HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:30 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
not really.
Well I stand corrected then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:36 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Because it's 2015.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 37,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
It doesn't answer the question of why the southern halves of prairie cities are generally more affluent than the north. Especially considering every prairie city is a direct product of the railway that passes through it.
In Winnipeg, I think it's because the southwestern part of the city and downtown are on the same side of the tracks. It's the same in Regina: downtown is south of the railway. So is Brandon. And Saskatoon. Calgary breaks this trend, but downtown there is positioned between the railway and the river, and their wealthier area on the south side of the tracks is alone a picturesque creek so that was likely a selling point. (Thunder Bay's wealthiest inner-city neighbourhood is north of a downtown core, along a creek.) In Edmonton it looks like the wealthy areas are east and west of downtown along the river (prime real estate because of views and proximity to downtown), and the railway approaches from the south.
__________________
Toronto/Hamilton: November 2016 + other photos / my geofiction / random things / skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 5:43 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Because it's 2015.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 37,103
In Thunder Bay's case, being near the railway was a selling point. When our train stations moved around (which happened a lot, they didn't build a permanent one for the first 20 years) wealthy people, businessmen and churches would literally remove their homes and businesses from the foundations and move them closer to the railway stations. The oldest house in the city is a few blocks from our Union Station, it was originally built nearly 2 miles away and moved in the early 1900s. A three storey hotel that used to stand on my street was moved twice as the railway station moved down the street, only staying put once the railway station moved further away than they could feasibly roll a three storey brick structure.

In the north end, the most valuable residential land in the late 1800s was on whichever street happened to lead to the railway station at the time. It was considered a desirable luxury to be able to walk out your door and step onto a waiting passenger train. Of course this is before the trains actually went west so they just brought people back and forth as opposed to goods, but that's still a thing that happened.

The downtown cores with railway stations were the ones that grew the most, and the residential areas on the same side of downtown as the CP/Grand Trunk union station in particular were the ones that were the wealthiest.
__________________
Toronto/Hamilton: November 2016 + other photos / my geofiction / random things / skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:12 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Delta,Vancouver
Posts: 3,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
In Winnipeg, I think it's because the southwestern part of the city and downtown are on the same side of the tracks. It's the same in Regina: downtown is south of the railway. So is Brandon. And Saskatoon. Calgary breaks this trend, but downtown there is positioned between the railway and the river, and their wealthier area on the south side of the tracks is alone a picturesque creek so that was likely a selling point. (Thunder Bay's wealthiest inner-city neighbourhood is north of a downtown core, along a creek.) In Edmonton it looks like the wealthy areas are east and west of downtown along the river (prime real estate because of views and proximity to downtown), and the railway approaches from the south.
That sounds quite possible to me. Given how much of a barrier inner city railways are now, I can only imagine how much more so they must have been in these cities' early days. Being on the same side of the rails as downtown could have been a significant amenity and convenience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:16 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Ottawa is a bit of an exception to this rule. While the general pattern is somewhat there, there's lots of exceptions. Sandy Hill, Rockcliffe Park, and New Edinburgh are in the east and they're traditionally affluent, while Hintonburg and Lebreton (pre-demolition) are in the west and traditionally working-class.

Nowadays, Sandy Hill is a student/youth area and Hintonburg is gentrified but both trends are very recent (only in the last ~25 years) long after the prevailing winds of industry stopped being a factor.
Overall, the west end (Nepean, Kanata and Stittsville) is the wealthiest but there definitely are parts in the East end that are wealthy as well. Much of the newer parts of Orleans from what I could see are quite prosperous. But I really don't know of a considerably poor neighbourhood in Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 6:19 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Again because the rails came from the South first.

As railways enter a city and stopped until the next expansion {which in most of Canada meant coming from east and westward expansion}, the lines wouldd halt at the major city. At that point of tempoary terminus, the railways would need maintenance/sheds etc and businesses that relied on the railways also set up shop there. Of course the low income people that worked at the set up businesses built houses nearby. When the railroad eventually was built further westward, the urban scape of the city had been set as the Eastside being industrial and working class. It's working class element obviously had little political power so all the nicest amenities, homes, roads, parks etc were
built in the wealthier areas ie the Western part of the city.

Toronto is an exeption but the main east/west railway was built at the same time and was along the Lakeshore which, to prove my point, is why the poorer and older areas of the city are near the railway tracks and the areas furthest away are the wealthy older areas ie Rosedale, High Park, Forest Hill.

Canada is a huge country and the railways binded us together and also set the tone for our urban landscape.
I'm not sure if you were responding to me but the rail came here to Timmins from the East as the main line went from North Bay to Cochrane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 7:32 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,293
The western suburbs of Ottawa are more affluent than the eastern suburbs, but within the core there doesn't seem to be much difference. Like Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 9:19 PM
GernB GernB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lethbridge AB
Posts: 708
In Lethbridge the SE section of the city seems to be the most affluent, though some of the newer sections of the West are very nice. The North side has historically been the poorer part of town, going back to the city's origins in the coalmining industry, where management lived on the south side of the CPR tracks and the working class lived in the north, generally speaking. The west side had no urban development until the early 1970s, following the location of the U of L campus there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 10:17 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 11,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Ottawa is a bit of an exception to this rule. While the general pattern is somewhat there, there's lots of exceptions. Sandy Hill, Rockcliffe Park, and New Edinburgh are in the east and they're traditionally affluent, while Hintonburg and Lebreton (pre-demolition) are in the west and traditionally working-class.

Nowadays, Sandy Hill is a student/youth area and Hintonburg is gentrified but both trends are very recent (only in the last ~25 years) long after the prevailing winds of industry stopped being a factor.
Looking at the Ottawa as a whole, however, there is a very distinct "east - west" factor and west is indeed best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 10:20 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,293
Are Victoria and St. John's the exception to the rule?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 1:36 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Are Victoria and St. John's the exception to the rule?
St. John's is not a complete exception, it has the Waterford Valley in the SW, which is still an upscale area. But it's a partial exception as the East End is more dominantly upscale. The central and "north"/NW areas were poorer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 1:52 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pacific Canada
Posts: 6,420
I would also think that the idea of West as better would go back to old European cities; particularly London, where the West end was "better" and wealthier than the East End. These ideas became ingrained in our culture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 3:08 AM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,989
The wind blows from the west toward the east. The polluting factories were in the East End bacause of the prevailling wind. The same thing happened in Ontario and Quebec with the acid rain coming from the US, in the early 80's.
__________________
Montréal métropolitain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 3:51 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,293
Toronto's west end had a lot of industry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 3:56 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Because it's 2015.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 37,103
Thunder Bay's largest (and today, only) paper mill was built just outside the former Fort William city limits to the west, so the entire south end gets a broccoli smell when conditions are right. Combine that with the fact that Fort William is crisscrossed by railways, while Port Arthur has them all confined to a corridor along the waterfront, and you understand why Port Arthur is, and was, the wealthier of the two towns. Port Arthur actually built a street railway into Fort William to take advantage of employment there, and in the end, almost no industry developed near its residential areas except near the railways running along the lakeshore. Fort William, on the other hand, has several industrial parks within its urban fabric. Fort William is also under the flight path to the airport, while Port Arthur only has planes flying over it when there is an air show or something.

Port Arthur's one saving grace was the fact that it's border came to within 2km of Fort William's downtown core, so all the big box stores and the post-WWI port facilities were located in a swampy area south of the community but within its borders, which gave the town both a revenue source and the ability to keep industry away from homes. Fort William on the other hand completely built up its city limits by amalgamation—a result of that is that Fort William has more post-war apartment buildings than Port Arthur. The city's least dense residential neighbourhoods are in Port Arthur, and the densest are in Fort William.
__________________
Toronto/Hamilton: November 2016 + other photos / my geofiction / random things / skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 4:25 AM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,989
I'm talking about 1890-1900's . Nowadays there are no correlation.
__________________
Montréal métropolitain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 4:34 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal View Post
I'm talking about 1890-1900's . Nowadays there are no correlation.
There was a lot of industry in Toronto's west end in the late 19th and early 20th century. But "west is best" didn't apply in Toronto then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 5:15 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 7,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Looking at the Ottawa as a whole, however, there is a very distinct "east - west" factor and west is indeed best.
This only works when you consider newer areas of the city, developed after deindustrialization. Which goes against the prevailing winds idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 5:18 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Delta,Vancouver
Posts: 3,164
Prevailing winds do seem to be the accepted reason though. It's come up in my university classes a number of times.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 6:56 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 4,811
I don't think the prevailing winds have much to do with it at all. The first terminus area of the railways is where the lowest incomes and messiest parts are.

Look at Vancouver. The lines {obviously} come in from the East and stop just downtown on the Eastern section. This is where industry set up as well as low income housing for the people who worked there or in the new businesses that surrounded the tracks. The DTES isn't right beside the railway tracks for nothing. The rail lines could not be extended further west which subsequently meant this was were the wealthier were going to live and all the better urban amenities that go with it. The development of our railways set the tone for the development of our urban centres especially those that were founded at or near the time of the railway expansion.

In Canada, most cities can definately relate to "the west is best" because the railways and associated industries started in the eastern part of the city.
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 3:49 PM.

     

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