# Favorite terrain for cities



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

If you had to chose a city on or around a coast, mountains, inland waterways, deserts and plains, what would you chose? I will say the coast, as long as it hasn't already had apartments been built there (which really puts me off Miami and the Gold Coast in Australia).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Definitely HK's terrain  You got peaks, coastlines and a whole lot of peninsulas and islands.


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

Ok, you can also chose what citie's terrain is your favorite


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Water of course


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

1. WATER - most important is water. An inland city without an important body of water is already off on the wrong track in my book. Oceans, seas, harbours, and large lakes (often in that order) are better then rivers but rivers are surely better then nothing.

2. ELEVATION CHANGES - the more hills and changes in elevation the better. Though not as imortant as water these differances in elevation often give great scenary and vantage points at which to look out at areas of the city. The only downside is that more extremley hilly or mountainous cities can offer carry smog and hold in pollution more readily then their flat counterparts.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

1. WATER- It doesn't matter, as long as it can support moist temperate forest.

2. ELEVATION CHANGES- I hate pancake like cities, as it lacks variety. A city build on mountainous area with many valleys with tunnels and lakes connecting them would be ideal.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

nomarandlee said:


> 1. WATER - most important is water. An inland city without an important body of water is already off on the wrong track in my book. Oceans, seas, harbours, and large lakes (often in that order) are better then rivers but rivers are surely better then nothing.
> 
> 2. ELEVATION CHANGES - the more hills and changes in elevation the better. Though not as imortant as water these differances in elevation often give great scenary and vantage points at which to look out at areas of the city. The only downside is that more extremley hilly or mountainous cities can offer carry smog and hold in pollution more readily then their flat counterparts.


Hong Kong fits that


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Rio, Hong Kong

Guilin's setting is quite stunning and very dramatic - hills shoot out in the middle of nowhere throughout the city.

Vancouver has a nice mountain backdrop but too bad the mountains don't reach the city proper


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

OK, I'm a biased Chicagoan, so I'll go with:

flat, open body of water, and a river runs through it.

There is no better show case for a city's skyline than flat land. It allows the skyline to dominate. It offers the most practical building sites. It gives a walkability that encourages a skyline to spread.

It plays equally well off of the flat, blue open water as it does over the wide open blue sky.

And in Chicago's case, with the world's most man-made canyon effect, you get another physical feature that remains uncomparable. 

Looking down at the HK, SF, Rio skylines from the hills and mountains above is spectacular, but I sure love the way that Sears Tower dominates the height of the entire Chicago region, visability miles and miles away from downtown.


----------



## Jo (Jul 6, 2003)

Stockholm's archipelago like setting is ideal to me. A good mix of small cliffs, islands, canals and hills.


----------



## ncon (Apr 6, 2005)

Hong Kong


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Honestly a large body of water is highly important to me. Even if its just a river that is very long. Just the idea that I can escape my city by a means not on land is psychologically quite uplifting for me.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (Oct 9, 2004)

The rolling hills of the Ohio Valley have got my number, One of my favourite stretchs is between Dayton and Cincinnati.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...&prev=/images?q=cincinnati&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Hills make for interesting urban design -- buildings where "ground level" is different on each side. And vantage points of course. But that should be tempered by flat paths along the major routes to encourage walking and bicycling. 

Mountains should be in the close background. Big ones. 

Water is an absolute necessity. Lots of it. There should be a mix of easily-bridgeable water and larger bodies. Lots of bays and inlets. Sydney and Seattle come to mind in addition to the Stockholm photo. It's best to be on the edge of the country.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Miami? 

San Francisco?

Hawaii?

Hong Kong?


----------



## Bahnsteig4 (Sep 9, 2005)

At least one remarkable body of water (river, lake, seaside), a few hills or one hill with some castle or tower upon (like Graz, Ljubljana, Bratislava or Budapest).


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

A body of water, Lake Michigan, for example:


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

L.A.


----------



## Renkinjutsushi (Dec 4, 2004)

Stockholm, Sapporo, maybe HK.


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

I agree with EVERYTHING. You are all right; if i had $20 I'd give it to you.

One thing however that has failed to be mentioned is that an absence of water can still be awesome. I.E. Denver


----------

