Tag Archives: mountains

How flat Chicago is

Posted on by

In some American cities, you can see mountains. Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver. What you see (and experience) in Chicago is flat land. How flat? Here is one way to approach it:

Photo by Chait Goli on Pexels.com

According to “A History of Beverly Hills, Chicago,” a 1926 University of Chicago thesis by Cora DeGrass Heinemann, that Far South Side neighborhood, which now goes by Beverly, “is the highest land in Cook County.” That’s because the Blue Island Ridge, a glacial moraine, winds through it.

In the Dan Ryan Woods, a forest preserve that adjoins Beverly to the north, a historical marker for Lookout Point says the spot was “used as a signal station on [the] main highway of Indian travel.” Lookout Point offers a fine view of downtown Chicago, but at 660 feet above sea level, it’s not quite the highest spot in the city. That’s a little farther south, at 91st Street between Claremont and Western, where the land rises to 670 feet.

By contrast, the city’s lowest point, the lakefront, is at 577 feet. The lesson here: With less than 100 feet between its highest and lowest elevations, Chicago is one flat city.

This is some variation in elevation, almost 100 feet. I wonder if there are additional factors that help hide changes in elevation:

  1. An urban landscape. Lots of buildings and activity might distract from elevation changes.
  2. Chicago is not just any urban landscape; there are plenty of tall buildings. A ten-story building is roughly 100 feet tall and there are plenty of these across Chicago. Such buildings could help a 100-foot difference seem small in comparison.
  3. Gradual elevation changes. This could be from the natural landscape and/or the smoothing effects of development over decades.
  4. The location of the highest point is away from the center of the city. How many people pass by this location regularly compared to other parts of the city with less variation in elevation?

So Chicago is relatively flat – and other factors could contribute to the sense of flatness.

Where are the heights, mounts, hills, and ridges referenced in the names of Chicago suburbs?

Posted on by

WBEZs’s Curious City looks into the elevation implied by the name of multiple Chicago suburbs:

Mount Hoy offers views of Chicago thirty miles to the east.

For real: Highland Park, Park Ridge, Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect, Prospect Heights, Palos Heights, Chicago Heights, Ford Heights, Barrington Hills, Palos Hills, Rolling Meadows.

And before you say: “But wait! There is some elevation out in the ‘burbs!” Let’s make something clear: You’re not wrong. Chicago’s Loop is at about 570 feet above sea level, and the high point of Cook County is near Barrington Hills at 950 feet. That height difference is just under 400 feet, and that’s spread over 40 miles. If we were talking about any other state in the country (besides Florida) you’d barely notice the difference. In other words, in Illinois, the default standards are low for what’s considered high…

Chicago suburbs end up with names that imply elevation in these two ways: crowd-sourced rebranding and straight-up marketing…

One-hundred years ago we named places very differently, Callary says. Places were named after a town founder, or family member, or after something that indicated the place’s actual, physical presence in the world. Today, it’s more common to name a place after what you want it to be, rather than what’s actually there.

Real estate development is a powerful driver. How could developers and communities differentiate themselves from the hundreds of other suburbs in the Chicago region? Pick an idyllic name and hopefully the moniker plus the new development brings in people and businesses. The image of a mountain or hill would be an attractive one; they are both pleasant to look at and offer vistas from the top.

While none of the communities near me are named after a higher elevation, this story did remind me of the highest height around (see the picture above): a small hill made out of a landfill. Because the area is so flat, on a clear day you can see the tallest buildings in downtown Chicago thirty miles to the east. All this from an artificial 150 foot hill:

Starting in 1965 trash collection agencies and community members were invited to drop off junk and other discarded garbage items. At the end of each day county workers spread the clay, which they had excavated, onto the growing pile of garbage named Mount Hoy after the pioneering family.

Mount Hoy quickly earned its nickname of Mount Trashmore. As the Chicago Tribune article in 1973 announcing the competition of the project read, the hope was to create a popular ski destination by literally “turning garbage to ski slopes.” Although the idea seems a bit farfetched, the City of Evanston was undertaking a similar project and many were trying to convince the City of Chicago to do the same thing.

Overall three millions cubic yards of garbage and clay went into Mount Hoy, becoming a 150 foot hill. By 1974 Mount Trashmore was supposed to host four ski slopes, a snow machine and a chair lift along with two toboggan slides, however a less elaborate setup welcomed skiers and tubers to the area.     

Ignore the venting for the gasses in the landfill and it is almost like a real hill…if we know what those are in northeastern Illinois.