Which Two Canadian Metros Are Really In Sync With Each Other

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Imagine if the "ambitious city" of the 1950s and 60s had continued growing like gangbusters with jobs, jobs, jobs for everyone. Imagine if the centre the city hadn't been destroyed.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ed#post5426177

Imagine if people in the 1960s and 70s hadn't been so desperate to live in suburban ranch houses instead of Victorian row houses.

Imagine...

Holy crap. The pink is what's gone?

Though I suppose you could do a similar portrayal of the damage for most cities in the country.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by esquire

St. Catharines/Niagara, though... what a weird beast. It's like a good sized Canadian city, but really spread out and without the usual big downtown. The whole thing feels kind of odd.

It's a very American-style urban-suburban hodge-podge where the houses run for miles along the country roads. I think it's odd to people in Manitoba because you don't have that kind of development there.

Save maybe for Headingley.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Holy crap. The pink is what's gone?

Yep. Now it's either modernist tripe or parking lots. To be fair, some of the parking lots are getting built on again, so there's a minor revitalization going on.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Holy crap. The pink is what's gone?

Though I suppose you could do a similar portrayal of the damage for most cities in the country.

At least those cities with strong economies. Stagnation can do wonders for heritage preservation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

St. Catharines/Niagara, though... what a weird beast. It's like a good sized Canadian city, but really spread out and without the usual big downtown. The whole thing feels kind of odd.

I think it looks the way it does because it's a naturally rich area. It's fertile plus it's a natural choke point for land and water traffic, and there's hydro power plus the tourism draw of Niagara Falls. But Toronto is a major city not far away so the big businesses concentrated there.

The US has a lot of places like this but Canada has very few. The blobs of development around the eastern Lower Mainland and the eastern end of the Annapolis Valley are both similar, and are developed somewhat like similarly fertile parts of the US and Europe. The Okanagan would be like that too except it's so mountainous that it's hard to build on much of the land there.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by north 42

Specialized health care is also one of the reasons that Windsorites may go to London, although there's just as good a chance that we will go to a Detroit hospital instead, being that we are so close.
We also certainly don't go to London for shopping or entertainment, we have enough of that here and in Detroit.

Another link is the media. The CTV affiliates in Windsor and London share resources and for a long time they would broadcast combined 'regional' newscasts simultaneously to both cities (where the newscaster based in London would often badly mispronounce Windsor street names). The Windsor Star and London Free Press also share a lot of resources. Oh, there's the UWO/UWindsor medical school collaboration too.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Another link is the media. The CTV affiliates in Windsor and London share resources and for a long time they would broadcast combined 'regional' newscasts simultaneously to both cities (where the newscaster based in London would often badly mispronounce Windsor street names). The Windsor Star and London Free Press also share a lot of resources. Oh, there's the UWO/UWindsor medical school collaboration too.

That's right, I forgot about the medical school collaboration and CTV.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Imagine if the "ambitious city" of the 1950s and 60s had continued growing like gangbusters with jobs, jobs, jobs for everyone. Imagine if the centre the city hadn't been destroyed.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ed#post5426177

Imagine if people in the 1960s and 70s hadn't been so desperate to live in suburban ranch houses instead of Victorian row houses.

Imagine...

There's an identical thread in the "City Discussions" section - so it's mostly American.

Anyway, Chicagoans mentioned that Chicago and Milwaukee are like a big brother, little brother combo. And that got me thinking that it's kind of a shame that Hamilton went to pot, and Toronto was denied a "little sibling" relationship.

Milwaukee is in Chicago's shadow, and it has problems like any other Midwestern US city, but it also has a lot of the best of Chicago in miniature form:





Why can't Hamilton be a mini-Toronto? Why can't it have a few glass towers or neighbourhoods of bay and gables perpendicular to a vibrant commercial street? That's why I was kind of rooting for the now-axed LRT extension up James St., even though it didn't make much sense from a travel demand/cost perspective. It would have given that stretch of James a Toronto-ness:

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by esquire

St. Catharines/Niagara, though... what a weird beast. It's like a good sized Canadian city, but really spread out and without the usual big downtown. The whole thing feels kind of odd.

It's spread out because it's a collection of cities and towns that rose thanks to railroad and water access(2 Great Lakes, Welland Canal, Niagara River), also direct access to the United States border from three locations.
Oh and one of the first places in North America to get electricity (thank you Niagara Falls) which is why St. Catharines and Welland used to be industrial behemoths.

Couple that with some of the most fertile agricultural land in Canada (as another forumer stated) and there's a reason it looks as it does. There's almost 100 wineries in the region now, with still countless acres of "traditional" farms and fruit farms.


(Now if only we could block the GTAers from moving here and causing the housing prices to rise at unprecedented levels)

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

At least those cities with strong economies. Stagnation can do wonders for heritage preservation.

Stagnation is what's hurt Hamilton. There was some boom time into the 60s, so things got torn down to be replaced with new shiny towers (which did happen in a few cases, for example Jackson Square and the several towers attached to it, which these days is quite lively), and then things slowed and the towers didn't happen. A little like Edmonton. Luckily both are starting to see those parking lots fill up. And Hamilton also has rather endless commercial streets which are also picking back up, there was just too much stuff for the 60s and 70s to destroy it all.

I do agree with Niagara being hitched to Hamilton (when living in St. Catherines we went to Hamilton for field trips a couple times), but it's fairly one way as the Niagara Region has a limited draw (apart for tourism). Especially prominent with the Western parts of the Niagara Region which are effectively Hamilton suburbs (for instance, Grimsby), while in other areas it's a bit more like Hamilton's relationship with Toronto (occasional visits for theatre stuff, a small part of the population commutes, probably a bit of shopping or museum visiting, but still clearly a separate city that you only visit maybe every few months).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Holy crap. The pink is what's gone?

AFAIK, someone will have to update that map soon, adding yet more pink:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...ings-1.3938989

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I do agree with Niagara being hitched to Hamilton (when living in St. Catherines we went to Hamilton for field trips a couple times), but it's fairly one way as the Niagara Region has a limited draw (apart for tourism). Especially prominent with the Western parts of the Niagara Region which are effectively Hamilton suburbs (for instance, Grimsby), while in other areas it's a bit more like Hamilton's relationship with Toronto (occasional visits for theatre stuff, a small part of the population commutes, probably a bit of shopping or museum visiting, but still clearly a separate city that you only visit maybe every few months).

That's probably a more accurate description then what I had originally stated. ..Hitched to, but not entirely integrated and in step with. There definitely is some interchange with the Niagara region like you pointed out. Great examples.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

There's an identical thread in the "City Discussions" section - so it's mostly American.

Anyway, Chicagoans mentioned that Chicago and Milwaukee are like a big brother, little brother combo. And that got me thinking that it's kind of a shame that Hamilton went to pot, and Toronto was denied a "little sibling" relationship.

Milwaukee is in Chicago's shadow, and it has problems like any other Midwestern US city, but it also has a lot of the best of Chicago in miniature form:





Why can't Hamilton be a mini-Toronto? Why can't it have a few glass towers or neighbourhoods of bay and gables perpendicular to a vibrant commercial street? That's why I was kind of rooting for the now-axed LRT extension up James St., even though it didn't make much sense from a travel demand/cost perspective. It would have given that stretch of James a Toronto-ness:

I decided to look it up, and Milwaukee seems to have a number of freeways cutting through the downtown and plenty of surface parking. I'd rather have downtown malls than downtown freeways for a healthy urban environment. And Hamilton grew from ~50k people in 1900 to an urban area of about 700K today, while Milwaukee went from almost 300K in 1900 to an urban area of roughly 1.4 million. A ratio of 6:1 dropping to just 2:1. Hamilton is still doing alright, especially compared to industrial cities south of the border.

If you want glass towers, Hamilton doesn't have a huge number (being an industrial/medical town), but there's some in the CBD:
https://goo.gl/maps/9sELd6RhDJn (heart of that big pink area, things were torn down to build)
And by Canadian standards there's some decent older building stock left:
https://goo.gl/maps/8GUDUEQjcGQ2
As for bay and gables, that exists:
https://goo.gl/maps/Gasn7tpLTh12
https://goo.gl/maps/WBww2EGv4fB2
https://goo.gl/maps/3QvpZMzyHvm
But Hamilton's older residential stock tends to have a squarer style:
https://goo.gl/maps/wqzReUeTASS2
https://goo.gl/maps/j9y8vbr23a92
https://goo.gl/maps/XrnK9PuKuPN2
https://goo.gl/maps/6BvtsNmHu372

Not trying to get super defensive, but Hamilton is probably the most mocked city in the country, despite being a solid urban environment. It's got flaws, and has a lot of room for improvement, but is also the victim of a great deal of pessimistic defeatism.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Not trying to get super defensive, but Hamilton is probably the most mocked city in the country, despite being a solid urban environment. It's got flaws, and has a lot of room for improvement, but is also the victim of a great deal of pessimistic defeatism.

Really? My guesses for most mocked city would be Toronto, just due to calling in the army to deal with snow in the late-1990s (no, they'll never live it down) and the Leafs Stanley Cup drought.

Or maybe Sudbury for looking like the moon and having NASA go there in the 1970s for lunar landing training.

Or maybe Winnipeg, just for being out there. About the only knock I hear about Hamilton when I hear anything, is that you probably shouldn't go swimming in the harbor.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Really? My guesses for most mocked city would be Toronto, just due to calling in the army to deal with snow in the late-1990s (no, they'll never live it down) and the Leafs Stanley Cup drought.

Or maybe Sudbury for looking like the moon and having NASA go there in the 1970s for lunar landing training.

Or maybe Winnipeg, just for being out there. About the only knock I hear about Hamilton when I hear anything, is that you probably shouldn't go swimming in the harbor.

Agreed. You don't hear much about Hamilton at all, especially outside the Golden Horseshoe (where it's true it kind of has an ugly duckling reputation). But that doesn't really extend across the country.

[Rico Rommheim]

Hamilton has an especially low to non-existent presence of mind in Quebec. Perhaps they'd think its a street somewhere in Ontario?

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

In sync, to me means 'working together and completing each other'. I think that we can exclude the 2 'real' big cities as they are their own islands, if not planets. Montreal looks favourably to Quebec City as a place for an interesting getaway... but not more. Quaint and charming, but that's it.

I see what you're saying, but I still think that Montréal needs Québec, and Québec needs Montréal. Montréal doesn't have the choice to work with Québec to get anything from the provincial government, unlike Toronto where all the decisions are made. Québec, the beautiful quiet administrative centre; Montréal the bustling cosmopolitan economic metropolis. Québec the neat and tidy, Montréal the gritty and dirty. Québec as the centre of French America, Montréal as its eye on the world. Québec, the door to Atlantic Canada; Montréal, the door to Upper Canada. Québec and its car culture; Montréal with it's bicycling hippies and endless traffic jams. Québec, the city in touch with its history ; Montréal, the city that destroyed lots of it to get bigger. Québec, the conservative area of the province ; Montréal, it's progressive hotspot. Québec wants to be big (and is a tad jealous of Mtl), Montréal just is (and sometimes laughs at Qc's attempts at "greatness"). The cities share very similar areas ; Old Limoilou and Montcalm could easily pass for Rosemont or Villeray ; and parts of Ho-Ma could be confused with Saint-Roch. Québec kind of relies on Montréal for big events ; Montrealers often rely on Québec for well-paid governmental jobs...

The province of Québec truly has 2 hearts, whether we want it or not. One historical and administrative ; the other, cultural and economic. Plus, the roads between the two cities have become mythic in French Canada (the A20 sure, but also the 132 and the 138) and they are well-represented in our literature, theatre, music and movies, TV (Robert Charlebois, J.-P. Ferland, Félix Leclerc, Claude Jasmin, Roch Voisine, Georges D'Or, Luis Mariano, etc.)

I think this rivalry defines a little of both cities. At least in our minds. The cities are in sync. And I'd say it's at least 200 years old (it's well-documented) It sure lost a bit of its vigour since Québec lost its hockey team though

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by wave46

Really? My guesses for most mocked city would be Toronto, just due to calling in the army to deal with snow in the late-1990s (no, they'll never live it down) and the Leafs Stanley Cup drought.

Or maybe Sudbury for looking like the moon and having NASA go there in the 1970s for lunar landing training.

Or maybe Winnipeg, just for being out there. About the only knock I hear about Hamilton when I hear anything, is that you probably shouldn't go swimming in the harbor.

At least most mocked to talked about ratio.

Toronto gets talked about a lot, so might get more mocking total, but also gets lots of positive.

Sudbury basically never gets talked about by anyone... Even in relatively near by places like Thunder Bay or Ottawa.

Winnipeg is remembered for being cold, and that's about it. (Thunder Bay honestly looks up to it in some ways.)

Hamilton gets compared to Detroit or Flint or whatever rust belt city is popular that day and if you ever mention you're from it you can get awkward and disdainful looks pretty well anywhere in Southern Ontario.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

I see what you're saying, but I still think that Montréal needs Québec, and Québec needs Montréal. Montréal doesn't have the choice to work with Québec to get anything from the provincial government, unlike Toronto where all the decisions are made. Québec, the beautiful quiet administrative centre; Montréal the bustling cosmopolitan economic metropolis. Québec the neat and tidy, Montréal the gritty and dirty. Québec as the centre of French America, Montréal as its eye on the world. Québec, the door to Atlantic Canada; Montréal, the door to Upper Canada. Québec and its car culture; Montréal with it's bicycling hippies and endless traffic jams. Québec, the city in touch with its history ; Montréal, the city that destroyed lots of it to get bigger. Québec, the conservative area of the province ; Montréal, it's progressive hotspot. Québec wants to be big (and is a tad jealous of Mtl), Montréal just is (and sometimes laughs at Qc's attempts at "greatness"). The cities share very similar areas ; Old Limoilou and Montcalm could easily pass for Rosemont or Villeray ; and parts of Ho-Ma could be confused with Saint-Roch. Québec looks at Montréal for big events ;

The province of Québec truly has 2 hearts, whether we want it or not. One historical and administrative ; the other, cultural and economic. Plus, the roads between the two cities have become mythic in French Canada (the A20 sure, but also the 132 and the 138) and they are well-represented in our literature, music and movies, TV (Robert Charlebois, Félix Leclerc, Claude Jasmin, Roch Voisine, Georges D'Or, Luis Mariano, etc.)

Hey, I never knew that Luis Mariano sang about Montreal and Quebec... (He's likely unknown to most SSP Canada people - he was a Spanish singer that was hugely popular in the French-speaking world at one time.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

I think this rivalry defines a little of both cities. At least in our minds. The cities are in sync. And I'd say it's at least 200 years old (it's well-documented) It sure lost a bit of its vigour since Québec lost its hockey team though

Quebec City still got to keep the fictional drama TV series and movie franchise about an NHL team, kept alive for many years - or even a couple of decades - after the Nordiques left town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Shoots,_He_Scores

The fake team's logo was incredibly similar to that of the Nordiques: