Your city's best-looking suburbs - Page 4

MolsonExport · #61 Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 12:40 PM**

^West Vancouver is indeed gorgeous, but I still prefer upper Westmount (Montreal suburb), on account of sublime mansions, greenery and the mountain views. I lived adjacent to upper Westmount for years, and it was a great place for a walk during a snowstorm.

neighborhoodnomads.com

flar · #62 Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If I'm not mistaken, Dundas is actually older than Hamilton, isn't it?

Yep. And here's another suburb older than Hamilton. Unfortunately, the parts of Ancaster built in the past twenty years are the worst form of suburbia. But the older parts and the wealthy areas are very beautiful, with lots of 19th century limestone buildings, and old and new mansions scattered on large lots in wooded areas on the Escarpment.

Beedok · #63 Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Isn't Stoney Creek older too?

hipster duck · #64 Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 9:40 PM**

Vancouver

Best looking: White Rock
Most urban: New Westminster or North Vancouver
Most culturally unique: Richmond

Toronto

Best looking: Oakville
Most urban: Oshawa
Most culturally unique: tough call.

Docere · #65 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 2:46 AM**

Oshawa is a satellite city - not sure if it should be considered a suburb of Toronto.

In terms of suburbs, Toronto has few really nice ones IMO. Oakville is the most sizable "character" suburb while most of the old villages are just little hamlets (Unionville, Kleinburg, etc.)

yaletown_fella · #66 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 3:13 AM**

Port Credit/Mineola is the next Oakville, from what I've seen.

Cliffcrest has some huge estate homes surrounded by mature growth forest, in Scarborough of all places.

Docere · #67 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 11:09 PM**

West Van strikes me as a mix of Oakville and Beverly Hills.

LeftCoaster · #68 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 11:21 PM**

Not nearly as exciting.

I grew up there. It has the wealth and geography of Beverly Hills, but the excitement of Oakville.

VivaPhysicality · #69 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere

West Van strikes me as a mix of Oakville and Beverly Hills.

West Van reminds me of Beverly Hills too. Just smaller palm trees and bigger hills.

Source: http://www.thebestwesterncontracting...rine-Drive.jpg

VivaPhysicality · #70 Posted **Mar 18, 2015, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not nearly as exciting.

Well I think that part goes without saying. It does share aesthetic qualities though and has that feeling of wealth and exclusivity.

Docere · #71 Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not nearly as exciting.

I grew up there. It has the wealth and geography of Beverly Hills, but the excitement of Oakville.

Hence the Oakville part. More WASPy and boring than Beverly Hills.

Though both have significant Iranian populations - though Beverly Hills is mostly Persian Jews, while West Van doesn't have much of a Jewish population at all (wealthy Jews are more in Shaughnessy).

Going along Marine Drive it feels a lot like SE Oakville along Lakeshore. Big houses along and facing the waterfront and some quaint little waterfront village parts and quite a few Brits. But then there are the hills, the palm trees, Iranians and more people seem to be celebrity types, while Oakville is more of a WASP suburb that is home to Bay Street types.

TorontoDrew · #72 Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 3:53 AM**

It's funny I don't consider West Van a burb. Possibly 20 years ago but now it's part of the urban metro.

GlassCity · #73 Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 4:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's funny I don't consider West Van a burb. Possibly 20 years ago but now it's part of the urban metro.

Well Burnaby and New Westminster are much more so, but they're still considered suburbs.

VivaPhysicality · #74 Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's funny I don't consider West Van a burb. Possibly 20 years ago but now it's part of the urban metro.

Yeah it does feel weird calling West Van a suburb when there's only a park and a bridge separating it from Downtown Vancouver. On the other hand, the furthest reaches of West Van, such as Horseshoe Bay, definitely don't feel like part of the urban core. Then again, neither do UBC or the River District in Vancouver city proper.

TorontoDrew · #75 Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 5:55 PM**

I was actually about to say that, depending which part your in it feels like more of extension of Downtown.

LeftCoaster · #76 Posted **Mar 23, 2015, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere

Hence the Oakville part. More WASPy and boring than Beverly Hills.

Though both have significant Iranian populations - though Beverly Hills is mostly Persian Jews, while West Van doesn't have much of a Jewish population at all (wealthy Jews are more in Shaughnessy).

Going along Marine Drive it feels a lot like SE Oakville along Lakeshore. Big houses along and facing the waterfront and some quaint little waterfront village parts and quite a few Brits. But then there are the hills, the palm trees, Iranians and more people seem to be celebrity types, while Oakville is more of a WASP suburb that is home to Bay Street types.

Fair enough, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Docere · #77 Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 7:25 AM**

Does anyone lament the lack of Westchester County, Connecticut or Philadelphia Main Line-type suburbs in Canada?

In some ways, these places are "suburbia done right." On the other hand, their nicest bits are very exclusive in a way even Westmount, Oakville or West Van aren't. While it's nice they aren't as "cookie cutter" as mass tract suburbia, it means they're a lot more sprawly.

Acajack · #78 Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere

Does anyone lament the lack of Westchester County, Connecticut or Philadelphia Main Line-type suburbs in Canada?

In some ways, these places are "suburbia done right." On the other hand, their nicest bits are very exclusive in a way even Westmount, Oakville or West Van aren't. While it's nice they aren't as "cookie cutter" as mass tract suburbia, it means they're a lot more sprawly.

Boston's suburbia is like this too. It's metro area is less dense than LA's I am almost certain. Most people are surprised to learn this.

Many large Canadian cities especially the faster growing ones like Toronto and Calgary, etc. have newer suburbia that actually resembles SW US cities like Phoenix, etc. more than anything else.

Innsertnamehere · #79 Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 3:51 PM**

Took some photos of Newmarket this summer. The suburban part of the town is rather banal, but the downtown is really nice.

kirjtc2 · #80 Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Boston's suburbia is like this too. It's metro area is less dense than LA's I am almost certain. Most people are surprised to learn this.

You see it to an extent in the Maritimes too. Halifax and Fredericton are probably the worst examples. Sprawly 1-acre lots that often aren't even hooked up to a decent water and sewer system.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Wes...!4d-63.2712936