I've always felt that Quebec is just as Canadian as anywhere else in Canada. But I can speak French so that is problem the main reason.

That's interesting how residential built-form style can match up not only on both sides of the border in neighbouring Provinces-States but also even with States that don't border directly with Canada but are in similar regions/geographic areas of continent.

I've put together a collage of 3 cities, Saskatoon, Great Falls in Montana which is a couple hours drive south of the border where I grew up in Saskatchewan, and Scottsdale in Arizona which is a couple hundred kms from Mexico.
Each city has two pics in the collage. Can you match up which pics goes to each city?

A general good rule of thumb for matching is Scottsdale is an affluent city in a desert environment and has a fair amount of drier foliage types and generally less grass lawns, more stucco and clay/terracotta in houses where as the further north you go, you get more wood siding and asphalt roofing shingles etc.

https://i.imgur.com/bugfLoC.png
google maps

Top left - Bottom Right Saskatoon
Top Right - Bottom Left - Great Falls
Middle - Phoenix

That's the point of the thread.

How does a particular city capture Canada in all its facets? So, you can classify it several ways:

-English/French/Native (Timmins does well)
-Old-stock versus newly immigrated Canadians (Timmins is more representative of Canada of 40+ years ago)
-Climate/weather (Timmins has warm summers, cold, bitter winters, so I guess it's quite Canadian)
-Traditions: sports, food, past-times, music/media (I think Timmins does well capturing the Canadian traditional culture)

Timmins feels like old-school Canada to me. In a sense, many Northeastern Ontario communities do, because they straddle the line between the two solitudes and their economies are built on traditional Canadian industries. They've also been insulated from immigration-based change due to their poor economic performance.

Stand at the corner of Queen and Spadina in Toronto and tell me there's the same feel as in Timmins. Or wander through 'Jurassic Park' the next time the Raptors host the thing. It's definitely a different facet of the same country.

To another extreme, an Anglophone from the suburbs of Red Deer whose command of the French language amounts to "Bonjour" wandering the streets of the heart of Quebec City is probably going to feel somewhat out of place, despite being able to use loonies and toonies for transactions. Again, different facets.

I'm not saying one is better than the other and the closer you get to the median - if you could classify such a thing - the easier you'll be able to blend between groups. The 'larger' your Canada will be, as it were.

So, a bilingual Montrealer who grew up in Grenville, QC (or somewhere close to the Ontario border) probably is closest to hitting all points.

Among smaller cities Timmins is a decent microcosm of Canada. Though as has been said it's mostly missing the contemporary non-European immigration. But isn't that changing with something like 2,000 students from India in town?

Also, if Moncton is a good choice among slightly larger cities, Sudbury is probably as good a choice as well. The fact that both are university towns also bring in a bit more global diversity than a city like Timmins would have.

I always wonder about that kind of tourism.

Go to a place, get a photo, leave. Without ever understanding what it is, really. At least the people from Canada who go to the Caribbean/Mexico or Vegas have an honest intent: get wasted and be hedonistic. They don't even bother with pretending to care.

I think that's why I've been reluctant to go to Asia - I'd just be that idiot Westerner taking photos. I'll never understand much of it in a real sense. My worldview is too warped by my cultural biases to get that deep understanding.

For some reason this discussion takes me back to the Contiki Tours of my youth. I've never actually been on one, but they sure were ubiquitous. Some of my family members took them.

I have always been a more independent traveller: arrive at 9 pm in a city you don't know, don't speak the language, everything is written in cyrillic, with no room booked...

In my idealized version of myself, I'm that person.

Realistically, no. My comfort zone is too small. My interests are too superficial to struggle with the deep-dive of a foreign culture. I like understanding home (and stuff similar to my home culture) too much to endure the discomfort of forcing myself much beyond that.

Which is why a trip to Japan would be wasted on me. Sure, I'd see the highlights, but I wouldn't take a businessman's hotel in the back end of Fukuoka to get the 'real vibe' or a intensive course in the Japanese language to obtain the understanding of the cultural subtleties of the country.

This mentality makes absolutely no sense. To write off 60% of the world because you're what? Lazy? Why wouldn't you educate yourself like so many other "non-idiot Westerners that don't just take photos". No one needs to do a deep dive to understand or enjoy a country or culture. Just read up on it and go. Heck, watch the multitude of youtube videos and read blogs if that's more your niche. If you have no interest in Asia then just say so rather than coming up with these nonsensical excuses.

You'll learn a lot more than just navel gazing and avoiding stuff your whole life. And to imply that only Asians do the "take photos" in one place and move on to the next, is idiotic as well.

Asia hosts perhaps the most diverse collection of cultures on the planet. I have treasured all of my eight trips to Asia to date, and I am looking forward to at least one more Asia trip per year, for at least the next two decades.

If I'm being pejorative to a "culture", it's the culture of just doing something because it's trendy. That applies to many different cultures, not just Asians/Westerners/whoever.

No interest isn't a fair reason not to do something? Or the principle of being unwilling to commit somewhat more than superficially to something at the large cost of it? For a 2-hour movie that costs me $10, sure, no need to devote one's self to it. Or a light hobby.

I don't know. I guess there's a continuum here and for all the rah-rah-rah of travel "Expanding one's worldview", my (obviously biased) opinion is that most don't really get the benefits it claims to advance. It's hedonism disguised under false pretenses. Which is fine, as long as people are honest about it. Some get lots out of travel. I just admit for most destinations, I wouldn't benefit for the damage it would cause.

Sure. That's perfectly fine.

Some people really do get lots out of it. To them, I gladly wish them well.

Even better, they won't have to put up with clueless me being in the way, just because I thought Southeast Asia was somewhere neat to go on a lark.

Win-win, no?

Sudbury is a good choice for covering all the Canadian bases:

- French presence
- Natural resource and extraction history
- the realization that total wilderness begins just north of you
- stereotypical Ontario suburban aesthetic (townhouse and commie block poor and student areas; clapboard 1.5 storey working class homes; monster box homes on a lake for the rich)
- little hipster neighbourhood on Kathleen street reminiscent of those in bigger Canadian cities

Heh. I live in Sudbury. Are you from here too?

Kathleen St. has come a long way. It was previously known as 'the place where the hookers hung out' complete with sketchy KFC and run-down dive bar.

Elgin St. has come a ways too.

Sudbury is definitely somewhere closer to the median of Canada. Probably too Anglo-Canada in worldview to be a perfect representation, but it's not uncommon to hear French speckled in conversations between coworkers or in the cafeteria.

Immigration-wise, somewhat behind the leading trend of Canada, though that's changing. Might be more representative of 25-30 years ago.

Built form? Some decent bones around Ramsey Lake. Some awful company homes near the smelters. Lots of suburban dreck, as you mention.

Personally, I am definitely more like you than Wave, but I don't see the need to be so harsh and judgemental.

People are allowed to have their own preferences and interests, and there are multiple ways to be a learned individual.

Travel is definitely one of the best ones, though I also know a number of extremely well-travelled people who are total rubes.

A member of my wife's family had opportunities to travel that many of us could only dream of, but almost never took advantage of them. This was a person who liked to be at home, in their "stuff", in a familiar environment.

Yes, this was one of the most worldly, learned people I know, speaking French, English and German and some classical Latin and Greek. They could talk about the history, politics and culture of most any country, with knowledge gleaned from books, documentaries and, in later life, the Internet.

I'd also add that with the democratization of air travel in particular, being well-travelled around the world is less and less a mark of sophistication.

I still travel quite a bit internationally, and from what I have observed a lot of what people do these days is "photo op" and "selfie" travel, as opposed to immersing themselves in the local culture even a tiny bit. They do the tour, get the picture and then retreat back to the Marriott.

Stuff like seeing a Foo Fighters concert in an ancient Roman arena in Verona seems like what a lot of people have in mind when they think of travelling abroad these days.

I saw an Italian opera in the Roman arena in Verona

As I would have expected.

If I am in Moscow my priority isn't going to be seeing Céline Dion or Shania Twain in concert, or having a poutine.

Exactly what I was alluding to in my post below.

Perhaps I am unfairly jaded by those I know who fall into the 'rube' category.

People who've been everywhere but know nothing about where they've been. Stayed in Hilton-branded hotels on every continent. Got the picture though, as much as that picture of the Mona Lisa was worth the pain of getting to it. They just wanted the picture, which reminds me of people who - at a live concert - stare at their phones recording it. You are at a live concert people! Enjoy the band right in front of your face! Savour the moment, don't stare at your damn phone!

I recently had a conversation about art museums. I just don't appreciate them any more than superficially (notice the theme), so I don't devote lots of my vacation to them. Some people just gotta hit them up and they might get something out of them, but I can't help but wonder if those who really appreciate the art might be happier if they didn't have throngs of tourists trying to get a picture. Or people who spend a whole day in the Louvre because they're in Paris, because that's what one does, obviously. Maybe they'd be happier if they were more honest with what they want.

I'm not preaching gospel, I'm just a guy making observations.

Apologies to Wave46 if I came across a bit bellicose. No offence intended either to anyone who doesn't feel the need to travel. I rather thought I was commenting on the statement that "I travel and will travel - but only to places in N. America and Europe because I can't be bothered to learn about other cultures". At which point, this is a totally arbitrary exercise. I (and likely most of us) would ultimately feel much more familiar and at home in Singapore (which in Asia) than at a small village in Albania (which is in Europe). But because the former destination resides in a great big "other" continent, I'm going to write it off and go to the latter? Ridiculous!