp/Salt-Lake-City/?center=40.70042%2C-111.88339&zoom=10 https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-nptp/Salt-Lake-City/?c...