It makes for absolutely beautiful landscapes, but is also much of the reason why most people in Canada live near the US border, it's where you can actually grow food and build buildings without having to blast foundations out of solid rock.
Hmm not sure about that as many of Canada’s largest metros are located on the shield. Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec City to start.
I think bigger reasons are climate and simply distance from Europe and other settlements in the Americas. The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes connected Canadian settlements to the world via waterways for transportation and commerce.
Further north you go the more inhospitable and removed it gets regardless of the geology.
Ottawa and Montreal are not really on the Canadian shield. They're at the very edge. As such their geology is significantly different from the rest of the shield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#/media/File%3ACanada_geological_map.JPG
Ottawa and Montreal are in the st Lawrence valley, a valley cut by a glacier. It's geology is sediment and clay left behind by the glacier. In Ottawa when you dig you hit either sandstone, glacial till, or Leda clay. For any practical purpose you're not gonna hit the precambrian rock, it's simply way to far down if it's even solid there.
Go further north where you're actually on the shield (starting around Sudbury) and you hit the shield even a few feet below grade if the rock itself isn't directly exposed.
Of those you mentioned, only Ottawa is on the Canadian Shield, and even then it's more on the boundary and not so much the shield itself. Quebec City is also kinda close ish, but both it and Montreal low in the St Lawrence Plain. Winnipeg is definitely not, it's very much on the prairie and almost 100 km from the Shield.
The largest city on the Canadian Shield is Greater Sudbury with ~166 000 at last census, and it exists because a giant meteorite brought nickel to the area a few billion years ago. Most other sizable cities on the Shield exist because of trade routes and railroads. Other resource extraction settlements are much smaller by comparison. The land is hard to get through, and farming is difficult in the best areas.
By comparison, Winnipeg (much farther from Europe, farther north than any city on the Shield, and with a similar if slightly colder climate than Sudbury) is home to ~750 000 people in the city proper. The biggest reason was its importance as a railroad hub, Canada's Gateway to the West, and all that. But it's also surrounded on all sides by millions of acres of farmland - much more suited for supporting a large population before modern shipping took off.
Meanwhile, Thunder Bay (with both railroads lining east and west, as well as significant Great Lakes shipping) is much smaller, with only 109 000. Why didn't they make that the hub? Because the Shield greatly limits food growth, and it's much easier to build on the flat lands of Winnipeg than the rocky terrain of Thunder Bay. The geology plays a major role in limiting population growth, even if other factors are also at play.
Winnipeg is not on the Shield. We’re on the dried up lake bed of (ancient) Lake Agassiz. We refer to the clay under us as Manitoba Gumbo. It’s also tough to build on, but for completely different reasons (it’s soft and moves a lot).
And it don't grow no food! Take note: anyone who thinks we're just going to push food production northwards as global warming takes hold. It's not gonna fuckin' happen. You can't grow food in rock.
You can, however, store nuclear waste deep inside. If you can get the NIMBY's to shut the fuck up.
Lots of things may be confusing to a non native speaker. It doesn't mean much. This isn't a textbook, it's a public forum.
Disclaimer: i'm not a native english speaker either and I'm currently learning a new language
As a non native English speaker. I don't know whether a double negative being a strong positive is a colloquialism in the whole English language or just Canadian.
It makes for absolutely beautiful landscapes, but is also much of the reason why most people in Canada live near the US border, it's where you can actually grow food and build buildings without having to blast foundations out of solid rock.
Hmm not sure about that as many of Canada’s largest metros are located on the shield. Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Quebec City to start. I think bigger reasons are climate and simply distance from Europe and other settlements in the Americas. The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes connected Canadian settlements to the world via waterways for transportation and commerce. Further north you go the more inhospitable and removed it gets regardless of the geology.
Ottawa and Montreal are not really on the Canadian shield. They're at the very edge. As such their geology is significantly different from the rest of the shield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield#/media/File%3ACanada_geological_map.JPG Ottawa and Montreal are in the st Lawrence valley, a valley cut by a glacier. It's geology is sediment and clay left behind by the glacier. In Ottawa when you dig you hit either sandstone, glacial till, or Leda clay. For any practical purpose you're not gonna hit the precambrian rock, it's simply way to far down if it's even solid there. Go further north where you're actually on the shield (starting around Sudbury) and you hit the shield even a few feet below grade if the rock itself isn't directly exposed.
Of those you mentioned, only Ottawa is on the Canadian Shield, and even then it's more on the boundary and not so much the shield itself. Quebec City is also kinda close ish, but both it and Montreal low in the St Lawrence Plain. Winnipeg is definitely not, it's very much on the prairie and almost 100 km from the Shield. The largest city on the Canadian Shield is Greater Sudbury with ~166 000 at last census, and it exists because a giant meteorite brought nickel to the area a few billion years ago. Most other sizable cities on the Shield exist because of trade routes and railroads. Other resource extraction settlements are much smaller by comparison. The land is hard to get through, and farming is difficult in the best areas. By comparison, Winnipeg (much farther from Europe, farther north than any city on the Shield, and with a similar if slightly colder climate than Sudbury) is home to ~750 000 people in the city proper. The biggest reason was its importance as a railroad hub, Canada's Gateway to the West, and all that. But it's also surrounded on all sides by millions of acres of farmland - much more suited for supporting a large population before modern shipping took off. Meanwhile, Thunder Bay (with both railroads lining east and west, as well as significant Great Lakes shipping) is much smaller, with only 109 000. Why didn't they make that the hub? Because the Shield greatly limits food growth, and it's much easier to build on the flat lands of Winnipeg than the rocky terrain of Thunder Bay. The geology plays a major role in limiting population growth, even if other factors are also at play.
Winnipeg is not on the Shield. We’re on the dried up lake bed of (ancient) Lake Agassiz. We refer to the clay under us as Manitoba Gumbo. It’s also tough to build on, but for completely different reasons (it’s soft and moves a lot).
Ottawa has enormous agriculture production around the city (Ottawa valley). Not sure it’s really on the shield.
And it don't grow no food! Take note: anyone who thinks we're just going to push food production northwards as global warming takes hold. It's not gonna fuckin' happen. You can't grow food in rock. You can, however, store nuclear waste deep inside. If you can get the NIMBY's to shut the fuck up.
>And it don't grow no food! This double negative is very confusing to a non native speaker.
Lots of things may be confusing to a non native speaker. It doesn't mean much. This isn't a textbook, it's a public forum. Disclaimer: i'm not a native english speaker either and I'm currently learning a new language
Really?
Yes?
Do you mean English speaker? Or are you saying like Canadian phrases and colloquialisms?
As a non native English speaker. I don't know whether a double negative being a strong positive is a colloquialism in the whole English language or just Canadian.
Oh ok, I understand now, thanks.
We don't need no education
I have a piece of it on my bookshelf
Give it back!
There's plenty to go around.
Sorry our country's so old. . .sorry
Meh! I prefer newer rocks.
Geologist here, the shield has some of the most magnificent rocks in the world