Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[ue]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Not as bad as Toronto to Windsor with the same small rocky break. Meanwhile go 2 hours north and you have some of the most beautiful rugged untouched scenery in the country. The Quebec Windsor corridor might be boring but it hasthe most fertile land in Canada. It might look boring but it tastes good lol.

No offense, but as nice as Algonquin Park and French River are, I don't think it really holds a candle to the sparsely settled scenery in the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik, Labrador, and the Yukon.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by ue

For what it's worth, I don't always agree with lio's thoughts but I don't see anything particularly derogatory about his comments on Calgary. If you're used to Montreal/Quebec City type urbanism, it's a bit different having Calgary's very built-up skyscraper core dissipate very quickly to single detached housing across the river. Though I will say that this is changing with Bridgeland and Kensington infill and the drop-off in density is way less dramatic to the south, east, and west.

It isn't that his comments were derogatory. Its that they were wrong!

Obligatory:

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEadTJ_nKNU/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CEZwg4jh4sJ/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CEac7iXJIUh/


https://www.instagram.com/p/CEac7iXJIUh/

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by ue

No offense, but as nice as Algonquin Park and French River are, I don't think it really holds a candle to the sparsely settled scenery in the NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik, Labrador, and the Yukon.

No offense taken but i think they do.

[ue]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

No offense taken but i think they do.

i mean

Algonquin Park, ON

https://www.explore-mag.com/Roundup_The_Best_of_Algonquin

Kluane National Park, YT

https://epic-north.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/hero-kluane-national-park.jpg

Nahanni National Park, NWT

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/parks/nahanni-canada-park/#/36945.jpg

Auyuittuq National Park, NU

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Auyuittuq_National_Park,_Baffin_Island,_Nunavut_-c.jpg

Torngat Mountains, NL

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sp...nly-get-there-five-weeks-year-180969658/

there's a difference

[esquire]

^ His point stands though, Algonquin has some of the most beautiful scenery in the country. Nahanni and those others look spectacular, but they are so distant and isolated that they're inaccessible to all but the most hardcore outdoorspeople and/or wealthiest who can book expeditions to get to those sites. They might as well be on the moon given how irrelevant they are to the average visitor to Canada.

[HomeInMyShoes]

It's a different beauty. That is all. I prefer Auyuittuq National Park, NU, but that month in the autumn in Algonquin is pretty special. I can appreciate both.

[Hackslack]

To each their own, really... I'd prefer driving less than hour from Calgary to get to Kananaskis.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Panning one's own city doesn't mean you can't be a homer too. I will admit that I'm very bad with names. I sincerely apologize if it wasn't you that brings this up every half year. This has been discussed to death and almost always as a mean to belittle Calgary. It's pragmatic to expect a smaller, postwar city to have a smaller, established inner ring around its much larger CBD skyline than anyone else in its weight class.

My favourite vernacular is the Northeast but, there are still plenty of things that Calgary or the most autocentric Sunbelt city can offer Toronto to improve itself. So, the chest thumping every time this has come up in the past is also pigeon holing people to one vision.

You were correct that it was him who brings it up every time there’s a shot of Calgary from the north. Funny enough he has nothing positive to say about a city he’s only seen at night from the TransCanada hwy. At least visit and see the city before shitting on it every chance you get. Funny enough lio would be right at home with all the libertarians around here.

[WhipperSnapper]

The past is past. What matters most is the form and direction of urban development now and into the future.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What's the deal with calling people "biscuit"?

It's a term of endearment..Flirting.

[GeneralLea]

I never really heard the term biscuit used as a namecalling use....hm. The only loose way I heard of it in that way was with of something called "Biscuits for Smut"...

[ue]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ His point stands though, Algonquin has some of the most beautiful scenery in the country. Nahanni and those others look spectacular, but they are so distant and isolated that they're inaccessible to all but the most hardcore outdoorspeople and/or wealthiest who can book expeditions to get to those sites. They might as well be on the moon given how irrelevant they are to the average visitor to Canada.

He specifically said that he found places a couple hours north of Toronto, like Algonquin are some of the most remote (er, "rugged" and "untouched") and scenic. Algonquin only seem remote if you're used to Yonge & Bloor on a daily basis. The places I mentioned are *truly* remote.

And while Algonquin is nice (I even included a fall picture so as to raise it), the whole rolling hills and lakes thing can literally be found in any province. It really is nothing especially noteworthy. Like, that pic could easily be Riding Mountain. The only perk is the stronger, more vivid fall season you get in Ontario and Quebec, but honestly, go a little east to Mount Tremblant or the Laurentiens or the Gaspesie and it's way more interesting physical geography.

Ontario's natural geography is kind of boring, but it has some of the best urbanism in the country. That's its strong point. It does have some good natural highlights, but I wouldn't argue it's Algonquin Park. It's the Great Lakes, the Niagara Escarpment, and the beaches and waterfalls within.

[esquire]

^ ok

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ue

And while Algonquin is nice (I even included a fall picture so as to raise it), the whole rolling hills and lakes thing can literally be found in any province. It really is nothing especially noteworthy. Like, that pic could easily be Riding Mountain. The only perk is the stronger, more vivid fall season you get in Ontario and Quebec, but honestly, go a little east to Mount Tremblant or the Laurentiens or the Gaspesie and it's way more interesting physical geography.

Sort of. It's a very "quintessentially Canadian" landscape but I'm having trouble picturing a scene like that near any of the populous parts of BC, SK, MB, PEI, or NL. Either due to the differences in terrain, mix of tree species (you wouldn't get that much variety in colours in most places), or both.

The areas I associate with this kind of landscape are Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec, and the inland parts of NB and NS. I could imagine the Foothills region in Alberta having areas that look like this. Aside from that I think it's less common than most people assume.

I've never been to Algonquin specifically but having been to similar places (Keji in NS is one example) part of the "appeal" is the feeling of being totally immersed in the forest, rather than any specific, impressive views. In a lot of these other environments the real focus is the mountains - but being immersed in a vast forest feels very different than being on the side of a mountain that happens to have trees on it. The landscape not only looks different but is experienced totally differently when you're actually there. I'm more of a mountain guy myself but I can see where others are coming from.

[q12]

https://samaustin.ca/e-news-september-2020/

Argyle Street Halifax Nova Scotia 2020.08.24 (1) by Michael G Winters, on Flickr

Pizza Corner Grafton and Blowers Streets Halifax Nova Scotia 2020.08.24 (2) by Michael G Winters, on Flickr

Pizza Corner Grafton and Blowers Streets Halifax Nova Scotia 2020.08.24 (1) by Michael G Winters, on Flickr

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The areas I associate with this kind of landscape are Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec, and the inland parts of NB and NS. I could imagine the Foothills region in Alberta having areas that look like this. Aside from that I think it's less common than most people assume.

Alberta forest doesn't look very similar to me.

I consider the Ontario cottage country or Algonquin landscape non-exotic because it's common around the Maritimes, although the tree mix might be a little different. A lot of suburbanites basically live in "cottage country" there, often on a lake.

Scenery-wise it's hard to rank the country and it's probably likely to set people off but I consider it obvious that some places have more dramatic scenery than others. For example in Atlantic Canada the geographic relief gets more dramatic as you head north and east. It is true that the southern parts have some unique scenery you don't see in the north, not unlike Southern Ontario compared to Algonquin, but I would not say that the physical scenery in central/western NS is on par with Cape Breton or say Gros Morne.

There tends to be a trade-off between places with good urbanism and dramatic scenery. It's a bit less true now but the places that developed prior to the railways were almost all relatively flat locations with farmland along waterways or right on the coast. Even Vancouver was just a tiny town until the railway came through because it was so hard to traverse the Rockies or circumnavigate the continent.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by someone123

Alberta forest doesn't look very similar to me.

Yeah I realize it's different, it's just the one other place I could maybe see having that overall mix of colours in the fall, along with "rolling hills and a lake".

[niwell]

I've driven through the mountains many times and it is indeed spectacular, but I would say that the drive on Highway 17 from the Soo to Wawa and then West to Thunder Bay actually gives it a run for it's money. Far more scenic than anything I've seen in Algonquin - just don't do it in the winter. Lake Superior really does look like an ocean in parts.

And yeah, Fall in Alberta forests just isn't the same as what you see in Ontario and Quebec (Maritimes too I'd assume). Plus Eastern forests are far more dense in terms of tree coverage.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Yeah I realize it's different, it's just the one other place I could maybe see having that overall mix of colours in the fall, along with "rolling hills and a lake".

The fall is really different around AB and BC. AB's fall is short and the trees mostly go yellow to bare in a few weeks. Much of AB is not a forest biome or is marginal with low rainfall and low temperatures. Here in BC the fall is longer but there are more year-round green trees and the leaves tend to slowly go brown and fall off, although you do get some bright colours too.