SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Great cities on the MacKenzie River (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=236082)

kool maudit Oct 4, 2018 8:58 AM

Great cities on the MacKenzie River
 
Speculation time...

Be it resolved that the planet will grow ever warmer with desertification of temperate regions and thawing of tundra.

Does Canada, then, have North America's third great navigable river (after the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence) in the MacKenzie?

And might large cities sprout and occur along its banks heading up to a great port in the vicinity of Kittigazuit?

Harrison Island as the new Montreal...

333609543 Oct 4, 2018 11:30 AM

Iff al the ice melts tgen a large chunk of land in the MacKenzie River basin will be under water, I also think it will be too cold to sprout up any new large cities. Perhaps a few farming towns in the south and a couple small cities but nothing major.

wave46 Oct 4, 2018 12:31 PM

If it gets warm enough that people want to put cities on the Mackenzie River, it's all over but the screaming for humanity elsewhere.

I'm not seeing the economic reason either. There has to be something that holds a community to a place - farming, mining, manufacturing, whatever. I'm no expert on the Mackenzie river region, but I don't think there's much up there that will support a major city.

Finally, the Canadian North is one of the last unspoiled regions of this planet. Instead of aspiring to spread like locusts to colonize it, maybe we should just let it be unspoiled.

SignalHillHiker Oct 4, 2018 12:37 PM

Happy Valley-Goose Bay will become the new Anchorage :haha:.

I don't think the North along that river will ever be all that densely populated. I think a settlement pattern and size similar to NL is the best you could get along there.

HomeInMyShoes Oct 4, 2018 2:29 PM

Diamonds!

Based on the weather this year, I'd say that while the tundra may thaw the weather would still be very lousy and not really conducive to people wanting to live there and as wave46 said, if we get to that point climate-wise I think a large proportion of the Earth's human population is dead.

Given the crazy storms that would probably be going on, a major city on Harrison Island stands a good chance of being Canada's New Orleans.

Andy6 Oct 4, 2018 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 8335292)
Happy Valley-Goose Bay will become the new Anchorage :haha:.

I don't think the North along that river will ever be all that densely populated. I think a settlement pattern and size similar to NL is the best you could get along there.

If Alaska were in Canada, how big would Anchorage be?

flar Oct 4, 2018 4:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6 (Post 8335597)
If Alaska were in Canada, how big would Anchorage be?

About 25,000

TorontoDrew Oct 4, 2018 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit (Post 8335220)
Speculation time...

Be it resolved that the planet will grow ever warmer with desertification of temperate regions and thawing of tundra.

Does Canada, then, have North America's third great navigable river (after the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence) in the MacKenzie?

And might large cities sprout and occur along its banks heading up to a great port in the vicinity of Kittigazuit?

Harrison Island as the new Montreal...


wow get out of my head, I was looking at the MacKenzie on Google Earth yesterday thinking the same thing. I think the town of Tsiigehtchic would be a good option. I'm not sure how deep the river is at that point but if a proper road was built it would only be about 2.5 hrs south of the Arctic Ocean. It's also on a very picturesque spot of the MacKenzie. Much nicer then Inuvik imo.

[IMG]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5549/...c661d41c_k.jpgMackenzie Delta/Canada 2011 by Jorien Vonk - Arctic field photos, on Flickr[/IMG]

PEI highway guy Oct 4, 2018 6:36 PM

The lack of daylight in winter may be a deterrent for some even if the climate did warm up significantly. Summer would be awesome, warm temps and constant daylight.

Capsicum Oct 4, 2018 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PEI highway guy (Post 8335775)
The lack of daylight in winter may be a deterrent for some even if the climate did warm up significantly. Summer would be awesome, warm temps and constant daylight.

You probably would see quite a lot of part-time residents who become snowbirds. Though to what extent that would change with a warming climate is out there.

If the winter temperatures of the biggest Canadian cities (which aside from Winnipeg and the Albertan cities, aren't even all that much colder than northern US cities like Chicago, Minneapolis or Seattle) make a significant number of people take long vacations, how big would the snowbird population be in this world?

MonctonRad Oct 4, 2018 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PEI highway guy (Post 8335775)
The lack of daylight in winter may be a deterrent for some even if the climate did warm up significantly. Summer would be awesome, warm temps and constant daylight.

The Norwegians seem to have adapted.

TorontoDrew Oct 4, 2018 7:23 PM

If it's just lack of Sun for a month I'm sure they could create mock sunlight to help out the population. They could mimic the sunlight hours of a city south of them in their same time zone.

Video Link

SpongeG Oct 4, 2018 7:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PEI highway guy (Post 8335775)
The lack of daylight in winter may be a deterrent for some even if the climate did warm up significantly. Summer would be awesome, warm temps and constant daylight.

and bugs, the bugs are awful up north

b31den Oct 4, 2018 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capsicum (Post 8335781)
You probably would see quite a lot of part-time residents who become snowbirds. Though to what extent that would change with a warming climate is out there.

If the winter temperatures of the biggest Canadian cities (which aside from Winnipeg and the Albertan cities, aren't even all that much colder than northern US cities like Chicago, Minneapolis or Seattle) make a significant number of people take long vacations, how big would the snowbird population be in this world?

Not to nitpick, but Calgary actually has winter highs about 5 degrees warmer than Montreal, Minneapolis, Ottawa, and Quebec. Its still cold, however...

saffronleaf Oct 4, 2018 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6 (Post 8335597)
If Alaska were in Canada, how big would Anchorage be?

Probably a couple hundred people at most.

canucklehead2 Oct 6, 2018 4:04 AM

I worked for a few months in Fort Simpson/Wrigley and it seems like it's always meant to be a bigger place. If more infrastructure was extended to it (railways, better paved roads, fibreoptic lines, etc) growth will happen...

hipster duck Oct 6, 2018 1:58 PM

Actually, I wonder how much the lack of large, navigable rivers on the North American continent played a role in the slower advancement of pre-Columbian civilizations in North America.

There are some large rivers that travel quite far inland from the sea, like the Columbia and the Fraser, but they usually have formidable rapids or waterfalls that prevent easy shipment unless a civilization reaches a stage of advancement where they understand how to build a system of locks. It makes sense that the St. Lawrence would have been the site for the first permanent European settlement north of Latin America, and that the Lachine Rapids would have been the point at which those settlers would have elected to give up trying to move inland any further (hence the 150 year history gap west of Montreal and the language border, etc.).

I'm not a determinist when it comes to physical geography dictating civilizational advancement, but it does help a lot. On that front, our hulking land mass of a continent, with few navigable rivers or convenient peninsulas or inlets kind of got screwed.

hipster duck Oct 6, 2018 2:06 PM

I guess if civilization totally collapsed and the earth warmed by an ungodly amount, there's a possibility that the Mackenzie river could harbour a pre-modern civilization after a couple hundred years of sorting things out. Of course, that civilization would have no notion that they occupied a territory once known as Canada.

Barring a total collapse of global civilization, I think that all of the greatest cities in the world have already been settled. I think that all of the cities that will one day rise to about a Toronto or Singapore level of prominence, if not New York or London-level prominence*, are either in Sub-Saharan Africa or Central Asia, but I don't think they're places that don't exist yet.

*I expect a sub-Saharan African city to be like a Shanghai in the future, but I'm pretty sure it'll be some combination of Lagos, Nairobi, Addis or Johannesburg. Maybe Luanda or Dar es Salaam. A wealthy Dakar would also be cool.

SignalHillHiker Oct 6, 2018 2:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck (Post 8337739)
Actually, I wonder how much the lack of large, navigable rivers on the North American continent played a role in the slower advancement of pre-Columbian civilizations in North America.

There are some large rivers that travel quite far inland from the sea, like the Columbia and the Fraser, but they usually have formidable rapids or waterfalls that prevent easy shipment unless a civilization reaches a stage of advancement where they understand how to build a system of locks. It makes sense that the St. Lawrence would have been the site for the first permanent European settlement north of Latin America, and that the Lachine Rapids would have been the point at which those settlers would have elected to give up trying to move inland any further (hence the 150 year history gap west of Montreal and the language border, etc.).

I'm not a determinist when it comes to physical geography dictating civilizational advancement, but it does help a lot. On that front, our hulking land mass of a continent, with few navigable rivers or convenient peninsulas or inlets kind of got screwed.

I've seen basically every documentary ever made. It's my thing. Most of the ones I've seen regarding the difference is civilizational development between the continents credit it almost entirely to the variety and quality of domesticated animals. The Americas had almost nothing - alpacas. Eurasia had almost every farm animal we still have today.

acottawa Oct 6, 2018 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 8337752)
I've seen basically every documentary ever made. It's my thing. Most of the ones I've seen regarding the difference is civilizational development between the continents credit it almost entirely to the variety and quality of domesticated animals. The Americas had almost nothing - alpacas. Eurasia had almost every farm animal we still have today.

North America had horses and camels before humans showed up (I think both are actually indigenous to North America). If the indigenous communities had domesticated them instead of (likely) hunting them to extinction then world history may have turned out differently.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.