The Great Canadian Skyline Thread! - Page 92

Chadillaccc · #**1821** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Agreed that Calgary was surprisingly hilly. Still flat by my standards, of course, but having visited there while living in Winnipeg, I was struck by the rolling hills and mountains on the horizon. It has that same sort of... flat but romantic roll of portions of Saskatchewan.

But b'ys... I think Vancouver is obviously tops of our largest cities. We don't have many big cities in interesting locations, like, say, Rio.

I definitely agree

Calgarian · #**1822** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:04 PM**

Those Montreal shots are pretty damn nice!

MonkeyRonin · #**1823** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:04 PM**

Jesus, one off-handed comment about Quebec City having a great setting and we get 7 pages of this.

Calgarian · #**1824** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:13 PM**

I think after the discussion of whether a city's setting can contribute to it's skyline a few weeks ago, something like this was bound to happen.

Allan83 · #**1825** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Fish Creek is just one of several large parks and green areas in Calgary. Fish Creek Park proper may be in the deep south, but it is an extension of a long park system that stretches along the river through and past downtown, running through pretty much the entire city!

Any picture you can post of a setting in the ravines in Toronto I could follow up with a very similar picture in Calgary. Not trying to start a Toronto vs Calgary thing here, just pointing out that the ravine system there isn't really anything unique, though it may be really nice and much beloved by Torontonians.

The variety in Calgary is very impressive as well. From the Douglas Fir forests in Bowness Park and the west Bow River areas, to the grassy hills of Nose Hill Park, to the Aspen forests overlooking the Elbow River on the west side, to the Saskatoon and Chokecherry bush filled ravines, to the trees the Bow at the east of the city, which I can’t identify, to the Fish Creek area (which is a provincial park right in the middle of the city, btw). The city itself is in the middle of the transition from the prairies into the foothills. Down around Priddis you’re really starting to get into the foothills just a few kms outside of the city limits.

I think Vancouver is #1 for natural setting, and after that it gets tough. For me #2 would be Calgary, and after that it gets tough. There are lots of Canadian cites in beautiful natural settings and it would be difficult to rank any one of maybe a half dozen ahead of the rest. Cites like Saskatoon deserve consideration as well, btw.

SkahHigh · #**1826** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:17 PM**

Sorry Allan, but if you are saying #2 is Calgary, either this is a completely biaised opinion or you just haven't visited any of the other cities mentionned above... Seriously, a bunch of grassy hills is nothing to be excited about guys...

Ashok · #**1827** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:22 PM**

I feel like Edmonton may have a better natural setting than Calgary. lol It is laughable to think Calgary would be number 2 in Canada. Have you never visited Ottawa, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto...

Ashok · #**1828** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:24 PM**

Also, the only reason none of us is considering Niagra Falls is because its skyline is tacky.

Calgarian · #**1829** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Sorry Allan, but if you are saying #2 is Calgary, either this is a completely biaised opinion or you just haven't visited any of the other cities mentionned above... Seriously, a bunch of grassy hills is nothing to be excited about guys...

You are right, just a bunch of grassy hills, definitely no trees, rivers, valleys, creeks...

Allan83 · #**1830** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You are right, just a bunch of grassy hills, definitely no trees, rivers, valleys, creeks...

... lakes, foothills, mountains ...

Calgarian · #**1831** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan83

... lakes, foothills, mountains ...

I don't count our lakes, they are mostly man made, and Calgary isn't in the mountains, just pretty close so I exclude them as well, though they do make for an amazing backdrop!

G.S MTL · #**1832** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:32 PM**

lol
Oh chad...you're such a bottom.

leave me out of this.! Don't mention me.
Thanks.

Calgarian · #**1833** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashok

I feel like Edmonton may have a better natural setting than Calgary. lol It is laughable to think Calgary would be number 2 in Canada. Have you never visited Ottawa, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto...

And what would Edmonton have that's better? Our downtown is in the river valley and theirs is on a hill overlooking the river valley. Both river valleys are a continuous stretch of green running right through the city with very similar plants, animals and topography.

Chadillaccc · #**1834** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashok

I feel like Edmonton may have a better natural setting than Calgary. lol It is laughable to think Calgary would be number 2 in Canada. Have you never visited Ottawa, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto...

I said for skyline, not for natural setting. Jesus...

Allan83 · #**1835** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I don't count our lakes, they are mostly man made, and Calgary isn't in the mountains, just pretty close so I exclude them as well, though they do make for an amazing backdrop!

Wasn't someone earlier commenting on the hills around QC? If you can included the hills around QC surely you can included the foothills at least around Calgary, and given that you can easily see the mountains from Calgary I would say that they are part of our natural setting as well.

The lakes and reservoirs are man made, but they're nice!

SkahHigh · #**1836** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You are right, just a bunch of grassy hills, definitely no trees, rivers, valleys, creeks...

All I'm saying is, I could easily go ahead and drop the biaised "Montreal is ranked #2 in my list" but won't because there a other cities doing better or as good than Montreal.

Toronto has more of a well-preserved ecosystem than a unique one but I still find it nicer than Calgary...

Oh, by the way Chad, Calgary has more tall buildings than Montreal, let's take this into consideration.

Calgarian · #**1837** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan83

Wasn't someone earlier commenting on the hills around QC? If you can included the hills around QC surely you can included the foothills at least around Calgary, and given that you can easily see the mountains from Calgary I would say that they are part of our natural setting as well.

The lakes and reservoirs are man made, but they're nice!

I count the foothills for sure, the west 1/3 of the city is in the foothills, it's still about 70km to the first mountain though. The only manmade area that I really count is the Glenmore Reservoir and Weaselhead area.

Ashok · #**1838** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:45 PM**

Tell me Calgarians, what would be an icon for your city? Probably the Bow, maybe the Calgary Tower?

SkahHigh · #**1839** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan83

Wasn't someone earlier commenting on the hills around QC? If you can included the hills around QC surely you can included the foothills at least around Calgary, and given that you can easily see the mountains from Calgary I would say that they are part of our natural setting as well.

The lakes and reservoirs are man made, but they're nice!

I could mention the Monteregian mountains (Mont Saint-Hilaire) which are less than 20km from Downtown but they're just not part of our setting. Using the Rockies is really far-fetched.

#**1840** Posted **Oct 28, 2014, 9:51 PM**

Content removed