Canadian Maps and Graphics

[MonkeyRonin]

Thought this was kind of interesting - a map of Toronto's streets in 1908, colour coded by type of street paving.

It also suggests how built up the different parts of the city would have been then. While there were streets already being laid out as far as Etobicoke, they still would have been fairly rural as indicated by the unpaved roads. Asphalt paved areas on the other hand would have likely represented the most built up areas. The population of the city would have been about 300,000 at that time (the population within the developed area there today would be around 500,000 by comparison).




Larger

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Thought this was kind of interesting - a map of Toronto's streets in 1908, colour coded by type of street paving.

It also suggests how built up the different parts of the city would have been then. While there were streets already being laid out as far as Etobicoke, they still would have been fairly rural as indicated by the unpaved roads. Asphalt paved areas on the other hand would have likely represented the most built up areas. The population of the city would have been about 300,000 at that time (the population within the developed area there today would be around 500,000 by comparison).




Larger

It is a nice one. The achievement of those who built the infrastructure of Canada over just a few short decades is incredible.

Still no northern part of Bay Street at that time (north of College where Terauley ended).

[niwell]

It's a great map - one of my faves! IIRC they only surveyed streets within city limits for that it, so there were likely some areas with some form of paving on the periphery. Still most would have been largely notional streets at the the time.

The 1915 studies of transportation, built area and density in the region are also extremely informative / impressive. I'm on mobile now and it's hard to post individual pictures but this site has catalogued them and linked to the digitized U of T images. https://grahamlarkin.info/2013/06/24...ronto-in-1915/

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No surprise to see Montreal and Vancouver at the bottom, but shocked to see Abbotsford so low.

I'm not. Abbotsford is a very low income city and yet is very expensive with the average SFH price at $850,000.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's a great map - one of my faves! IIRC they only surveyed streets within city limits for that it, so there were likely some areas with some form of paving on the periphery. Still most would have been largely notional streets at the the time.

The 1915 studies of transportation, built area and density in the region are also extremely informative / impressive. I'm on mobile now and it's hard to post individual pictures but this site has catalogued them and linked to the digitized U of T images. https://grahamlarkin.info/2013/06/24...ronto-in-1915/

I have a couple of nice Goad's maps of Toronto including the U of T plate and the one to the north of it (Yorkville and the Annex, 1890) which shows the streets and houses that are visible out my window. I wish I'd bought more; the downtown plates seem to be going for $500-1000 apiece these days.

[ainvan]

North America’s Devastating Wildfires, Viewed From Space







https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...-aerosol-earth

[Black Star]

Unreal pictures.....

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

Police Recorded Crime in Canada

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

Dairy Queens in USA and Canada - density grid

[someone123]

That proximity map for metros is interesting and I think it is somewhat related to how urban hinterlands work.

Distance of course should really be "cost of travel", some combination of time and money required. This depends on the transportation network. A highway expands close areas while water is generally more expensive and slower to traverse.

There's also a bit of a perverse effect in that the biggest cities have satellite metros like Oshawa and Abbotsford so they end up with smaller regions on the map. There's no clear-cut way to correct for this but you could maybe draw some kind of map that shows "influence" which is a combination of proximity to a metro and how big it is or what services it has (again, subjective). There are really tiers of hinterlands. At the top tier we have Toronto that has national head offices and at the bottom tier are small service towns where people in rural areas go to shop.

[ainvan]

[MonctonRad]

I always suspected Moncton was the regional metropole for western Labrador.......

[lio45]

Those natural wildfires are small fry compared to that alarming deforestation burning in the Congo!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Distance of course should really be "cost of travel", some combination of time and money required. This depends on the transportation network. A highway expands close areas while water is generally more expensive and slower to traverse.

Yeah, obviously. "As the crow flies" is pretty much irrelevant.

I recall that one time we were looking online for an apartment to rent in Contrecoeur, QC for a couple months - for a contract we had at that town's big steel mill - and I had them listed by proximity on the classifieds website... found one in the earliest listings that was 5 km away... pictures looked great, price too... but in Lavaltrie. What a stupid flaw in the way the site worked, and so easy to fix - just have your distance-calculating software go with driving directions instead!

(for those you don't know - that other town 5 km away is across the St. Lawrence and the closest bridges on either side are pretty far away, to the point that a huge chunk of Southern Quebec is actually closer than this apartment "5 km away" was)

In that map, the Upper North Shore triangle the color of Fredericton is actually squarely in Quebec City's catchment area... same thing with the Lower North Shore that "belongs" to Moncton in the map. And that Saguenay triangle in the Lower St. Lawrence is Quebec City's too. (Though people there might go no further than Lévis for "bigger city" shopping... which is itself >100k )

[Alegan]

Hmm, Canada should adjust how it identifies census metropolitan areas or agglomerations. Sarnia is almost twice as populous as Chatham (71,600; 43,550), and Lambton County (incl. Sarnia) is more populous than Kent County (incl. Chatham) (123,400; 101,647).

But because Chatham-Kent city and county are tallied together as a single-tier municipality, they become the regions population centre as combined they are JUST greater than 100,000 (again, 101,647).

So the map is greatly misleading as to which population centre is actually greater.

[kxl]

Originally Posted by Alegan

Hmm, Canada should adjust how it identifies census metropolitan areas or agglomerations.

So the map is greatly misleading as to which population centre is actually greater.

Similarly the agglomeration on Southern Vancouver Island should be known as Greater Saanich

[Alegan]

Originally Posted by kxl

Similarly the agglomeration on Southern Vancouver Island should be known as Greater Saanich

Perhaps you're right.

However, in the case of Saanich there is definitely a metropolitan core in Victoria, and the urban area is seemless. Sarnia and Chatham are very distinct and separate cities. I have been to both regions, and I'm from Sarnia.

I would simply leave Chatham-Kent out of this map, and focus on Windsor and London as the area's 'metro-centres'. I think Sarnians would be split on whether to belong to the Windsor or London areas by proximity. The city seems to be split in two, if proximity allows crossing through Michigan to get to Windsor, which we sometimes do. Also mentally, some people might associate themselves closer to one or the other depending on the connections they have.