So what are Canada's 18 hour cities?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The difference between brick and wood is something you notice a lot in Kingston.

There is a big north-south divide here. The northern half of the pre-war city is full of wood, the southern half is full of more typically Ontarian brick and stone.

Here's some typical streetscapes from the northern half:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.23597...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.23578...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.23580...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.24164...7i13312!8i6656

That's similar to Saint John, with the northern parts being mostly wood (and looking very similar to Halifax) and the south end largely brick.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Oh I have no idea. I honestly didn't know which was considered which as I've never heard of the smaller Ont. cities having either especially poor or especially good economies or climates (other than Windsor which is supposedly quite mild).

Windsor likely has the best climate in Eastern Canada, but I'm not sure I would put any of Ontario's top three cities ahead of Halifax.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The only reason they moved back is (you guessed it) as their kids approached their teen years they started speaking only English between themselves and saying stuff like "fuck this French shit, I ain't gonna speak it no more", and so they decided to move back home to Quebec...

I think it would also annoy me if my kids weren't able to speak French.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Hamilton has nowhere to go but up, and probably in a decade or two it'll be more of a toss-up between the two cities. To be honest, I considered moving to Hamilton before I moved to Halifax.

I don't know much about Hamilton but it's pretty unique and interesting in a Canadian context. If it becomes attractive to people who want to live in an urban setting but can't afford Toronto I could see it changing really dramatically within a short period of time.

They also have GO trains and LRT, which highlights one big difference between Ontario and Halifax/NS. In Nova Scotia, rural areas hold the balance of power (although it's getting close) and tend to veto any big ticket urban infrastructure that is for the big, bad city. In Ontario there are lots of cities and the province invests in them, although up until recently it still hasn't been enough. Ontario's track record is poor and Nova Scotia's is atrocious.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Windsor likely has the best climate in Eastern Canada, but I'm not sure I would put any of Ontario's top three cities ahead of Halifax.

People assume Halifax is much worse when it's comparable or better. Winters in Halifax and Windsor are about on par. Windsor is basically the warmest point in Ontario and Halifax is roughly an "average" place in the middle of NS, though not many people live along the parts of the South Shore that are appreciably milder (they are nice but rural).

I consider preferences between the better parts of Ontario and NS a tossup. If you like hot summer weather, you will like Ontario more for sure. If you like mild summer weather with better air quality, you will like NS more.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't know much about Hamilton but it's pretty unique and interesting in a Canadian context. If it becomes attractive to people who want to live in an urban setting but can't afford Toronto I could see it changing really dramatically within a short period of time.

They also have GO trains and LRT, which highlights one big difference between Ontario and Halifax/NS. In Nova Scotia, rural areas hold the balance of power (although it's getting close) and tend to veto any big ticket urban infrastructure that is for the big, bad city. In Ontario there are lots of cities and the province invests in them, although up until recently it still hasn't been enough. Ontario's track record is poor and Nova Scotia's is atrocious.

Municipally rural runs Hamilton. Well, rural and suburban.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by someone123

They also have GO trains and LRT, which highlights one big difference between Ontario and Halifax/NS. In Nova Scotia, rural areas hold the balance of power (although it's getting close) and tend to veto any big ticket urban infrastructure that is for the big, bad city. In Ontario there are lots of cities and the province invests in them, although up until recently it still hasn't been enough. Ontario's track record is poor and Nova Scotia's is atrocious.

In Ontario it's actually starting to flip the other way. Urban areas have all the political power and it's only getting more and more dramatic, to the point where the rural citizens are starting to be the ones getting fucked over.

The Ontario Liberals have a majority. Of their majority caucus of 59 members, 57 of them are from urban or mostly urban ridings. And the other 2 represent areas that more exurban than rural anyway.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In Ontario it's actually starting to flip the other way. Urban areas have all the political power and it's only getting more and more dramatic, to the point where the rural citizens are starting to be the ones getting fucked over.

The Ontario Liberals have a majority. Of their majority caucus of 59 members, 57 of them are from urban or mostly urban ridings. And the other 2 represent areas that more exurban than rural anyway.

It is reminiscent of blue states with red rural areas, like Illinois, New York, Minnesota and Maryland. In those states, the urban area has enough power to ensure that Democrats usually have at least partial power, with full power (Governor + legislature) more often than not. The rural areas of those states, which are mostly conservative Republicans, are often ignored.

The inverse happens in many other states, though, where blue urban areas cannot overpower red rural areas. Urban infrastructure rarely gets funded at state levels in those states without federal funding, since they would be unpopular to their own constituents.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think it would also annoy me if my kids weren't able to speak French.

Well, not everyone cares about this as we all know but it's nonetheless an extremely widespread sentiment. The vast majority of Quebecers likely share it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I wouldn't really call it an Ontario-Quebec thing. It seems to vary from city to city. Thunder Bay has housing more akin to Gatineau than to Ottawa for the historical parts. I'd call it an industrial working class to middle class split, with Hamilton being an oddball.

Yeah, I guess. It seems more like it's most common in company towns where the expectation was the settlement might or might not be permanent. So things were built as bare-bones as possible. Many cities and towns in Northern Ontario are like this, as if ''why build a nice town when it might be packed up and shut down one day fairly soon?".

Whereas, even in a city like Montreal, the older very proletarian areas don't really have that temporary, half-assed look. It's kind of like everyone knew that that city was there to stay.

[Razor]

^ Well said Ackajack..Especially Montreal having a sense of place from the get go.

re: mining/company towns that were half hazardly built without set-backs etc.

If you told the founding fathers of say Timmins for example, that one day "this"mining camp would transform into a regional service centre of some 45,000 inhabitants, they wouldn't of believed it.

Northern Ontario is isolated, so even a city as small as Timmins can be considered large in the same way Yellowknife or Whitehorse are considered large centres for the Territories.

[Acajack]

For example, the classic ''poor'' neighbourhoods in Montreal, like St-Henri, still have lots of stuff like this. None of these districts started out rich before becoming pauperized. They were always working class at best. I don't even think there was ever any thought that they might be gentrified one day (as is happening to many of them now).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Razor

^ Well said Ackajack..Especially Montreal having a sense of place from the get go.

re: mining/company towns that were half hazardly built without set-backs etc.

If you told the founding fathers of say Timmins for example, that one day "this"mining camp would transform into a regional service centre of some 45,000 inhabitants, they wouldn't of believed it.

Northern Ontario is isolated, so even a city as small as Timmins can be considered large in the same way Yellowknife or Whitehorse are considered large centres for the Territories.

Timmins is actually one of the cities I had in mind for this. And I think the ''temporary mindset'' still pervades things to this day in such places. Even national and international companies that set up shop in these types of cities still build crap there that they would never dare build in Oakville or West Vancouver.

I see this in Quebec too. The same companies that build crap here in Gatineau will build nicer stuff in places like Quebec City of Montreal, or even smaller towns like Baie-St-Paul, St-Sauveur or Bromont. In some cases it's because of local bylaws on aesthetics, but not always.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, I guess. It seems more like it's most common in company towns where the expectation was the settlement might or might not be permanent. So things were built as bare-bones as possible. Many cities and towns in Northern Ontario are like this, as if ''why build a nice town when it might be packed up and shut down one day fairly soon?".

One interesting thing in the Maritimes is that both brick and wood (or apparently-wooden) structures run the gamut from low to high quality. The elaborate wooden Victorians were seen as fashionable at one point, to the point where some people who would have afforded to build out of brick would have chosen a decorated wooden exterior, and many of the houses in places like Halifax's South End have wooden shingles over masonry structural walls. Wooden common walls were banned early on even in many North American cities.

Conversely there are brick rowhouses that, while they have proven to be pretty resilient, were considered basic when they were first built. And of course there are low end wooden structures, the worst of which largely haven't survived. A structure has to be pretty good to survive for 150 years. There is a great survivor bias in terms of the historic buildings that have made it to the present day.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Timmins is actually one of the cities I had in mind for this. And I think the ''temporary mindset'' still pervades things to this day in such places.

If you have ever been to Schumacher, which is basically an adjoining town to Timmins, you would see the worse case of planning ever..Houses built wherever they could slap them up..

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Razor

If you have ever been to Schumacher, which is basically an adjoining town to Timmins, you would see the worse case of planning ever..Houses built wherever they could slap them up..

Yes, it was originally a place with a lot of immigrants and squatters. Definitely not a planned community like most mining towns. Even today it has a lot of low-income people and sometimes homeless people are found in the abandoned buildings.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Timmins is actually one of the cities I had in mind for this. And I think the ''temporary mindset'' still pervades things to this day in such places. Even national and international companies that set up shop in these types of cities still build crap there that they would never dare build in Oakville or West Vancouver.

I see this in Quebec too. The same companies that build crap here in Gatineau will build nicer stuff in places like Quebec City of Montreal, or even smaller towns like Baie-St-Paul, St-Sauveur or Bromont. In some cases it's because of local bylaws on aesthetics, but not always.

Yes, even today there is still some of the "temporary mindset" here in Timmins but now most people know it won't become a ghost town. The city definitely isn't attractive within it's urban core but we at least have lots of nature close by.

I agree that a lot of companies who build nice things elsewhere will build crap in Timmins. Same with both levels of government. For example, you will see government buildings down South with lots of landscaping and interesting architecture while in Timmins there is little to no landscaping and the buildings are quite boring.

[vid]

With few exceptions (Thunder Bay, Fort Frances, Sault Ste. Marie) most communities in Northern Ontario were never intended to be permanent settlements. They were created solely as a result of mining or forestry operations, and that led to their haphazard development, shortsightedness and population busts.

• Video Link

While the forefathers of Timmins would never envision it to be a city as large as it is today, the forefathers of Thunder Bay believed they were building the next Chicago. In the North end especially, the city agressively built hundreds of streets over a large area which didn't completely fill in with development until at recently as the early 1990s, and dozens more are surveyed but not opened for development further north of those.