Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[goodgrowth]

It's not so much that Algonquin is more scenic as it is just having the optimal latitude and biome for a truest 4 season climate along with Ottawa, Montreal, parts of NB and NS.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

It's not so much that Algonquin is more scenic as it is just having the optimal latitude and biome for a truest 4 season climate along with Ottawa, Montreal, parts of NB and NS.

I dunno, I think the scenery does matter for determining where people want to visit. I don't think they are just picking the "truest 4 season" place.

If you look at a map of Ontario and zoom out you'll find that farther west there's more flat farmland with few small lakes and farther east there are more networks of lakes and hills with forest.

London ON is in the classic 4 season climate zone but not traditionally known for being scenic. Metro Toronto folks seem to head north for recreation more than they head west. This includes the $4M cabin crowd who are basically free to spend their time off wherever in Ontario they please.

I'd also point out that the tendency to head north in summer goes against the notion that people want as many 30+ days as possible or like to experience record warm nighttime temperatures and so on. I think a lot of people like moderate summers which are farther away from 4 seasons.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Hali87

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.

I agree that it's a different and cool experience, but also that "immersed in forest" can happen in pretty much any province in Canada. The fall colours may or may not be as vivid, but isn't peak cottage time in the summer anyway? The settled regions of Canada are more or less narrow bands and there aren't entire provinces almost entirely settled like there are US states.

In BC, you can get similar stuff in the Northeast Peace Region, which is less mountainous. Not close to major population centres, though.

In AB, Northern Alberta locales like Slave Lake, Lac la Biche, Edson, etc offer approximations of the Northern Southern Ontario geography (though less rocky). Close to Edmonton.

In SK, there's places like Prince Albert NP and La Ronge. Close to Saskatoon.

In MB, there's Riding Mountain, Turtle Mountain, and the Whiteshells. Close to Winnipeg.

Actually, PEI may be the one province lacking such an environment, if I'm being honest. Though they are still close to New Brunswick.

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, like I said, the fall is better in Ontario + Quebec, and the Great Lakes are more Ontario's strong suit in terms of physical geography.

Originally Posted by someone123

I dunno, I think the scenery does matter for determining where people want to visit. I don't think they are just picking the "truest 4 season" place.

If you look at a map of Ontario and zoom out you'll find that farther west there's more flat farmland with few small lakes and farther east there are more networks of lakes and hills with forest.

London ON is in the classic 4 season climate zone but not traditionally known for being scenic. Metro Toronto folks seem to head north for recreation more than they head west. This includes the $4M cabin crowd who are basically free to spend their time off wherever in Ontario they please.

I'd also point out that the tendency to head north in summer goes against the notion that people want as many 30+ days as possible or like to experience record warm nighttime temperatures and so on. I think a lot of people like moderate summers which are farther away from 4 seasons.

I'm guessing that's simply due to "Cottage Country" being the most scenic, non-urbanized part of Ontario (aside from the Bruce Peninsula, which is also popular) close to Toronto. Like if Toronto had Mont Tremblant or the Cape Breton Highlands within 2-3hrs, you can bet Torontonians would be flocking there instead.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by ue

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.

Nobody has highlighted this yet, but You would really have to visit Northern Ontario and into the shield to see Ontario's real natural beauty. The Boreal forest with the endless lakes is where this province really shines. Where there's very little farm land, but rugged scenery. Otherwise I agree with you..Ontario, can be boring in some parts. I disagree that Ontario's strength is solely it's urbanity. It's a large province with very diverse geography,

[TorontoDrew]

Skylines?

DSC_1113 by stewart scott, on Flickr

Toronto by Marcanadian, on Flickr

Toronto by Marcanadian, on Flickr

[ue]

Originally Posted by Razor

Nobody has highlighted this yet, but You would really have to visit Northern Ontario and into the shield to see Ontario's real natural beauty. The Boreal forest with the endless lakes is where this province really shines. Where there's very little farm land, but rugged scenery. Otherwise I agree with you..Ontario, can be boring in some parts. I disagree that Ontario's strength is solely it's urbanity. It's a large province with very diverse geography,

Never said solely, just I think it's something the province is stronger in, generally. Also was referring more to Southern Ontario (or Ontario south of Sudbury/North Bay) and I'd agree true Northern Ontario is a bit different and more interesting in terms of physical geography. Niwell's comments on Lake Superior reminded me of that.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ue

I agree that it's a different and cool experience, but also that "immersed in forest" can happen in pretty much any province in Canada. The fall colours may or may not be as vivid, but isn't peak cottage time in the summer anyway? The settled regions of Canada are more or less narrow bands and there aren't entire provinces almost entirely settled like there are US states.

Sort of. A lot of tourists come in October specifically to see the leaves (tens to hundreds of thousands per year in NS, probably millions in NS+NB+QC+ON). It's also not uncommon for people to go to the cottage on weekends in the fall even if it's not prime swimming weather.

PEI is pretty much entirely settled and does not have much forest at all. Nova Scotia would be about an average level of built-up-ness among States. I doubt that New Brunswick is any less settled than somewhere like Utah or Colorado.

Like if Toronto had Mont Tremblant or the Cape Breton Highlands within 2-3hrs, you can bet Torontonians would be flocking there instead.

I tend to agree with this. But Mont Tremblant and the Cape Breton Highlands aren't really interchangeable with anything in Western Canada, the way they might be with each other, and with parts of Ontario; that's my point. (I'm also not saying they're "better" per se)

[ue]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Sort of. A lot of tourists come in October specifically to see the leaves (tens to hundreds of thousands per year in NS, probably millions in NS+NB+QC+ON). It's also not uncommon for people to go to the cottage on weekends in the fall even if it's not prime swimming weather.

PEI is pretty much entirely settled and does not have much forest at all. Nova Scotia would be about an average level of built-up-ness among States. I doubt that New Brunswick is any less settled than somewhere like Utah or Colorado.



I tend to agree with this. But Mont Tremblant and the Cape Breton Highlands aren't really interchangeable with anything in Western Canada, the way they might be with each other, and with parts of Ontario; that's my point. (I'm also not saying they're "better" per se)

Yeah, I mentioned PEI further down as an exception to this. And I said that line about there being US states that lack large wildernesses fully aware that there are Colorados and Utahs (or even New Yorks and Pennsylvanias). But there are states that are highly settled and further from relatively sparsely populated and "natural" areas (New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, DC, Ohio, Iowa, etc -- which have natural areas just they're very small compared to what Ontario or Newfoundland have) where only PEI would qualify in Canada. Every province has large hinterlands that are sparsely populated, usually to the north (though in Atlantic provinces it tends to be the inland regions more specifically).

[MolsonExport]

The Pine Barrens (NJ) will surprise you. Actually, New Jersey has a great deal of natural attractions, despite being the most heavily populated American State in terms of density.
New Jersey also has a lot of forested peaks.

NJ

Mountains, wilderness, and then the greatest city in the world at your doorstep.

[esquire]

^ Those are the prettiest pictures of NJ I've ever seen. I didn't know that kind of thing existed there.

[zahav]

I guess it's all relative. I wouldn't really consider those NJ scenes 'wilderness mountains', it is very pretty and nice spot, but saying it's 'mountain wilderness' next to the city is a stretch. More like rolling hills with some vegetation. Most cities have some kind of natural areas not too far away, it isn't unusual to have forested areas within some proximity. The 'wilderness' in the West is much more wild, and evokes more of a wilderness feeling than anything out east.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by zahav

I guess it's all relative. I wouldn't really consider those NJ scenes 'wilderness mountains', it is very pretty and nice spot, but saying it's 'mountain wilderness' next to the city is a stretch. More like rolling hills with some vegetation. Most cities have some kind of natural areas not too far away, it isn't unusual to have forested areas within some proximity. The 'wilderness' in the West is much more wild, and evokes more of a wilderness feeling than anything out east.

Huh?

This doesn't make sense! Wilderness is wilderness..You drop anybody off from a helicopter in Northern Manitoba, or a float plane on some isolated lake in Northern Quebec or Ontario, and it will evoke the same feeling..Just different geography. It's not like any true wilderness is groomed, manicured and made into some sort of Disneyland. the west doesn't have a monopoly on what is "wild" like you alluded to.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zahav

I guess it's all relative. I wouldn't really consider those NJ scenes 'wilderness mountains', it is very pretty and nice spot, but saying it's 'mountain wilderness' next to the city is a stretch. More like rolling hills with some vegetation. Most cities have some kind of natural areas not too far away, it isn't unusual to have forested areas within some proximity. The 'wilderness' in the West is much more wild, and evokes more of a wilderness feeling than anything out east.

I wonder about the concept of NS having large hinterlands or uninhabited areas and being lumped in with say BC instead of PEI. It's true there are sparsely populated parts but the farthest you can get from a provincial highway (trunk or collector) in NS is about 20 km around Kejimkujik NP. It is pretty similar to the Northeast US outside of the big metro areas, and dissimilar from here in BC where there's almost no development between metro Vancouver and the north pole. In NS going north means southern NB or PEI while in BC it means huge spaces largely devoid of human habitation. In NS most/all predators or large animals are extinct or very nearly so.

Toronto and Montreal are closer to the BC situation though not quite the same. Go north for a bit and you hit Canadian Shield (or south from the St. Lawrence area and you hit the relatively undeveloped Appalachians). Windsor ON on the other hand has less of a sense of being on the edge of human habitation.

[itom 987]

Edmonton

Downtown Edmonton Rainbow by Mack Male, on Flickr

[Coldrsx]

One of the best shots of our Downtown.

[lio45]

Looks pretty good
(I'm also noting that there aren't any detached wooden shacks in sight :p)


(Will reply later, on that)

[someone123]

Edmonton has become a lot more impressive looking just in the past few years. I prefer skylines that have a mix of heights like this instead of one blob of buildings of similar height.

[logan5]

Go easy on good ol' Halifax. Like Edmonton, a couple of taller towers could make all the difference.

[Martin Mtl]

SFH in Downtown Montreal ;-)


https://www.instagram.com/p/CEc_XJZHb5F/

[lio45]

These are mountainside mansions. Perfectly normal that a city would have some inner city neighborhoods with those.

What's commentworthy/striking is to have modest wooden shacks a few blocks away from some of the tallest towers in the country. It's something odd that you don't normally see - it goes squarely against the natural outcomes you see from basic land value principles, so it takes rare circumstances for it to happen.