Hilly Manhattan?

Same with Boston. I'm guessing that NYC grows much more organically, maybe to resemble the way London streets work?

Probably a bit straighter, or at least more uniform than London's streets, since at the very least, the shape of the island of Manhattan prevents too much wandering.
 
I was thinking of the area around Beacon Hill. And of the organic way the streets crisscross the city.

Well apparently THAT was an exception - most of the other hills in Boston were flattened, and the land reclaimed from those hills were used to expand Boston even more.
 
Pittsburgh and Boston

With all due respect, both Pittsburgh and Boston are massively less populous than New York City. These days Pittsburgh has just ~350K population in the city.

I think the better comparison is Mexico City... that's very hilly, isn't it?
 

VT45

Banned
With all due respect, both Pittsburgh and Boston are massively less populous than New York City. These days Pittsburgh has just ~350K population in the city.

I think the better comparison is Mexico City... that's very hilly, isn't it?

It is very hilly. It's basically situated on a lake bed and is climbing the slopes of volcanoes. Good call!

And welcome to the board.:)
 
I happen to know a city that's very hilly, is built on an estuary and faces the Atlantic. can't remember its name, though...

Seriously, though, I reckon a hillier Manhattan could end up looking rather like OTL Liverpool at this point, with the tallest buildings down on the waterfront and the inland peaks dominated by ecclesiastical buildings. There'd also possibly be a wider focus, with the city spreading along the other banks of the Hudson/East Rivers.
 
I don't think a hillier Manhattan would change New York City much beyond street grids. If for whatever reason more hills affect development or population growth, there's still Long Island or the Bronx, assuming consolidation still takes place in 1898.
 
Top