[drum118]

The city is shooting themselves in the foot for increasing density to support for both the Dundas BRT and Hurontario LRT

Going to Planning Committee on December 09 and part of another items

 

[rdaner]

^Why? Isn’t that how it works?

 

[ben.thebean1]

^Why? Isn’t that how it works?

IMO this needed to be a true subway line. Badly. I'd bet the LRT is going to be pushing its capacity limit within a few years. And now that we have the LRT, we're not going to see the necessary transit expansion along this route to accommodate for how many people will flock to the Hurontario corridor in the next 10 years.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Are there protections for platform extensions on this line?

 

[sixrings]

^Why? Isn’t that how it works?

I think based on previous conversations drum wants to see the whole city getting denser not just the city centre and these couple transit routes. I think one of the concerns is if the rest of the city doesn’t get denser then it will always be a challenge to run transit routes. My take is if transit is important to you then you will choose to live in these few areas and even better MCC could be so dense you just walk most of the time.

 

[Dan416]

I haven't gone through the details here, but a map I was looking at the other day really limits what properties are are part of the MTSA zoning and a lot of properties very close to Hurontario happen to be excluded. I'm sure it's political. But I think if any developer challenges it, it would be hard for the city to defend why some properties that close to Hurontario aren't zoned for very high development. In the current market I don't think it'll be an issue, but once new projects start getting underway again.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

I haven't gone through the details here, but a map I was looking at the other day really limits what properties are are part of the MTSA zoning and a lot of properties very close to Hurontario happen to be excluded. I'm sure it's political. But I think if any developer challenges it, it would be hard for the city to defend why some properties that close to Hurontario aren't zoned for very high development. In the current market I don't think it'll be an issue, but once new projects start getting underway again.

The document linked above in the original post by drum has some more detailed maps from page 108 onwards. It shows the min/max number of stories per block across Mississauga’s MTSAs, where some have recently been increased.

But yes, what’s missing is rationale as to why some areas are so heavily restricted. This one for instance:

We all know these are “prestigious” neighbourhoods full of NIMBYs, but I’m interested to hear the city explain their way out of this.

 

[sixrings]

The document linked above in the original post by drum has some more detailed maps from page 108 onwards. It shows the min/max number of stories per block across Mississauga’s MTSAs, where some have recently been increased.

But yes, what’s missing is rationale as to why some areas are so heavily restricted. This one for instance:
View attachment 616733
We all know these are “prestigious” neighbourhoods full of NIMBYs, but I’m interested to hear the city explain their way out of this.

I mean why would we have significant density at the only all day go station in Mississauga? But I believe when I questioned tie a year or so ago I was told not everywhere needs to be Hong Kong.

Once again this is why port credit could never have been the city centre. There’s just too many nimbys.

 

[Dan416]

I get why Mineola is protected. I was referring more to the Fairview map, and how much is excluded, e.g. the SFDs on the west side. This one is extremely lopsided.

 

[just east of the creek]

The document linked above in the original post by drum has some more detailed maps from page 108 onwards. It shows the min/max number of stories per block across Mississauga’s MTSAs, where some have recently been increased.

But yes, what’s missing is rationale as to why some areas are so heavily restricted. This one for instance:
View attachment 616733
We all know these are “prestigious” neighbourhoods full of NIMBYs, but I’m interested to hear the city explain their way out of this.

I don’t really see any issue with the old village, south of the railway line. Their are legacy towers interspersed with new tower building, and 2 -10 and 2-15 is not horrible in other areas is not bad. And the 1-4 area just east of the river park is the arena, the Anglican Church and churchyard cemetery, library etc. You have a meld of the older town with the newer, and not all of the newer is towers, or needs to be.

But I share your thoughts on the Hurontario corridor. That does not make sense. Although the Unitarian lands have some historical protections I believe ( but not 100% certain, and this goes back a long time)

 

[reinventingthewheel]

I don’t really see any issue with the old village, south of the railway line. Their are legacy towers interspersed with new tower building, and 2 -10 and 2-15 is not horrible in other areas is not bad. And the 1-4 area just east of the river park is the arena, the Anglican Church and churchyard cemetery, library etc. You have a meld of the older town with the newer, and not all of the newer is towers, or needs to be.

But I share your thoughts on the Hurontario corridor. That does not make sense. Although the Unitarian lands have some historical protections I believe ( but not 100% certain, and this goes back a long time)

Upon closer inspection, I agree.

 

[sixrings]

You guys don’t have a problem with basically 15 floors max at port credit that has all day go train service with the exception of a few towers. Meanwhile they’re proposing 50 at cooksville without all day go train service and 70s at MCC with zero go train service? That’s an interesting perspective.