U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-22-2016, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,792 posts, read 9,432,166 times
Reputation: 6153

Advertisements

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...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2016, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,360,351 times
Reputation: 8603
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,792 posts, read 9,432,166 times
Reputation: 6153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,593 posts, read 11,082,415 times
Reputation: 10306
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2016, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,792 posts, read 9,432,166 times
Reputation: 6153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,593 posts, read 11,082,415 times
Reputation: 10306
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,947 posts, read 27,360,351 times
Reputation: 8603
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top