HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 6:28 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
I find this interesting, despite having the longest undefended border in the world, maybe that invisible line has created more cultural and economic division between both countries than one might assume. I'm not denying that Canada and the US are a dyad, I would just assume there would be more closely knit regions between the two.
In much of Canada, if you went back in time by 50 or 100 years you might have found that the share of people who had lived on both sides of the border, or had family ties on both sides, was higher. I think the two countries have been diverging for a while. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the border itself but I think two other factors might be globalization and Canada's evolution into a bigger and wealthier country with better internal travel options and communications, a more complex economy, more developed institutions (which can run things differently, e.g. by providing healthcare and other benefits), bigger cities, etc.

At the height of the 19th century cross-border migrations to places like New England, there were plentiful manufacturing jobs south of the border. If you were in, say, Quebec it was far easier to move to Massachusetts than it was to move to Alberta, not that there were similar jobs in Alberta back then anyway. An average person with limited opportunities in primary industries in Canada could just pick up and move south, get a much higher paying job, and immediately enjoy higher living standards. It's not like that at all these days. If anything I think average workers are better off in Canada. People like to focus on the top professionals, and maybe they are still likely to move to the US, but they have a smaller demographic and cultural impact.

One thing that I find really interesting is how you can pick out periods when Canadian cities were physically more similar to their American counterparts. In a lot of cases the height of the similarity dates back to around 1880-1930, and in recent years the cities have been diverging. Toronto isn't changing like an average Midwestern city and Halifax isn't changing like a New England city (which would imply ~zero change at all...). I think Vancouver is a bit closer to Seattle or Portland but there are still obvious differences in how it's developing. Lately, I get the impression that many American cities are more ossified and segregated. The urban part of the US are more likely to fit into one of three categories: high-end districts that are super expensive but where change is difficult, low-end districts with bad schools that aren't getting much investment, and low-density suburbia that is mostly detached houses. Canadian cities have more medium and high-density suburbs, fewer blighted areas, and more dynamic urban areas that are being rebuilt. Canadian cities also seem to do better when it comes to investment in transit, although they are still pretty bad. Vancouver vs. Seattle vs. Portland transit and highways are a prime example of this.
__________________
flickr

Last edited by someone123; Mar 30, 2017 at 6:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 8:10 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikegypsy View Post
You're forgetting the upstate NY and Ottawa/Montreal area, which is far more populous than the Vancouver/Seattle area. I find that you come to quickly to a conclusion with just off the cuff feedback from members who've contributed to your thread, without further analysis. It's obvious that there's much more going on besides than the 'Vancouver/Seattle area and the Detroit-Windsor' areas.
Fairly certain that isn't correct.

There are 7.95 million people in the Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle corridor and nearly 16 million in the entire cascadia region.

I find it tough to believe that Montreal-Ottawa and whatever smattering of population there is around plattsburg is "far more populous" than that.

And that's not even getting into the type of trade connections that SW Ontario-Detroit and Seattle-Van see, which is much more alignment financially than a bit of cross border outlet shopping and some discount airfares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 8:15 PM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 449
Yes, it seems American cities are always extreme versions of Canadian cities.

A Canadian "ghetto", (like East Hastings, Vancouver or North End, Winnipeg) is not comparable to that of an American one. Suburban sprawl in Canada is not comparable in to suburban sprawl in the US. Canadian cities in general seem to be more "average".
These American city characteristics seem to largely have evolved in the post-WWII era, perhaps this is the era when Canadian cities really started to take their own course separate from American ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 8:48 PM
bikegypsy's Avatar
bikegypsy bikegypsy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Fairly certain that isn't correct.

There are 7.95 million people in the Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle corridor and nearly 16 million in the entire cascadia region.

I find it tough to believe that Montreal-Ottawa and whatever smattering of population there is around plattsburg is "far more populous" than that.

And that's not even getting into the type of trade connections that SW Ontario-Detroit and Seattle-Van see, which is much more alignment financially than a bit of cross border outlet shopping and some discount airfares.
I'm saying that there's an other region which is important in terms of cross-border trade. Putting forth the population numbers of Cascadia
isn't a winning argument compared to a similar area and alignment in the North East. Here's an interesting image that I've found which
seems to illustrate that there are 4 main megaregions between the 2 countries:


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:02 PM
le calmar's Avatar
le calmar le calmar is offline
613er
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Fairly certain that isn't correct.

There are 7.95 million people in the Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle corridor and nearly 16 million in the entire cascadia region.

I find it tough to believe that Montreal-Ottawa and whatever smattering of population there is around plattsburg is "far more populous" than that.

And that's not even getting into the type of trade connections that SW Ontario-Detroit and Seattle-Van see, which is much more alignment financially than a bit of cross border outlet shopping and some discount airfares.
Agreed for the Victoria-Seattle-Vancouver triangle, but I wouldn't count the entire Cascadia region, that's too large of a region. Otherwise you would count Boston or New York along with Plattsburgh or Burlington out East.
__________________
My flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:12 PM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is online now
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 11,950
I might be the first Albertan to contribute to this thread, which is unsurprising. Outside of of a thin strip of agriculture along the border (as Vanriderfan has stated many a time), there isn't much day-to-day interaction between our province and the states immediately to the south. Most of Alberta's population is in the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor which is too far from the border to make most day trips feasible. It's not like there's sizeable cities to visit either. The biggest city in Montana -- Billings -- is only about the size of Red Deer, and the nearest (in terms of travel time) -- Great Falls -- is smaller than Medicine Hat.

Of course, there is economic trade -- plenty of crude heads south of the border, and Montana is pretty reliant on Alberta for agricultural exports. But in terms of closeness and interactivity, there's going to be more back-and-forth between boardrooms in Calgary and Houston.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr

Last edited by Boris2k7; Mar 30, 2017 at 9:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:12 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by le calmar View Post
Agreed for the Victoria-Seattle-Vancouver triangle, but I wouldn't count the entire Cascadia region, that's too large of a region. Otherwise you would count Boston or New York along with Plattsburgh or Burlington out East.
Well, you could pick the entire Cascadia region, but as you point out, apples to apples to stretching south to include Portland for Van would be including Boston + NYC + Philly for Mtl.

Such regions are a bit too big to make sense... even though there's a pretty significant travel/tourism/trade connection between the Northeast and Quebec, likely moreso than anything you could find between Van and Portland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:17 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikegypsy View Post
I'm saying that there's an other region which is important in terms of cross-border trade. Putting forth the population numbers of Cascadia
isn't a winning argument compared to a similar area and alignment in the North East.
You said Ottawa/Montreal/Upstate NY is "far more populous than the Vancouver/Seattle area", that is just flat out false, which was really my only point.

Cascadia is long and thin and more comparable to the QC-Detroit corridor really, which it is shorter than but less populous than as well. It really had no relevance to my point so I don't know why I included it in retrospect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:21 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,545
This thread is starting to slide into Montreal homerism territory.

Most of what we debate on SSP is subjective and not easily quantifiable. Most of it can be argued one way or another:

- Montreal has a "better" skyline than Calgary;
- Calgary has more "interesting" neighbourhoods than Edmonton;
- Vancouver has "better" Chinese food than Toronto.

But some of it, while subjective or hard to quantify, is also hard to argue with. There's a consensus, and that consensus is rational:

- Montreal has better 19th century church architecture than Toronto;
- Toronto is a more important financial centre than Montreal;
- Montreal and Vancouver have mountain backdrops, but Vancouver's is more stunning;
- Quebec City is of more historic architectural interest than Fort McMurray.

And I'm afraid the consensus should be that Vancouver-Seattle have a more important cultural connection than Ottawa or Montreal and whatever poverty-stricken counties lie across the border from them in upstate New York. This should be clear to anyone who has experienced both border regions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:22 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Such regions are a bit too big to make sense... even though there's a pretty significant travel/tourism/trade connection between the Northeast and Quebec, likely moreso than anything you could find between Van and Portland.
That's likely true. Portland to Vancouver is about the same distance as Montreal-Boston, and a little closer than Montreal-NY, but the sheer size of the cities in the NE mean there is probably a lot more activity on an absolute basis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:32 PM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 449
Its funny how in the above map there are cities not included in the Cascadia megaregion in between the coastal cities and Boise, Idaho, which is hundreds of kilometers away from the rest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:34 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Well, you could pick the entire Cascadia region, but as you point out, apples to apples to stretching south to include Portland for Van would be including Boston + NYC + Philly for Mtl.

Such regions are a bit too big to make sense... even though there's a pretty significant travel/tourism/trade connection between the Northeast and Quebec, likely moreso than anything you could find between Van and Portland.
The map above is clearly kinda hand-wavy.

Denver-Albuquerque is a corridor of 6.5 hours of mostly nothing. If the standard is merely that some cities need to be connected by a highway that is less than a day's drive long then I'm not sure what these corridors mean. Historically, there were a bunch of these regional cities and they got connected by highways.

The choice of which dots to draw and what corridors to add them to seems arbitrary. Bellingham and I guess North Bay get dots? Bellingham's "metro" is just Whatcom county, which has a little over 200,000 people in total; Bellingham is an urban area of about 100,000 people. Yakima WA is apparently part of the Cascadia megaregion but Kennewick gets left out. How will the Cascadia megaregion function without the synergies brought on by the strategic onion production of the greater Kennewick-Walla Walla megalopolis?

The legend suggests Sudbury-North Bay is a burgeoning mini megaregion of its own that will have around 2 million people by 2050. I guess they are expecting some serious global warming.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:44 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
Its funny how in the above map there are cities not included in the Cascadia megaregion in between the coastal cities and Boise, Idaho, which is hundreds of kilometers away from the rest.
Ya there's no world in which Boise is in Cascadia IMO.

The cascadia urban region is a really easy one if you ask me: South of Portland to Vancouver. Pretty dense and well urbanized for nearly the entire corridor with only a few small gaps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:50 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,582
Agreed, there are some really weird things in that map.

For example, "Great Lakes". You have Kansas City in there, but not Ottawa... Anything that includes Toronto kind of has to include Ottawa-Gatineau and probably Montreal. If the "Texas Triangle" is a region, then the "Canada's Canada" Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle is also one -- and I'm not sure I'd merge that with the American Midwest just based on physical proximity (I wouldn't add parts of Mexico to American regions either).

At the very least, I'd merge the two Californias; I'd abolish Gulf Coast and Rockies in CO/NM as regions; I'd remove the outside cities (Boise, KC, MN Twin Cities) from Great Lakes and Cascadia; Tijuana wouldn't be in yellow (nor purple).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:51 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is online now
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Denver-Albuquerque is a corridor of 6.5 hours of mostly nothing. If the standard is merely that some cities need to be connected by a highway that is less than a day's drive long then I'm not sure what these corridors mean. Historically, there were a bunch of these regional cities and they got connected by highways.
The map is indeed pretty strange.

The Front Range Urban Corridor is widely considered to be Cheyenne to Pueblo. The idea of Megaregions seems like a stretch to me in this circumstance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:55 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
This thread is starting to slide into Montreal homerism territory.
Really? I've only skimmed the thread, but I don't really see that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 9:59 PM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 449
You'd think that with some of the megaregions defined in that map Calgary-Edmonton, Ottawa-Montreal and maybe even Saskatoon-Regina would be included.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 10:11 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
You'd think that with some of the megaregions defined in that map Calgary-Edmonton, Ottawa-Montreal and maybe even Saskatoon-Regina would be included.
The smallest corridor on that map, the front range, has a population of around 5 million.

Sask-Regina is about 600K, Calgary Edmonton like 3 million. Not really "megaregion" territory.

The Detroit-QC corridor clearly fits the bill but the map is US focussed so it wasn't included. I'm sure someone with some Photoshop skills could add it in there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 10:23 PM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,203
Quebec's largest trading partner, besides Ontario, is New York State. Montréal is part of the Northeast, not the Great Lakes.
__________________
Montréal métropolitain

Last edited by GreaterMontréal; Mar 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2017, 10:33 PM
rousseau's Avatar
rousseau rousseau is online now
Registered Drug User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 4,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikegypsy View Post
Here's an interesting image that I've found which
seems to illustrate that there are 4 main megaregions between the 2 countries:
Four? I see two: Vancouver-Seattle and the Great Lakes. Which "four" are you talking about?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.