Canadian Maps and Graphics

[Docere]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

I think there are definitely some Winnipeggers who consider their lifestyle similar to those in Chicago

Probably more common among Winnipeggers who have never been there.

[isaidso]

I wonder how many Chicagoans look to Winnipeg as the city whose lifestyle is most similar to theirs.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I just wanted to chime in to agree that there's a pretty big cultural, economic, and environmental difference between Northern/Central Alberta (anchored by Edmonton) and Southern Alberta (anchored by Calgary).

What would those differences be?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Docere

That kinda of makes sense. Right-wing BCers and people in the Interior are more likely to have a "Western" identity that includes AB/SK, but residents of the Prairies are less likely to respond in kind.

It makes total sense.

If, say, BC is 80% Lower Mainland, 20% Peace + Interior, while the Prairies are 100% Prairies, the expected "closest other identity" numbers would be

BC -- ~20% Prairies, ~80% Seattle
Prairies -- ~100% other Prairie provinces, ~0% BC

Reality isn't that far from that first quick guess.

The notion that it somehow has to be reciprocated makes no sense and is not supported by anything. If a chunk of Province X happens to be similar to Province Y, that doesn't mean automatically you must have a chunk of Province Y that is similar to Province X because the universe arbitrarily demands equilibrium between all things.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Perhaps its just living in Edmonton and being relatively far form the border, but the identification with Montana always feel perplexing to me. Montana, Idaho, and interior Washington are all pretty distinct IMO from the Canadian side.

I suppose there is subset of Albertans that aspire to be something like Montana, so perhaps its some wishful thinking on their part. Although southern Alberta also feels a bit foreign to me in many ways so maybe there are more similarities there...

Or its just a geographically simple identification that people like to make and I'm reading too much into it.

That being said, Colorado doesn't seem too crazy.

This.

The 49th parallel is an imaginary line that weather, soil type, and animals of all stripe do not care about. I totally get that a person from Edmonton would have little in common with a Rancher from Sweet Grass Montana, but a Rancher near Milk River Alberta certainly would. Same as a Miner in Thompson MB would have little in common with a Farmer from St John ND but a farmer from Lena MB certainly would.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by lio45

It makes total sense.

If, say, BC is 80% Lower Mainland, 20% Peace + Interior, while the Prairies are 100% Prairies, the expected "closest other identity" numbers would be

BC -- ~20% Prairies, ~80% Seattle
Prairies -- ~100% other Prairie provinces, ~0% BC

Reality isn't that far from that first quick guess.

The notion that it somehow has to be reciprocated makes no sense and is not supported by anything. If a chunk of Province X happens to be similar to Province Y, that doesn't mean automatically you must have a chunk of Province Y that is similar to Province X because the universe arbitrarily demands equilibrium between all things.

Don't forget about Spokane which many of the Southern Interior of BC relate to and love.
There's more to Washington State than Seattle.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What would those differences be?

This isn't a super comprehensive answer as I based it more on how I felt when living in Calgary and visiting Edmonton quite a bit when I was living in Calgary.

At a high-level, Calgary and Southern Alberta feel like the high plains / front range like Denver. Edmonton and Central/Northern Alberta feel a lot more like the Canadian Prairies like Winnipeg, Saskatoon.

In terms of environment, Southern Alberta is more arid and suitable for ranching. Going west to east you have the Rockies, the foothills, the high plains (which are arid), and the badlands. The populated parts of Central/Northern Alberta are mainly arable.

In terms of culture, Southern Alberta has more of a Western/cowboy culture and an alpine culture. Central/Northern Alberta has more Indigenous cultural influences and farming culture.

In terms of politics, Calgary feels more libertarian and holds on to ideas of rugged individualism. Edmonton feels more left-wing, with a greater sense of collectivism.

They're different enough that Southern Alberta (including Calgary, Banff, Waterton) could be a separate province.

[isaidso]

Thanks for the run down. Are the unpopulated areas of northern Alberta also arable but too cold/too short a growing season to make agriculture feasible? The reason I ask is that the Interior Plains extend almost to the Arctic Ocean.

[MonctonRad]

There is some farmland in Alberta as far north as High Level, within about 100 km of the NT border. The growing season is short, but somewhat compensated for by the increased daylight in the summertime. I think there could be the possibility for further expansion but maybe Albertans could expound on that.

I take some issue with the map you have in your post. For example, they have Anticosti as part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, when the island is rather mountainous and infertile. Similarly, they show all the Maritimes as being part of the Appalachian Region. This is true for northern NB, and depending on how you define it, perhaps portions of NS, but large parts of the region are considered coastal lowlands (the Maritime Plain), and are more akin to the coastal plain along the US eastern seaboard.

[lio45]

Agreed, they also extend the "lowlands" too much on the north shore downriver from Quebec City.

(I noticed they also have part of Western Newfoundland that's in that region, no idea if that's correct or stupid.)

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is some farmland in Alberta as far north as High Level, within about 100 km of the NT border. The growing season is short, but somewhat compensated for by the increased daylight in the summertime. I think there could be the possibility for further expansion but maybe Albertans could expound on that.

Yup along the Peace river there are large farming communities. Also a north south line from Highlevel south to Peace river has a fare amount of farming. These areas were only accessible from the river when first opened to farming. North Central Alberta, Basically right up the middle has some farming but if you go about 150km due north of Edmonton the land is less developed but there is more energy, logging and mineral extraction.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I wonder how many Chicagoans look to Winnipeg as the city whose lifestyle is most similar to theirs.

Last week? Maybe a few.

Otherwise, um....

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

This.

The 49th parallel is an imaginary line that weather, soil type, and animals of all stripe do not care about. I totally get that a person from Edmonton would have little in common with a Rancher from Sweet Grass Montana, but a Rancher near Milk River Alberta certainly would. Same as a Miner in Thompson MB would have little in common with a Farmer from St John ND but a farmer from Lena MB certainly would.

But in terms of the overall Alberta population, there are only so many ranchers/people altogether that live in the area where the climate geography is most similar to Montana. That is what throws me off. If Alberta was like much of Canada where the population hugged the border I might understand, but most of the population is further north primarily because the goegraphy and climate is arguably a bit more conducive to settlement away from the border. I think its fair that some Albertans would identify with Montana, I'm surprised at how high that number is. Even if you include the entire population of the Lethbridge/Medicine hat region & the Drumheller/Camrose region (Camrose is a stretch to compare to Montana geographically IMO) you still dont have enough people to reach a number that high.

I'm thinking apart from some geography, it might have something to do with the libertarian streak you see in much of rural Southern AB, and to some extent Calgary. I can see some of the people that voted wildrose in the last election seeing themselves better reflected in the ideology of Montana.

It would still seem strange to me to see Calgarians identify with Montana because Montana is anything but urban. However, politically I can see some Calgarians aligning themselves with Montanas values.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

It would still seem strange to me to see Calgarians identify with Montana because Montana is anything but urban.

Not that weird if you think about it. The stereotypical image of a Canadian may still well be a bearded lumberjack in a plaid jacket, even though the Typical Canadian lives in the GTA.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by Docere

Probably more common among Winnipeggers who have never been there.

What do you mean?

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

This isn't a super comprehensive answer as I based it more on how I felt when living in Calgary and visiting Edmonton quite a bit when I was living in Calgary.

At a high-level, Calgary and Southern Alberta feel like the high plains / front range like Denver. Edmonton and Central/Northern Alberta feel a lot more like the Canadian Prairies like Winnipeg, Saskatoon.

In terms of environment, Southern Alberta is more arid and suitable for ranching. Going west to east you have the Rockies, the foothills, the high plains (which are arid), and the badlands. The populated parts of Central/Northern Alberta are mainly arable.

In terms of culture, Southern Alberta has more of a Western/cowboy culture and an alpine culture. Central/Northern Alberta has more Indigenous cultural influences and farming culture.

In terms of politics, Calgary feels more libertarian and holds on to ideas of rugged individualism. Edmonton feels more left-wing, with a greater sense of collectivism.

They're different enough that Southern Alberta (including Calgary, Banff, Waterton) could be a separate province.

This is pretty accurate. Alberta was at one point planned to be 2 provinces. The difference in settlement history between the land North/South of the battle river is pretty substantial. North you have a fur trading history, heavy Ukranian settlement, and most of the franco-albertan history/culture. South was more heavily influenced by strategic policing settlement (to keep the US from expanding northward) but settlement from the western US because they were the immigrant group that had experience with the dryland farming techniques. This is also how you end up with the pronounced Mormon presence in the area around Lethbridge. The stereotype of Albertan identity is much more driven by the southern part of the province.

Obviously the province is still pretty similar in the grand scheme of things, but there's definitely a split between north and south.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is some farmland in Alberta as far north as High Level, within about 100 km of the NT border. The growing season is short, but somewhat compensated for by the increased daylight in the summertime. I think there could be the possibility for further expansion but maybe Albertans could expound on that.

I take some issue with the map you have in your post. For example, they have Anticosti as part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, when the island is rather mountainous and infertile. Similarly, they show all the Maritimes as being part of the Appalachian Region. This is true for northern NB, and depending on how you define it, perhaps portions of NS, but large parts of the region are considered coastal lowlands (the Maritime Plain), and are more akin to the coastal plain along the US eastern seaboard.

I have read a number of findings that concluded that the wheat belt may stretch as far north as Yellowknife by the end of the century. Regarding the map, I agree that it has deficiencies. It generalizes too much and omits small areas that don't match what's around it.

Isn't there also agricultural land in northern Ontario close to the Quebec border? I thought agriculture was impossible on the Canadian Shield.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I have read a number of findings that concluded that the wheat belt may stretch as far north as Yellowknife by the end of the century. Regarding the map, I agree that it has deficiencies. It generalizes too much and omits small areas that don't match what's around it.

Isn't there also agricultural land in northern Ontario close to the Quebec border? I thought agriculture was impossible on the Canadian Shield.

That area surrounds Lake Timiskaming (Lac Témiscamingue in French). It's in the Canadian Shield region but it's not shield-type soil. For several km around the lake it's actually a depression that has pretty fertile soil.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I have read a number of findings that concluded that the wheat belt may stretch as far north as Yellowknife by the end of the century. Regarding the map, I agree that it has deficiencies. It generalizes too much and omits small areas that don't match what's around it.

Isn't there also agricultural land in northern Ontario close to the Quebec border? I thought agriculture was impossible on the Canadian Shield.

There's a small patch in Nipissing District, centred on Sturgeon Falls. There's a small patch in Valley East/Chelmsford in Sudbury.

There's the Lesser Claybelt between Englehart and New Liskeard and the Great Claybelt from Hearst to Cochrane.

Clay Belts of Ontario

I'm not a geography expert, but I suspect these are the remains of ancient lakes and/or meteor impacts that have filled with fertile soil.

The biggest obstacle to developing them has been the brutal cold. That may change with climate change.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'm not a geography expert, but I suspect these are the remains of ancient lakes

Yup - settlement from Lake Ojibway.