Ontario land use is problematic, Quebec's is better (agricultural, transportation)

[cBach]

If you look at the pattern of development for Ontario, all of the productive farmland happens to be where all the major cities are.

For Quebec, the major cities are not necessarily in the best farming locations: Montreal was an island and Quebec sits right on the edge of the Canadian Shield, whereas the productive farmland (south of the St. Lawrence) is mainly rural and agricultural.

Wouldn't Midland Ontario have been the best location for Toronto? Still on the Great Lakes but slightly north of the most productive farmland? Maybe the sprawl would have occurred from Midland to Perry Sound?

Why was Quebec more "clever" in their settlement establishment?

I know weather is a factor but Midland would still be warmer than Quebec City...

[Acajack]

If indeed Quebec has had better outcomes, it's almost purely due to luck.


Both provinces have been historically bad at preventing urban sprawl from gobbling up valuable farmland. Ontario started tightening things up before Quebec did, and has been more stringent as well.


BTW, Montreal island was very fertile farmland before it was urbanized.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If indeed Quebec has had better outcomes, it's almost purely due to luck.


Both provinces have been historically bad at preventing urban sprawl from gobbling up valuable farmland. Ontario started tightening things up before Quebec did, and has been more stringent as well.


BTW, Montreal island was very fertile farmland before it was urbanized.

But Quebec City & Trois-Rivieres are on the north side. The "plain" is very short before the Canadian Shield. In QC the Canadian Shield is an important element dividing the town from the Old Town to the New Town with transportation provided via funicular. In the past, this area wouldn't have been a great agricultural area. In contrast, Ile D'Orleans is very lush and verdant and boasts abundant crops. In theory they could have placed Quebec City on Ile D'Orleans, it would have been easier. However, I'm glad they didn't.

[mikeyyc]

It's more defensible on top of a cliff than on an island in the middle of the river.


You have to remember these cities were established long before cities were even a thing in North America.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by mikeyyc

It's more defensible on top of a cliff than on an island in the middle of the river.


You have to remember these cities were established long before cities were even a thing in North America.

What's the reason for putting Montreal in the middle of a river then? Seems like it should have been on the north shore as well.

[mikeyyc]

Originally Posted by cBach

What's the reason for putting Montreal in the middle of a river then? Seems like it should have been on the north shore as well.

Ok Jon Snow...


a. Montreal is up-river from Quebec, so you had to go through Quebec and the narrows to get there.
b. The actual island is larger, the river more narrow, and there are defensible heights, in fact where the original native villages were.


I get what you're trying to do, but your exercise is more like flinging stuff against the wall to see what sticks, rather than having a well thought-out idea based on even a minute level of research and insight.

[Acajack]

Montreal was and is a really good location for a city, for a number of reasons. It's not a mystery as to why there is a big city right there.