Topography of Canada's settlements

[Chadillaccc]

Calgary has a relief difference of about 1000 feet between the Northwest and Southeast. I wonder if that is the highest difference among the major municipalities?

[middeljohn]

Yep, she's a flat one. Taken from my apartment looking north.

[SignalHillHiker]

Do you feel like you could roll out of your bed and night and fall off the world? The flatness TERRIFIED me. I still feel shudders just remembering it. It's odd... because here is more like the "edge of the world", but there it just felt so... like I could trip and fall off the planet.

I need the hills around me, cupped like hands holding something small. Keeps me secure.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Calgary has a relief difference of about 1000 feet between the Northwest and Southeast. I wonder if that is the highest difference among the major municipalities?

More than Hamilton's 817 feet.

[eemy]

Ottawa (or more accurately, Gatineau) has a similar difference (about 350 m). Calgary is closer to 400 m though, I believe.

I think Quebec City has them both beat though. Montagne des Trois Sommets, which I *believe* is in Quebec City (someone can correct me, but a cursory check seems to support that), has a summit height of 570m. With the St. Lawrence in that area at sea level, that gives it a range of 570 m or 1870 ft.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Do you feel like you could roll out of your bed and night and fall off the world? The flatness TERRIFIED me. I still feel shudders just remembering it. It's odd... because here is more like the "edge of the world", but there it just felt so... like I could trip and fall off the planet.

I need the hills around me, cupped like hands holding something small. Keeps me secure.

Edmonton isn't as flat as Winnipeg (where you were). We don't have anything I'd consider a hill, but we do have little stretches of road where the elevation climbs 10-20 ft over a 500m stretch, and then goes back down again. I honestly can't say it bothers me though. Ever since I got here I've come to realize that I really don't miss hills, which falls in the bigger group of things I don't miss, including rain, humidity, wind and the 400 series highways.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Ottawa (or more accurately, Gatineau) has a similar difference (about 350 m). Calgary is closer to 400 m though, I believe.

I think Quebec City has them both beat though. Montagne des Trois Sommets, which I *believe* is in Quebec City (someone can correct me, but a cursory check seems to support that), has a summit height of 570m. With the St. Lawrence in that area at sea level, that gives it a range of 570 m or 1870 ft.

Yeah, I just meant individual major municipalities, not metros, because Metro Vancouver has an elevation difference of like 2.5 kilometers


From my research, I know that Rocky Ridge is the highest point in the city at 1275 meters, but the lowest I can find (Deer Run) is only 1020 meters, for a difference of 255 meters (837 ft). I will keep looking.

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto's I believe is around 150 m. However many feet that is.

Montreal's is of course 227 m.

[SignalHillHiker]

Aww, very nice Middeljohn! You're going to be happy there, with all those little things adding up.

[eemy]

Yeah, the difference for Quebec City should be entirely within the municipality. I was wrong about the difference for Gatineau though, the high point I was using is actually in Chelsea, QC.

Your best bet for finding the lowest elevation in Calgary is the Bow River Valley where it leaves the municipality. My estimate of where that boundary might be was off by a fair bit, a more accurate estimate would be 970m in the Bow River Valley roughly 1 km NW of the Carnmoney Golf & Country Club.

[Chadillaccc]

I can't find any neighbourhoods lower than 1020, but within the city limits (the yet undeveloped southeast Bow River Valley) I estimate the lowest elevation is around 1000 meters, for an elevation differential of about 275 meters (902 ft). The metro area is a much different story, as the area contains foothills, several mountains, and thousands of km2 of prairie.

[middeljohn]

Biggest difference I could find for Winnipeg was 68 feet (803 vs 735)

http://en-us.topographic-map.com/places/Winnipeg-13418/

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Yeah, the difference for Quebec City should be entirely within the municipality. I was wrong about the difference for Gatineau though, the high point I was using is actually in Chelsea, QC.

Your best bet for finding the lowest elevation in Calgary is the Bow River Valley where it leaves the municipality. My estimate of where that boundary might be was off by a fair bit, a more accurate estimate would be 970m in the Bow River Valley roughly 1 km NW of the Carnmoney Golf & Country Club.

Oh okay, so that would put it at 305 meters, or 1001 feet

[middeljohn]

If we discount the river valley, Edmonton's elevation relief is around 150 ft

[Chadillaccc]

No need to discount the river valley, it's an enormous part of the city and its culture. It should definitely be included.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

No need to discount the river valley, it's an enormous part of the city and its culture. It should definitely be included.

Sort of. It's not part of an everyday drive/bike/whatever. Including it would skew the number to make it seem as if Edmonton has the same day-to-day dealings with elevation change as Toronto, which isn't the case.

In any case, I just looked at Windsor and incredibly the biggest difference I could find was only 55 ft!

[Chadillaccc]

I don't really think Toronto has much day-to-day dealing with elevation change. I lived there for a year and never really noticed it, except driving up Avenue Road, and even that is just a minor hill. There's the Don Valley which is very nice/deep too though.

One of Edmonton's major roadways into downtown from the south goes through the valley though, which is hardly insignificant.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I don't really think Toronto has much day-to-day dealing with elevation change. I lived there for a year and never really noticed it, except driving up Avenue Road, and even that is just a minor hill. There's the Don Valley which is very nice/deep too though.

One of Edmonton's major roadways into downtown from the south goes through the valley though, which is hardly insignificant.

Toronto is basically a giant slope upwards, steep enough to realize you know you're going up, but not too much that it is tiring to walk up Yonge. Hundreds of thousands of cars and people change elevation going to and from the lake everyday.

The only major roads that are affected by Edmonton's river valley are River Valley Rd, Groat, Low Level bridge and Whitemud Dr. All I'm saying is that if you include the river valley in the calculation it should come with a footnote that the difference doesn't apply to the majority of the city. For most roads in the city you can somewhat easily see what's going on 2km away.

[middeljohn]

A fun look at the Ontario-Manitoba border. You wouldn't believe how incredible it is to drive across it. Canadian Shield to Prairie topography happens pretty much instantaneously.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Toronto is basically a giant slope upwards, steep enough to realize you know you're going up, but not too much that it is tiring to walk up Yonge. Hundreds of thousands of cars and people change elevation going to and from the lake everyday.

That's the same way it is for northern Calgary, especially northwest and central northeast.