Canadian Skyline Thread III

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While true for ordinary people, that isn't a very good response for the context of SSP or similar sites. Most of us are here precisely because we take a deeper, more detailed interest in cities beyond the superficial impressions of the average person who only thinks about their own limited part of cities. The reason to take an interest in the overall city and metro area is that we're interested in cities and their function. So while there's nothing wrong with discussing one's direct experiences, it's also valid to point out when those experiences are limited in scope.

I guess those are two distinct things: I love to analyze urban morphology, urban demographic data. That's why I'm here on SSP and post things I post.

However, I also love to enjoy big city life: bars, nightclubs, restaurants, parties, events. I usually to have dinner out even on Mondays. I even decided to open my own bar last year. And of course, I live in São Paulo, probably the least "obvious" city in the whole world.

So I know a thing or two about enjoying city life and see under the surface. And Chicago deliveries a lot even though I prefer those more "decadent", "dirty" urban vibe like (Downtown) São Paulo or Berlin.

Originally Posted by zoomer

I not a fan of using street view to determine much about a city for many reasons, including the poor image quality, it's from the perspective atop a car in traffic, it feels very out of context changing from seasons or even years from one street to the next and lacks audio and other indicators on how the space is used compared to a 4k walking video for example.

I've watched a lot of Chicago 4k walking tours and as I said before the architecture, layout and design of the city is great, with awesome surprises around every corner. One thing that surprised me is the extent of which the city is a water city (river and lake) during the summer. Of course, just a perspective from a 2D version, I haven't been there. Here's a good overview of the city and from what I've seen the city has does not feel as busy or vibrant as Toronto for example.

• Video Link

My impression too. It works like a beach city on summers, with all easy going, relaxed attitude.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Yuri

BTW, my next trip to North America will be Montreal (and Toronto) and as we're discussing urban density, the main street in Montreal is very beautiful, but it's underwhelming compared to the grandeur of Loop-Near North Side. I'm pretty sure I'll love Montreal, but I don't see it feeling bigger/more urban than Chicago.

Montreal definitely won't feel bigger than Chicago - after all, it is quite a bit smaller, and doesn't have the same historic grandeur - but IMO at least it absolutely is more urban. It's denser, older, more multi-family oriented, the built form is finer-grained (narrower streets, smaller blocks, etc), it's more pedestrian/transit/bike-oriented, and just has more street-level vibrancy in general (partly cultural, and partly a function of the reasons above). Montreal just feels like a tighter, more active & lived-in city than Chicago; with its sort of grand, airy, spacious quality.

[MolsonExport]

If you enjoyed Berlin, you will very likely enjoy Montreal. It shares a lot of similarities, in terms of eclecticism, vibrancy, size, and especially, bohemianism. There is still a fair bit of grit, although nothing compared to what you would find in the late 90s.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I guess those are two distinct things: I love to analyze urban morphology, urban demographic data. That's why I'm here on SSP and post things I post.

They seem to be separate things in your case at least. Perhaps that's why it feels contradictory to hear you say that as a tourist you have no interest in visiting parts of a city outside the downtown or cool inner city districts. When I'm visiting a new place I want to explore and learn about as much of the city as i can, and that includes places not popular with tourists. I don't always have time, but i always have the interest. It makes sense with Sao Paolo since you probably have explored the rest of the city before and already know whether you'd enjoy spending time there. But for someone visiting an unfamiliar city it's hard to understand how it's interesting to see stats on the internet but not actually exploring directly.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Montreal definitely won't feel bigger than Chicago - after all, it is quite a bit smaller, and doesn't have the same historic grandeur - but IMO at least it absolutely is more urban. It's denser, older, more multi-family oriented, the built form is finer-grained (narrower streets, smaller blocks, etc), it's more pedestrian/transit/bike-oriented, and just has more street-level vibrancy in general (partly cultural, and partly a function of the reasons above). Montreal just feels like a tighter, more active & lived-in city than Chicago; with its sort of grand, airy, spacious quality.

Before getting there I was afraid Chicago wide streets would bother me a lot. At least on the Loop, however, due the sheer size of the skyscrapers, wide sidewalks, they didn't feel hostile, but quiet cozy.

And they have very nice urban neighbourhoods such as Lincoln Park, Old Town, Andersonville, Wicker Park. All very beautiful and welcoming. Montreal residential neighborhoods probably are denser though.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If you enjoyed Berlin, you will very likely enjoy Montreal. It shares a lot of similarities, in terms of eclecticism, vibrancy, size, and especially, bohemianism. There is still a fair bit of grit, although nothing compared to what you would find in the late 90s.

Chicago is definitely not that kind of city. I found it too well-kept, too wealthy, nothing edgy at all. I liked the city so much, that I overlooked this and really enjoyed the place. I could even see me living there, something I only felt about London before.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

They seem to be separate things in your case at least. Perhaps that's why it feels contradictory to hear you say that as a tourist you have no interest in visiting parts of a city outside the downtown or cool inner city districts. When I'm visiting a new place I want to explore and learn about as much of the city as i can, and that includes places not popular with tourists. I don't always have time, but i always have the interest. It makes sense with Sao Paolo since you probably have explored the rest of the city before and already know whether you'd enjoy spending time there. But for someone visiting an unfamiliar city it's hard to understand how it's interesting to see stats on the internet but not actually exploring directly.

There's another thing: money and specially time. My vacations are not flexible and not very long, so I must be very picky. If those were not factors, I'd definitely go very deeper, even into "non-interesting" places.

And of course, I'll do plenty of stuff out of the touristic stuff, that I don't like at all aside to see the basics. For instance, in Amsterdam I didn't go to Red Light District but I explored the LGBT nightlife there, out of the touristic circuit. In Belgium, I picked Antwerp over Bruges.

I had my phase of explorer when I was younger: I toured once for all mid-sized cities upstate São Paulo and they couldn't be less touristic. Today I've became even more unconfortable outside very big cities and I'm more aware of time. Hence I didn't go up to Milwaukee as Chicago had more to offer and I didn't want to waste even a single day.

[zoomer]

As for visiting a city, I usually like to see what's practical on foot, so really exploring 2 km radius and up to 5 or 6 km to see some interesting 'outlying' parts. I will take transit to see one or two areas of interest outside of this time pending. I don't feel the need or obligation to fully know or explore the area (especially as I'm usually just visiting for 7 to 10 days). Still way better than some tourists who stick to 4 block square, lol. Even if I lived in Chicago I'd rarely go outside of this 'bubble' as there is no need but I would feel morally invested in the whole city and it's challenges.

Yuri, interesting that you found Chicago safe, wealthy and nothing edgy. Usually a comment that Canadian cities get versus American. I would have thought there would be more signs of urban decay or poverty within a few km of downtown so that's an interesting observation. It was just yesterday that Trump called Chicago a "hell hole" yet "violent crime in Chicago dropped significantly in the first half of the year, representing the steepest decline in over a decade, according to city data. Shootings are down 37 per cent, and homicides have dropped by 32 per cent, while total violence crime dropped by over 22 per cent."

source

I won't be visiting the USA for the foreseeable future as its democracy continues to erode (faster than the rest of the world, lol) but Chicago, New York, and San Francisco would be must sees.

And to keep this thread on track, hehe, a Canadian skyline! Although I do think the thread called Canadian Skyline under 1,000,000 should be for under 200,000 as I like to see a wide variety here and it's not like we have a lot to choose from in Canada.

Victoria, ok, an aerial shot, and mainly of the old town area, with one block north (Douglas to Blanshard) and a bit of Beacon Hill park at the top left and James Bay at the top right:



source: James Macdonald

[jc_yyc_ca]

Agree about streetview. It's a snapshot of that time, and can give a misleading impression depending on the time of day, weather etc, which day of the week. I like to use it in contrast to the walking tours as they often are filmed at a time when everything is bustling. I average the two methods

Originally Posted by zoomer

I not a fan of using street view to determine much about a city for many reasons, including the poor image quality, it's from the perspective atop a car in traffic, it feels very out of context changing from seasons or even years from one street to the next and lacks audio and other indicators on how the space is used compared to a 4k walking video for example.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes streetview isn't good for anything that frequently changes between time of day, day of week, or times of year like the weather, pedestrian activity or lighting. Also not good for anything involving sound, scent or motion. It is good for things like architecture and streetscaping though, as long as the imagery was recently updated.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Yuri

There's another thing: money and specially time. My vacations are not flexible and not very long, so I must be very picky. If those were not factors, I'd definitely go very deeper, even into "non-interesting" places.

And of course, I'll do plenty of stuff out of the touristic stuff, that I don't like at all aside to see the basics. For instance, in Amsterdam I didn't go to Red Light District but I explored the LGBT nightlife there, out of the touristic circuit. In Belgium, I picked Antwerp over Bruges.

I had my phase of explorer when I was younger: I toured once for all mid-sized cities upstate São Paulo and they couldn't be less touristic. Today I've became even more unconfortable outside very big cities and I'm more aware of time. Hence I didn't go up to Milwaukee as Chicago had more to offer and I didn't want to waste even a single day.

I hear 'ya.

If you only have 1 week and you're flying from another continent, the midsize cities within a day trip of the metropolis are generally not worth it, unless they're so unique architecturally/historically that they're major destinations unto themselves. For example, if I were to visit Brazil and I only had 1 week, I'd visit SP, fly to Rio, but I'm so intrigued by Petrópolis, that I'd go out of my way to visit it and sacrifice 1.5 days in Rio. If I was flying all the way from Brazil to visit Toronto and Montreal (which makes sense, I wouldn't fly all the way from Brazil to just visit one of these cities), it might be worth it to sacrifice 1.5 days in either city to visit Quebec City, although it's 3 hours from Montreal in the opposite direction. I hope I don't offend any Ottawans when I say that if I traveled halfway across the world and had a choice between visiting Ottawa or spending an additional two days in either Toronto or Montreal, I'd probably spend the extra day in TO/MTL. If you only have a week, the other destinations around Toronto and Montreal are not worth it, especially since ground transportation between cities without a car in Canada is still a pain.

Within Toronto and Montreal, the real attraction is the neighbourhoods just outside of downtown. Unlike in Chicago, the interesting neighbourhoods extend organically out of downtown so that you can just walk right out to them from the centre of downtown without having to cross freeways or go through boring sections of town. In Montreal these areas extend to the east and in Toronto to the west of each city's downtown.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Chicago is definitely not that kind of city. I found it too well-kept, too wealthy, nothing edgy at all. I liked the city so much, that I overlooked this and really enjoyed the place. I could even see me living there, something I only felt about London before.

I think that's a great takeaway and I completely agree. A city doesn't need to have the same positive attributes as another to have equal or greater appeal. No place is perfect, and city can make up for a lack of things that another has by having things the other lacks. A big factor in whether or not a person enjoys a place is whether they choose to overlook the shortcomings and focus on the positives or if they dwell more on the negative. And of course some things are more obvious and surface level than others as well.

[cranes]

CTV Kitchener Aug 26, 2025 6pm Newscast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp194g834O4

Originally Posted by Wigs

cranes, thanks for all the K-W updates.
Any word on the ION light rail being extended to Cambridge?

@KevinL 08-26-2025

TriTAG have launched a new site specifically for advocating ION expansion: https://ionizewr.ca/

https://ionizewr.ca/

Charge Up Waterloo Region With Transit
IONize Waterloo Region envisions a complete, reliable rapid transit network that connects Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo – guiding growth, improving access, and strengthening our region. It’s time to build ION Stage 2, the full LRT extension to Cambridge, and then to keep building.
...
1. In-House Project Team
Create and maintain a public transit infrastructure team responsible for managing and delivering transit projects efficiently and consistently. This enables less reliance on consultants for core project management and more cost- and schedule-effective procurement.
Building in-house capacity would help get ION stage 2 built, and we would be able to leverage the expertise to continue efficient transit expansion.
2. Build Incrementally
Secure funding for the entire route, but build in tighter increments to create momentum and iterate on project delivery. For example:
Fairway → Sportsworld
Sportsworld → Preston
Preston → Pinebush
Pinebush → Downtown Cambridge
Different segments can be delivered in smaller, more manageable contracts by multiple firms, creating opportunities for local contractors to grow their transit expertise, providing a more competitive bidding environment, and allowing more options for the Region if a contractor isn’t getting it done.
3. Keep Going
Once ION light rail reaches Downtown Cambridge, we shouldn’t stop.
With the momentum and expertise from Stage 2, Waterloo Region should continue transit expansion:
Build more lines to maximize access.
Extend lines and add stations on existing sections where warranted.
Prepare for future intercity rail connections, or even build some ourselves.

https://tritag.ca/blog/2025/08/23/news-roundup/
News roundup: August 23, 2025

Transit
ION Stage 2
The Region of Waterloo held a kick-off session this Tuesday for the ION stage 2 consultation and answered a number of detailed questions about the project and approach (YouTube)
The Record: Regional councillors looking to expedite LRT to Cambridge: Staff say a final business case could take two years or more, but the project could be tendered as early as 2028, with funding in place.
CBC: Public consultations on LRT into Cambridge set for coming weeks, no timeline for project yet. ‘My concern is that I’m running out of time to see this happen,’ Coun. Doug Craig says
CityNews: Stage 2 ION project could take couple of years to begin: regional staff
Citizens for Cambridge makes the case for ION stage 2
Cambridge Today: LETTER: Federal $30B transit plan is an opportunity Cambridge can’t afford to miss. “Let’s finish what we started,” says Citizens for Cambridge, who are urging Waterloo Region officials to back a complete Stage 2 expansion of the ION light rail system into downtown
Barriers being installed for University of Waterloo Station ION platform/tracks (r/uwaterloo Subreddit)
CTV News: Metrolinx adds new express GO buses in Waterloo and Guelph ahead of post-secondary school year
CBC: Regional councillor wants better communication around Kitchener transit hub construction project
Mike Farwell praises Regional Councillor Matt Rodrigues’ efforts for more communication and urgency around the new Kitchener transit hub (The Record)
The Record: Court rules homeless residents can stay at Victoria and Weber tent encampment until at least November

https://www.engagewr.ca/stage2ION

• Video Link

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

If you only have a week, the other destinations around Toronto and Montreal are not worth it, especially since ground transportation between cities without a car in Canada is still a pain.

This is just a tangent but as far as Canadian cities go, there are a lot of trips that would be worth it if we had cheap domestic flights you could justify for a weekend. Instead, some short flights cost as much as crossing an ocean. A lot of regional connections are poor or nonexistent.

[someone123]

Halifax with Northwest Arm in the foreground (seems to be 2024?)


Source

[Maldive]

Not every perfect crescent moon is PhotoShopped. ;-)


skycandy

[craner]

Great TO & Hali shots - I don’t know if I’ve ever seen that angle of Hali - I love it.

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto by Marcanadian, on Flickr

[Innsertnamehere]

ION to Cambridge is a bad project and shouldn't be funded, IMO. It's similar to the Toronto LRT projects the City has been trying to do for a decade - Eglinton East is wildly expensive and will actually worsen travel times.

ION Cambridge will do little to travel times, be low ridership, serve mostly low to no density industrial and retail areas, spend half it's run just getting through natural heritage spaces.. it's a bad project. Limited transit dollars are better focused elsewhere with a BRT system serving Cambridge.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

ION to Cambridge is a bad project and shouldn't be funded, IMO. It's similar to the Toronto LRT projects the City has been trying to do for a decade - Eglinton East is wildly expensive and will actually worsen travel times.

Not sure where you heard that Eglinton East that it will worsen travel times. Can you share any details?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

ION to Cambridge is a bad project and shouldn't be funded, IMO. It's similar to the Toronto LRT projects the City has been trying to do for a decade - Eglinton East is wildly expensive and will actually worsen travel times.

ION Cambridge will do little to travel times, be low ridership, serve mostly low to no density industrial and retail areas, spend half it's run just getting through natural heritage spaces.. it's a bad project. Limited transit dollars are better focused elsewhere with a BRT system serving Cambridge.

Disagree. Cambridge will be much better connected to its primate twins of Waterloo Region. Waterloo Region is one of the fastest growing parts of Canada. ION isn't living up to its full potential.

There was a time when Waterloo Region was smaller than Niagara Region. Now it's almost 200,000 larger and continuing to grow rapidly. I don't think most Canadian forumers realize it's over 700,000 people already.

They must make a major investment now as Waterloo Region is heading towards 800k, then 900k and then 1 Million plus people. You make a commitment so all of the future hundreds of thousands of residents can use it when we're all dust in the wind. Planning for the next 40,50 years.



And Thanks to cranes for the ION information

[MolsonExport]

why is the region named "Waterloo" when Kitchener has long been larger, and judging by those figures, Cambridge too?

When did Kitchener meet its Waterloo?