Should southern ontario be regarded as Canada's south?

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I think you're right about those observations. I have to agree from my travels. BTW, I have a friend who lives in Glencoe and had a good laugh when I read the location!

For about 3 years I dated a woman from the megalopolis to the south of Glencoe known as Dutton. That mustard yellow brick on homes makes me aware I'm getting close to the land of John Kenneth Galbreith. Glencoe I really only know from the train station that I could take to visit her.

[ssiguy]

My sister lives in nearby Wardsville.

Yes, yellow-brick homes are unique to the London region.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

My sister lives in nearby Wardsville.

Yes, yellow-brick homes are unique to the London region.

Buff brick is also very common on pre-WWI homes and factories in K-W and all surrounding communities. I believe I read somewhere once that it has to do with the lime content of the local clays used in brickmaking.

[ue]

No. Southern Canada is already somewhat defined, although you don't hear of it much when you're actually in Southern Canada because Canadians looking at the national scale tend to think more in east-west and regard the whole country as "the North". But for people in the Territories, and perhaps northern parts of Quebec and the Western provinces, there definitely is a divide between Northern and Southern Canada.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

My sister lives in nearby Wardsville.

Yes, yellow-brick homes are unique to the London region.

The Windsor area also has its share of yellow brick homes, definately not just unique to London.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I wouldn't say London is a creative centre. If anything, it's an old money kind of town.

Also, I would disagree about SW Ontario being overwhelmingly blue collar. Sarnia used to be one of the cities that had the highest percentage of people with a university degree, since many people with a chemical or mechanical engineering background worked in the petrochemical industry there. Windsor has some pockets of real wealth for a city of 300,000. There's a bit of a Grosse Pointe thing going on in Tecumseh.

I agree, yes, London is more white collar and Windsor is more blue collar, but London actually has a lot of factory jobs, and Windsor actually has a decent amount of white collar jobs. The two cities are actually more alike than either would want to admit, although Windsor is much more multicultural and London is much more waspy.

[flar]

The yellow (buff) brick is ubiquitous in a swath from about Petrolia in the west, to Paris in the east. It's the defining characteristic of homes in many towns, including places like Glencoe or Woodstock where practically every building uses yellow brick.

London is a brick city, but brick houses are actually not that common in a lot of SW Ontario, except for the grandest homes. Most regular houses have wood siding. This is something in common with Michigan.

Typical 1.5 storey wood house of sw ontario.



Fancy wood house in sw ontario.

[MonctonRad]

Those houses would not look out of place in the Maritimes.

[kwoldtimer]

Houses like those would be the exception rather than the rule in K-W, which is all about brick. That said, Kitchener's oldest extant house, the Joseph Schneider Haus (circa 1816) is a wood house in Mennonite Georgian style.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by someone123

This might not be news to anyone but the projections commonly used for Canadian maps tend to exaggerate the degree to which parts of Ontario are lower in latitude than other parts of the country.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92-195-...te/m-c-eng.htm

Most Canadians travelling to Windsor would go east or west more than they'd head south.

I'd also add that the fact there isn't much logging, french canadians, mining, etc make it relatively distinct from typical regions of rural canada.

Ontario is very clearly divided between the north and south.

The obvious divide is the transition from Canadian shield and the regions of the great lakes.

However I think there is a big distinction between regions around peterborough(which could pass for anywhere in newbrunswick/quebec/nova scotia and the area's south of Toronto.


I really believe the current distinction is either Ontario centric, or Ontario ignorant.

[Stryker]

100 bucks if you can tell me where I think southern canada is.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have always considered SWO as being Essex, Kent, Lambton, Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford, Perth, and Huron but not KWC and certainly not Grey or Bruce. They are far too removed and SWO undisputed centre is London and people that far "north" don't go to London for medical, government, health, shopping, or entertainment as it is too far and would be just as fast to get to Toronto. I have always called that whole region including Simcoe & Parry Sound as Georgian Bay. The climate is also very different.

Ya London has some blue collar but still has that old wealth mentality and smugness. That said it has always been a Liberal party bastion both federally and provincially. Like many old wealth places, the people are conservative in their lifestyle but progressive on social issues.

I don't think Trump would have any significant support in SWO. The difference between Michigan and SWO is clear as soon as you cross the border. There would be small pockets like there would be anywhere in the country but still very little and absolutely none in London or Windsor.

Your definition is too limited. K-C-W and Guelph are definitely SWO and have always so considered themselves, so you'd need to add Waterloo, Wellington and Brant counties to those you listed (Brantford also being in SWO). I agree that London has always been the regional government centre for SWO - still is for many health needs as far as K-C-W is concerned, although Hamilton plays a role in that regard as well.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stryker

100 bucks if you can tell me where I think southern canada is.

The "white, not green" Windsor-QuebecCity corridor...?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

The "white, not green" Windsor-QuebecCity corridor...?

Clearly it's the large subtropical region centered around Maple Creek.

(You can find "managed forest" in Costa Rica. The presence of forest doesn't imply that a place is more northern.)

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by someone123

Clearly it's the large subtropical region centered around Maple Creek.

(You can find "managed forest" in Costa Rica. The presence of forest doesn't imply that a place is more northern.)

There isn't much forest at all in the southern Prairies and their semi-arid climate.

Although the central areas in the Aspen Parkland have mostly unmanaged forests amidst the grassland...the real "prairie" is mainly in the southern areas.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

(You can find "managed forest" in Costa Rica. The presence of forest doesn't imply that a place is more northern.)

For a northern country, kind of, yes. If you look at countries like Sweden and Canada you can see a pretty clear correlation between areas where rural = agriculture being "the south" and areas where rural = forest being "the north".

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

For a northern country, kind of, yes. If you look at countries like Sweden and Canada you can see a pretty clear correlation between areas where rural = agriculture being "the south" and areas where rural = forest being "the north".

There is some correlation but the presence of agriculture depends on both the climate and geology. Geology doesn't depend on latitude and climate is only weakly determined by latitude.

Edmonton is one of the coldest major cities in Canada but it is surrounded by farmland. A lot of BC is mild but has poor or nonexistent soil that is unsuitable for agriculture. The same is true in the Maritimes; the best agricultural parts are in the middle, not the south. I believe the agricultural lands in central Alberta might also be more productive than the arid south. And you can find farms in the Yukon.

Most of Canada is boreal forest, is on the Canadian shield which is unsuitable for agriculture, and is farther north than some other part of Canada with different geology. That is where most of the correlation comes from; a single geological region. Around the southern parts of Canada where most people live other factors are more important than latitude.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

There isn't much forest at all in the southern Prairies and their semi-arid climate.

Although the central areas in the Aspen Parkland have mostly unmanaged forests amidst the grassland...the real "prairie" is mainly in the southern areas.

And that is distinctly the west/prairies

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by Stryker

100 bucks if you can tell me where I think southern canada is.

If I wanted to describe canada to someone this is very clearly the map I'd uses. And I think you'd be hard pressed to explain why "southern" ontario isn't considered southern canada.

[north 42]

The forests of Southwestern Ontario are also very different from the rest of Canada, being broad leaf forests.