Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[G.S MTL]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Amazing picture.

That big Ferries Wheel has more of an impact on the skyline that I would have expected. That, plus bridges, domes, spires, clock tower, pre-war skyscrapers, international style classics, pomo, glass condo towers, the "mountain", the island park... What Montreal lacks in height, it sure makes up in variety and textures.

Waaaaaaa Wow !!! Im in love !!!!

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by speedog

Mount Pleasant in Calgary is almost as flat as flat can be if that's the Mount Pleasant you're referring to and there are no hills on it's border.

edit - I see you're not speaking of Calgary's Mount Pleasant, no problem.

Yes, I am speaking of Calgary's Mount Pleasant of course, as I've lived here for the past 3 years. There are hills on the western border (confederation park), northern border (the big hill on 4th Street ending at 40 Avenue/James Fowler High School), and the small hill following 2nd Street NW skimming the border of the neighbourhood almost perfectly. I never said the neighbourhood has hills inside it, I said it is surrounded by hills, small or otherwise. That is why they call it 'Mount' Pleasant. I actually studied this morphology as part of my 2nd year Urban Social Geography final project this year.



Also, here is an interesting shot of downtown featuring all four of the Western Giants...


Top of The Bow by Todd Ginther, on Flickr

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by speedog

I have mulled over what you're stating and it just does not compute - Rundle Mountain in Banff National Park is possibly one of Canada's most photographed mountains and it's prominence is 1304m. The little bump in front of Rundle Mountain in the picture below is Tunnel Mountain and it has a prominence of 305m - please enlighten me as to how you are defining 'prominence' as I'm taking information right off of Wikipedia.

I didn't say all of Alberta's mountains had a prominence under 200m, just that a lot of them do. Mount Royal doesn't need to be more prominent than all, most, or even a quarter of Alberta's mountains to count. I just needs to be more prominent than one of them, and is in fact more prominent than at least 4 I looked up. (And the ones I listed did not include either of the nice mountains in your picture?)

[ainvan]

Twebb-80.jpg by tyler webb, on Flickr


Burnaby Mountain Panoramic by Jerry Meaden, on Flickr

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I didn't say all of Alberta's mountains had a prominence under 200m, just that a lot of them do. Mount Royal doesn't need to be more prominent than all, most, or even a quarter of Alberta's mountains to count. I just needs to be more prominent than one of them, and is in fact more prominent than at least 4 I looked up. (And the ones I listed did not include either of the nice mountains in your picture?)

Which four did you look up?

edit - after some snooping, I can see how you can use the term 'prominence' to support your argument but let's just put this out there with respect to how the average joe might look at two earthy bumps and compare them.

Mont Royal - 233m prominence...


Mount Arethusa - 133m prominence...


So average joe decides to go for a hike/scramble - which one do you think he might see as a bit more challenging?

This forum is often quite amusing in how learned members will pick out certain terminology and try to use it to advance their argument - kind of like chadillac further up with respect to the community of Mount Pleasant in Calgary. So what if he took a course and certain things were said about Mount Pleasant - the average joe would go pretty much anywhere and would not comment on the hills on it's periphery despite what some university prof might say. I live in Mount Pleasant for a few years and I certainly would not ever says there are hills on it's borders - if anything there's a valley one goes down into on it's northern side but a valley does not a hill make.

So who cares if Mont Royal is considered a mountain by some and not by others - if a bunch of millennials were sitting around having a coffee and swapping Canadian mountaineering stories of what they had done, would they dare have that chest thumping moment to compare climbing Mont Royal as a greater or even comparable achievement as compared to doing Mount Arethusa which has a net gain of almost 900 meters from the nearest parking lot to it's summit despite it's measly 133m prominence?

[MolsonExport]

What is that depression lying behind this view of Montreal?

This whole argument is just silly. We could talk about the flow rate of the St. Lawrence River at Montreal vs. the Bow at Calgary, and dismiss the latter as barely a culvert, but that would be just as ridiculous.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by niwell

Having grown up in Alberta I've noticed that there's a tendency for people to do the "lol you call THAT a mountain!" thing for pretty much any example in the Eastern half of North America.

Most of the people from Alberta or BC I have met here made that comment at some point. I agree with them, the hills in the Ottawa-Gatineau region are small and calling them mountains could be considered far-fetched. But whenever I point out they will find a (almost) 2,000 m mountain 4 hours away (Mt. Washington) as well as some decently-sized mountains in Upstate NY and Gaspésie they are usually surprised. Appalachia has some interesting peaks here and there.

Whenever I get visitors from Europe, I tend to get the same comments, but this time referring to what we call "old". "You call THAT (200 year old house) old"? Then I point out we also have 10,000 year old aboriginal archaeological sites but all you see is a bunch of holes in the ground :

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by speedog

I guess they might've not seen larger mountains in Europe as well.

Well, Jacques Cartier (who named Mount Royal) was born in St-Malo in the late 1400s on the English Channel in northern France. I doubt he had ever seen the mountains that are known today as the French Alps.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by le calmar

Most of the people from Alberta or BC I have met here made that comment at some point. I agree with them, the hills in the Ottawa-Gatineau region are small and calling them mountains could be considered far-fetched. But whenever I point out they will find a (almost) 2,000 m mountain 4 hours away (Mt. Washington) as well as some decently-sized mountains in Upstate NY and Gaspésie they are usually surprised. Appalachia has some interesting peaks here and there.

Whenever I get visitors from Europe, I tend to get the same comments, but this time referring to what we call "old". "You call THAT (200 year old house) old"? Then I point out we also have 10,000 year old aboriginal archaeological sites but all you see is a bunch of holes in the ground :

I've been to Europe and can appreciate the old homes there but to me, as a Calgarian, Montreal and the city of Quebec both have old homes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, Jacques Cartier (who named Mount Royal) was born in St-Malo in the late 1400s on the English Channel in northern France. I doubt he had ever seen the mountains that are known today as the French Alps.

Although he undoubtedly would have known of them. Not that it is relevant to his naming a "mont".

This is really a silly discussion.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Although he undoubtedly would have known of them. Not that it is relevant to his naming a "mont".

This is really a silly discussion.

Yes, nobody cares, really.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Yes, I wish we would go on. Nobody cares, really.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, now.

[haljackey]

View of London from city hall

via
https://www.reddit.com/r/londonontario/c..._city_hall_the_other_day_and_figured_id/

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, now.

Wait, are you calling Mont Royal a "molehill"? Sacrilège!!!

[speedog]

The discussion does have some value as it highlights how things can be viewed differently depending on the definitions used. The Bow River is but a trickle on a worldly or even North American Standard but for me it was quite impressive when I was a child growing up in Manyberries, Alberta.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by ainvan

Bow River in Calgary Downtown by Bluesky251, on Flickr

Beautiful, crisp pic. Not bad for a minor city.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Wait, are you calling Mont Royal a "molehill"? Sacrilège!!!

It's not even 300m

[240glt]

^^ pretty shot of Calgary. Looks very nice

[OutOfTowner]

Originally Posted by speedog

I guess they might've not seen larger mountains in Europe as well.

Not sure that the early explorers had access to Eurail passes and had seen all of Europe before they departed for the New World.

Though I may be wrong.

[OutOfTowner]

Originally Posted by speedog

Which four did you look up?

edit - after some snooping, I can see how you can use the term 'prominence' to support your argument but let's just put this out there with respect to how the average joe might look at two earthy bumps and compare them.

Mont Royal - 233m prominence...


Mount Arethusa - 133m prominence...


So average joe decides to go for a hike/scramble - which one do you think he might see as a bit more challenging?

This forum is often quite amusing in how learned members will pick out certain terminology and try to use it to advance their argument - kind of like chadillac further up with respect to the community of Mount Pleasant in Calgary. So what if he took a course and certain things were said about Mount Pleasant - the average joe would go pretty much anywhere and would not comment on the hills on it's periphery despite what some university prof might say. I live in Mount Pleasant for a few years and I certainly would not ever says there are hills on it's borders - if anything there's a valley one goes down into on it's northern side but a valley does not a hill make.

So who cares if Mont Royal is considered a mountain by some and not by others - if a bunch of millennials were sitting around having a coffee and swapping Canadian mountaineering stories of what they had done, would they dare have that chest thumping moment to compare climbing Mont Royal as a greater or even comparable achievement as compared to doing Mount Arethusa which has a net gain of almost 900 meters from the nearest parking lot to it's summit despite it's measly 133m prominence?

What don't you understand? Mount Royal is in the downtown of a city, not in the middle of nowhere.

As beautiful as they are, the Rockies are mere bumps compared to the Himalayas.

Perhaps you could conserve brain cells by comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Mountains in the middle of cities, mountains nowhere near cities.

And while you're at it, attempt to understand the not so subtle nuance between the two.

Any average Joe would surely recognize the difference.