News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Since Hurontario is apparently such a typical suburban corridor and the density of Mississauga is not in any way above and beyond that
of the average 905 suburb - perhaps even below average by 905 standards, based on these comparisons with Newmarket of all places - I
decided to title the following photo as "The Canadian Suburb."
p1016997105-5.jpg

http://photongo.zenfolio.com/mississauga/h3c9e24f1#h3c9e24f1

I guess there is no point in the greenbelt after all. And here I was worried for no reason. What a relief. The 905 just needs to continue the
same development patterns and everything be fine.
 
Last edited:
If that was a Canadian Suburb, the country's population must've hit 200 mil already! Where have I been?!! Wait... something has to be wrong. :confused:
 
It may have been the first to intensify in any real way, but it's hardly the only 905 city to be intensifying anymore. Mississauga's density is mostly attributed to the fact that it's 100% developed. At a density of about 2300 people/km square (2006), it is comparable to Newmarket, 2100 people/kmsq (2009), which is the only other built out 905 municipality.
doady did a good job of detailing the amount of industrial/airport land that would skew the density numbers downwards. Not only is Mississauga's residential area far more dense, it is not 100% developed either. There are large tracts of land and many empty properties in areas that would be earmarked for higher density development. Mississauga could easily add in the entire population of Newmarket within the Hwy10/MCC corridor alone.
 
Since Hurontario is apparently such a typical suburban corridor and the density of Mississauga is not in any way above and beyond that
of the average 905 suburb - perhaps even below average by 905 standards, based on these comparisons with Newmarket of all places - I
decided to title the following photo as "The Canadian Suburb."

Not so fast, Newmarket has 6 high-rises. :eek:

:)
 
It may have been the first to intensify in any real way, but it's hardly the only 905 city to be intensifying anymore. Mississauga's density is mostly attributed to the fact that it's 100% developed. At a density of about 2300 people/km square (2006), it is comparable to Newmarket, 2100 people/kmsq (2009), which is the only other built out 905 municipality.

Markham is intensifying, despite not being close to built-out yet, and would be the first example I'd cite of another Toronto suburb doing so. Brampton, Richmond Hill and the Thornhill bit of Vaughan aren't doing that bad either these days, even though all are sprawling at the edges.
 
Mississauga is a bit denser overall than Newmarket and the bulk of the subdivisions in Mississauga are probably also a bit denser than the bulk of Newmarket's subdivisions, but it doesn't change the fact that Mississauga is "dense" first and foremost because it is essentially built out (as is Newmarket). Mississauga may be intensifying in some spots, but keep in mind that this is still mostly greenfield growth...the important thing is that Mississauga is using its final few greenfield sites more intensely than it used the first 90% of the municipality's land. But it's not really intensifying any more than Markham is, or Richmond Hill, particularly if we're comparing current developments with existing ones. Even Vaughan is 'intensely' developed in places.
 
^ What is the point of that? It is probably just easier to demolish existing buildings and replace them with something completely new. There is very little out here that is worth preserving and many structures were not meant to last long anyways. Power centres only have a 20-30 lifespan, for example. There is even a 8 storey office building being demolished in Cooksville as I write this.

08152009020.jpg

(photo credit to Jasonzed on SCC)
 
^^ That's just... Awesome. I'll spend some time looking at that link, even though I'm procrastinating a lot right now. But I guess that those "sprawl repair toolkit" fixes would only be applicable as quick fixes or in non-priority areas. It's pretty cool though! :D
 
What we need is to see some serious Greenbelt expansion, particularly in Simcoe; and in Durham Region, but also in any other area that supports it.

In the former case I don't expect any support, and suggest the Liberal proceed anyway, what do they have to lose in areas that almost always vote Conservative?

I know Guelph has some out in favour of expanding the Greenbelt in its area, does anyone know how that's going?

*****

Newmarket is too big (geographically), I mean the urban footprint. That is (was) some of the best agricultural land around, as of course could be said of most places that have urbanized in south-central Ontario.

Newmarket's outgrowth was largely a function of the northward extension of the #404. Shame! They should never built that highway north of #7. Would have saved a lot of great farm land.

Anyways, what that place needs now IMHO is to redevelop the Upper Canada Mall lands, and essentially those 4 corners @ Yonge. Mid-rise Condos, retail facing the street, 1 mall, probably smaller, tucked in behind, with parking entirely underground, then lower-rise infill along Davis through the Downtown.

That would help justify the proposed VIVA improvements for the area.
 
The Greenbelt definitely needs to expand more around Simcoe and Waterloo. If it's not regulated, Barrie, K-W and Guelph will totally sprawl out.

That Viva service expansion would be the stretch along Davis Drive, correct? I think the minimum for Davis Drive and Yonge St. would be 4 or 5 story buildings. I don't think I'd keep Upper Canada Mall. Just replace it with a large, pedestrian-friendly shopping area, or I might rebuild it as mixed use development; a mall on one or two floors, and three or four levels of housing.

But for mixed-use development to work, they have to sort out the problem the GTA seems to have with condos these days. Pretty much every single one I've seen is so expensive, there's a strong disincentive to choose high density over a house.
 
There is even a 8 storey office building being demolished in Cooksville as I write this.

What is that being replaced with? It doesn't even look that old and there are many surface lots in the area which could use intensification more than that lot.
 
But for mixed-use development to work, they have to sort out the problem the GTA seems to have with condos these days. Pretty much every single one I've seen is so expensive, there's a strong disincentive to choose high density over a house.

You got it all wrong. Higher costs is exactly what makes higher density development possible. They give incentive for developers to build denser and may even force them to build denser. If a condo is that expensive, can you imagine how expensive a single family house would be at the same location? Single-family houses are usually only built on cheap land on the outskirts the GTA and expensive land sees high density developments.

The increased land values is why the greenbelt increased the density of developments. And look what happened in Mississauga after it became built out: property values skyrocketed (by 30-50%) and suddenly all these condo towers started being built. It is not a coincidence. Why do you think there are so many high-rises being built in downtown Toronto?
 
The province of Ontario should designate all farmland and crown land as greenbelt. If developers want to develop on that said greenbelt, they have to apply to the province with plans that would be transit-oriented development only. However, priority should be given to infill development that is similar as well.
 
You got it all wrong. Higher costs is exactly what makes higher density development possible. They give incentive for developers to build denser and may even force them to build denser. If a condo is that expensive, can you imagine how expensive a single family house would be at the same location? Single-family houses are usually only built on cheap land on the outskirts the GTA and expensive land sees high density developments.

The increased land values is why the greenbelt increased the density of developments. And look what happened in Mississauga after it became built out: property values skyrocketed (by 30-50%) and suddenly all these condo towers started being built. It is not a coincidence. Why do you think there are so many high-rises being built in downtown Toronto?
If a single family home were built in the same place as a high rise or even a mid rise would be built, it would probably be much more expensive than in the suburbs, that's true. But if developers are encouraged to develop because they can sell $300 k closets, it doesn't work as well in the long run.

Basically, it caters to a specific group of people. Families and people with a lower income won't buy into it (or god forbid low-income families,) because the price for the high density home they want to live in is enormous when taking into account their needs and available money. Even if you want to fit a family of four into a one or two bedroom condo, that same family could instead buy a place twice the size in the suburbs for the same price. But if you give them a choice between high priced condos and a dwindling supply of houses, they're not going to choose the condos; they're just going to leave. They're either going to go to places where condo living is easier and less expensive, or to places where there are more available suburban houses.

That's why the government needs to find ways to make condos and high density living more affordable to the average person, and there's a number of ways they can do that. They could offer tax breaks to developers, so they can start lowering prices on condos. They could have funds to give to developers wishing to build high density, again giving them extra money to lower their prices.

Once they get enough people in condos, there's going to be a tipping point that'll be reached. There's going to be more demand for them, and they'll start being more than just the places where rich or single people live. Demand will rise, and developers will be able to build more and sell them at a lower price due to this increased demand. Due to this lower price, families will be able to live in high density more easily, and when that starts happening, the masses will be rolling in. You'll have places that (self-sustainably) are competitive in price with 'burb living, as well as having more convenient connections than living in the suburbs. Some people will chose the conventional suburban life, while others will chose the high-density life. This is what I love about all the City Centres, because they will not only be a place for areas to focus on, but they will keep a suburban feel while keeping the good characteristics of cities.

If you want to know why so many high-rises are being built downtown, it's because that's where there's a concentration of unmarried young people, or at least people without children and demanding little space. They have a niche downtown, where they can buy condos suiting their needs, and developers develop based on their needs. But what I see wrong is that developers are trying to carry that into the suburbs. For the most part, they advertise a grand bachelor lifestyle, with really little attempt to coerce families into living there. And that's all because it's currently how they make money. Don't get me wrong, I can live with downtown condos being relatively expensive (though the price could go down a bit.) What I'm worried about is the relatively suburban condos (especially those in NYCC, STC, MTC, RHC, VCC, ETC,) being expensive and only accommodating growth in this current niche that condos fill.

So... I think that made sense. :p
 

Back
Top