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.
The nearest mountains to Southern Ontario would be across the border in NY state just south of Buffalo where you hit the Allegheny Mountain range. There is some skiing there in Ellicottville, NY. There's also a ski resort near Collingwood, Ontario but those are just small hills.
The Niagara Escarpment creates some scenic hills and nice hiking areas with scenic views. The town of Dundas, Ontario (just north of Hamilton and technically part of the city) has the feel of a valley town as it is situated at the foot of the escarpment. There are beautiful waterfalls in that area, and you can hike the Bruce Trail which runs along the escarpment. As was mentioned before, the escarpment runs up towards Milton. It also heads south through the Niagara Peninsula. It's only something like 250 feet high though, so it's definitely not a mountain.
Evidently the op's topic isnt about skiing in the Toronto area but more about why Toronto doesnt have a mountain in the middle of town like Montreal does..
Well Toronto is just disappointing when it comes to scenery compared to Montreal. Montreal has Mont Royal and the St. Lawrence river on either side of the island, the Laurentians just a short drive to the north and you can see the foothills of the Appalachians just south of the city, from Mont Royal you can see them. It's got a very scenic geographical location. Toronto has the lake and some nice bluffs nearby, but that's about it. It's endless sprawling suburbia on flat, boring terrain with nothing but a few nondescript river valleys like the Don and the Credit to break it up. You have to travel at least 50 km out of town to hit some hilly terrain near Milton or Georgetown, and there's no large rivers running through the area either. Cottage country is quite far to the north, too.
My response was to J4J, who is not originated from this continent. I'm trying to let J4J know that what she thinks are mountains are not really mountains. I trust that all Canadians reading this topic already are fully aware that the mid and eastern parts of the continent have no real mountains.
.
That is totally wrong. Appalachia has lots of `Real mountains`. I have visited and hiked Mt. Washington in NH many times in my life and it is one big and beautiful freakin mountain no matter what you think. WV is called the Mountain state for a reason. I would bet you have never seen Mt. Airy in NC either. It is a monster size mountain. I guess that you think a big freakin rock that rises 5000 ft. above it`s base is the only kind of mountain that exists, LOL. Many of the big eastern mountain rise 5000 ft. from their base and are 50 times bigger than your average rocky mountain.
That is totally wrong. Appalachia has lots of `Real mountains`. I have visited and hiked Mt. Washington in NH many times in my life and it is one big and beautiful freakin mountain no matter what you think. WV is called the Mountain state for a reason. I would bet you have never seen Mt. Airy in NC either. It is a monster size mountain. I guess that you think a big freakin rock that rises 5000 ft. above it`s base is the only kind of mountain that exists, LOL. Many of the big eastern mountain rise 5000 ft. from their base and are 50 times bigger than your average rocky mountain.
5,000 feet is just a baby mountain. That's only 1,524 meters.
Like I said before, the higher peaks in the west all range between 2,300 to 6,200 meters. That's between 7,546 to 20,340+ feet and there's more than 200 high peaks like that in the west. There are many, many hundreds more mountains in the west that are smaller than 7,000 feet. 5,000 feet they are baby mountains. Anything less than 2,000 feet is just a hill. I know people call them mountains but really they are just hills.
Sorry - I guess it's all a matter of perspective and semantics.
I looked it up. Highest peak in the Great Smokies is Clingman's Dome at 6,643 ft / 2,025 m. They look a lot like the lower elevation coastal rainforest mountains in the west which get the same vapours rising from them and have similar climate characteristics.
5,000 feet is just a baby mountain. That's only 1,524 meters.
Like I said before, the higher peaks in the west all range between 2,300 to 6,200 meters. That's between 7,546 to 20,340+ feet and there's more than 200 high peaks like that in the west. There are many, many hundreds more mountains in the west that are smaller than 7,000 feet. 5,000 feet they are baby mountains. Anything less than 2,000 feet is just a hill. I know people call them mountains but really they are just hills.
Sorry - I guess it's all a matter of perspective and semantics.
.
You are missing a very important concept. When I'm travelling across the plains of Wyoming I'm already at 6000 ft. elevation. In your analysis a 3000 ft. hill would be a big mountain because it's peak would be 9,000 ft. In Banff the peaks are around 10,000 ft. but the base of the mountain is over 5000 ft. The actual mountain it's self is 5000 ft. from base to summit. The "Prominence" or difference in elevation between the base and the summit of a mountain is the true measure of the size of a mountain. In the case of Mt. Washington in NH. the prominence is 6148 ft. That is no baby maintain to be sure.
Have you ever been to Whistler? I have many times. Mt. Garibaldi is a good example of one of those big western mountains you are talking about. Well, the truth of the matter is that the prominence of that big rocky chunk of stone is 2805 ft. It's not even close to the size of the big peaks in the East. My only conclusion about your comments regarding the eastern "Hills" is that you have never climbed one.
You are missing a very important concept. When I'm travelling across the plains of Wyoming I'm already at 6000 ft. elevation. In your analysis a 3000 ft. hill would be a big mountain because it's peak would be 9,000 ft. In Banff the peaks are around 10,000 ft. but the base of the mountain is over 5000 ft. The actual mountain it's self is 5000 ft. from base to summit. The "Prominence" or difference in elevation between the base and the summit of a mountain is the true measure of the size of a mountain. In the case of Mt. Washington in NH. the prominence is 6148 ft. That is no baby maintain to be sure.
Have you ever been to Whistler? I have many times. Mt. Garibaldi is a good example of one of those big western mountains you are talking about. Well, the truth of the matter is that the prominence of that big rocky chunk of stone is 2805 ft. It's not even close t"o the size of the big peaks in the East. My only conclusion about your comments regarding the eastern "Hills" is that you have never climbed one.
Prominence isn't (usually) the distance between peak and valley, it's the "the minimum height of climb to the summit on any route from a higher peak". Everest doesn't have a higher peak, so it's prominence is the same as its height...but its base is much higher than sea level.
The valley to peak distance for Washington is closer to 4000 feet. Impressive relief though.
I definitely consider the Appalachians to be "real" mountains. They remind me of the mountains around Rossland BC....and the skiing at the bigger New England hills is really good.
There are a lot of ski areas that can be reached easily from Toronto. The freeride terrain is pretty tame, so most strong skiers will join a race club or play in the park to keep things interesting.
Blue Mountain in Collingwood is probably the most famous ski resort. I have never been, but I have heard that it can be crowded and expensive.....but at least you get out there.
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.
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.
