It depends on the definition of the Sydney area, but the reference I’ve seen most often for the highest natural point is 282m (the Woronora trig station). So the range is 0 - 282m.
As the OP says, I would be surprised if any place can beat L.A. It’s the only city I know of that contains both shoreline and mountains.
It’s also, as I understand, the only major metropolitan area bisected by a mountain chain, the Santa Monica mountains.
I’ve got one that just beats LA: Cape Town, South Africa, which, like LA, has shoreline and mountains. The lowest elevation in the City of Cape Town is the Atlantic coast, and the highest is Somerset-Sneeukop in the Hottentots-Holland mountains (34° 02′ S 18° 59′ E), which has a height of 1,590.4 m (5,218 ft). Somerset-Sneeukop is actually situated on the municipal boundary (indeed it forms the tripoint with two other municipalities) but if we’re going to quibble about that then there is logically a point just next to the peak which is infinitesimally lower and indisputably within the city limits.
Sheffield, England is pretty impressive. The highest point within the city boundary is 1798 ft and the lowest is 95ft, giving an elevation change of 1703 ft. In practice though most of the housing is between 330 to 660 ft.
It is a remarkably hilly city being at the confluence of five rivers. The weather can change drastically as one travels across it. I once caught a bus in the city centre in rain to go to one of the higher suburbs and watched the rain turn to sleet, then snow as we went up the hill. When I finally got off it was in a blizzard with a foot of snow already on the ground.
Not my hometown, but I believe Palm Springs might have LA beat. The eastern edge of the valley floor is only about 450 ft and it looks like there’s one ridge coming down off the San Jacintos where the city and National Forest land meets that is just a hair under 6000 ft. Of course, another 3 miles from there and you’re over 10,000 ft.
The Mississippi river is ~631 ft, and the bluffs (which may be just outside of town) are ~1200ft, so about 600ft
Brian
NYC as a whole (not just Manhattan) seems to exactly tie Washington DC with 410 feet.
We go from sea level to the top of Mt Trashmore, as our dump is lovingly known, giving George Town an elevation change of 79ft. That exceeds the old high point for the island of Grand Cayman, The Mountain is still the highest natural elevation at about 58ft.
The highest point in the whole country is a mere 141ft on the island of Cayman Brac.
Hamilton, Ontario. Lowest elevation 246 feet, which is probably on the harbourfront.
Highest elevation 1063 feet, up the ‘Mountain’ - half of the city is on the edge of the Niagara Escarpment.
Difference: 817 feet.
Minneapolis - 687 to 980. So 293 feet.
I found this article on the high and low of elevation for Toronto.
High point is Keele St and Steeles Ave at a spectacular 211.5m (694 ft)
and the low point is at Yonge St and Queens Quay at 76.5m (251ft)
For a difference of 135m or 443 ft.
From a topo map, Calgary is
highest: 4232 ft
lowest: 3218 ft
difference: 1014 ft.
The winner, if you allow a ridiculous stretch of what can be called a “city”, could be Yakutat, Alaska. Sea level to 18,008 ft (Mount Saint Elias).
I remember when I lived in Albuquerque, the rough figures I heard was 5000 feet at the Rio Grande to 7000 feet at the base of Sandia. Never saw any official numbers though. I remember the Sandia edge of the city would snow a little more often than the rest of the place.
Bangkok is pretty flat, so no real variation here. But when I lived in Honolulu, that place is hemmed in by mountains. I was fitter back then and would ride my bike up to the top of a hill called Tantalus, which I believe is still inside the city limits and about 1000 feet up IIRC.
The 410ft must be in the Upper Northwest portion of the city. I’ve heard the only reason the National Cathedral is “taller” than the Washington Monument is because it sits on higher ground.
Sea level to 5,000 feet. My house sits 11 feet above sealevel.
I thought about taking my GPS and driving to the foothills to get an accurate figure but didn’t feel like driving clear across town.
Another city with a lot of elevation change is Juneau Alaska; the city and borough cover over 3000 square miles (!), some of which is water. The surrounding mountains are included, with some peaks over 3000 ft. high.
Any Dopers live in Juneau?
Around here, we have at least one flagpole and markings on one sugar silo that mark ‘Sea Level’, so I know that most of where I’m at is below sea level. We are surrounded by small hills, but I think they’re too far away to really count.
Calipatria <where I used to work; about 30-40 miles away> is 184 feet below sea level, and apparantly the lowest-elevation city in the western hemisphere. :eek:
The Chocolate Mountains are just due n/e of there, and go to 1500 feet. This is all wiki’d; the mountains themselves are closed off due to their being used for target practice, so I can’t check it out myself.
But that makes…a nearly 1700 foot change within a couple of miles.
Thread tip: If you type the name of a city into the Google Maps search bar, it will have a layer showing the city limits. You can then switch it to terrain view to see elevations. I’m not totally sure if the city limits Google has are 100% accurate or not, but it’s certainly a start.
According to a quick Google search, the county I live in varies from 6 to 29 ft above sea level.
Wikipedia claims my city is at 9 ft above sea level, and flat.
-D/a