misterq said:
Hey all, I'm a first time home buyer (harbourwalk) and a little panicked about this. Looking for some opinions/insights on what the implications might be.

Presumably, increasing supply will lower the overall value of condo units in this development no?

In the MZO they say they also want reduced landscape requirements, and reduced building amenity requirements. So presumably they want to either shrink or get rid of the central park that runs throughout the development?

I guess part of what I'm trying to understand is how drastically the 'master plan' might change with this MZO. Is it feasible to expect that the renderings are now completely unrepresentative of what this community will look like, or is it more likely that the scale of features like parks, waterways etc will just shrink but generally retain the same vision?

It's kind of mind boggling to me that this 10 year + community driven initiative can just be steamrolled by the province like this without any consideration from the city or its residents. And they pushed it through on a Friday afternoon right before the city was scheduled to discuss it.

Appreciate any thoughts and comments.
Click to expand...
It is mind-boggling.

I suspect that they will still create a livable neighbourhood, as they still have to sell units, so not everything will go to shit here, like the planning process in Ontario just did. Your investment should not take a hit, unless they build a unit 5 metres outside your windows and that's all you have to stare at (unlikely I suppose) as demand for housing is big enough that doubling the supply at this one site won't make a major dent in it. Here's hoping they get access issues solved here, whether it's a new GO station and/or or some other capacity improvements. It will take a long time to reach the capacity problem though, so only time will tell... ...the bigger problem is what just happened to the system, not so much this one site on its own.

42
 
interchange42 said:
It is mind-boggling.

I suspect that they will still create a livable neighbourhood, as they still have to sell units, so not everything will go to shit here, like the planning process in Ontario just did. Your investment should not take a hit, unless they build a unit 5 metres outside your windows and that's all you have to stare at (unlikely I suppose) as demand for housing is big enough that doubling the supply at this one site won't make a major dent in it. Here's hoping they get access issues solved here, whether it's a new GO station and/or or some other capacity improvements. It will take a long time to reach the capacity problem though, so only time will tell... ...the bigger problem is what just happened to the system, not so much this one site on its own.

42
Click to expand...
Thanks, appreciate your comments. The more I've dwelled on this, the more I'm at a loss for words. I've been following this project since 2012 and was beyond excited for the vision. Attended countless meetings, filled out surveys and took part throughout the process. The MZO was announced Wednesday and approved Friday without any input whatsoever from the city, and after city council said that the ministry had reached out to them to get their take. So what happened between then and Friday. How did the ministry go from notifying the city and seeking input to steamrolling this through without any delay.

I've never felt so misrepresented as a Canadian ....just completely furious.

Your comments are encouraging but after this stunt I really don't know what to expect from the development. It's obviously not going to play out the way it was sold in the master plan. Ogden park and waterway common seem particularly at risk here. They're scrapping the town home requirement so youd think theyd just do a back row of new high rises but then why request the reduced landscaping/greenspace requirements?

Even if they bring in a new GO station that's not going to be enough to accommodate 35-40k new residents. Mississauga is still a city of drivers. Traffic will be a nightmare. Personally no kids, but one small school will never be able to service a community this large. All of the traffic, noise, environmental studies they were all a complete waste of time and resources. None of them accounted for any of this density. I'm just absolutely mind blown.

Once again, a complete joy to watch my tax dollars hard at work.
 
Does anyone know where to find details about the other MZO that was referenced in the press release (for two parcels at 3355 and 5645 Hurontario Street)? I don’t recall seeing any redevelopment proposals for either of these properties.
 
Province doubles size of Mississauga development with MZO, mayor has concerns.

A Minister Zoning Order (MZO) announced May 12 will almost double the size of a housing development planned for Mississauga, causing concern for the city's mayor who says the order came as a surprise.

The zoning order will allow the Lakeview Village development to include an expected 16,000 new residential units, according to a news release. An MZO allows the province to regulate the use of land anywhere in Ontario and override municipal zoning bylaws.

The orders will help the province in its fight against the housing crisis, the release said. But Bonnie Crombie, the city's mayor, says the move is concerning. She says it was originally agreed the city could comfortably accommodate 8,000 residential units as part of the development on Lakeshore Road East.

"This is quite a significant departure from 8,000 units and my fear is that the infrastructure will not be there to support it," Crombie said at an unrelated media availability Monday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mississauga-lakeview-village-mzo-1.6844018
 
Last edited:
If it is true that the developers will pay the entire cost of a new GO station in proximity to this site, then overall the change in plans here might not be a bad thing.

But one thing is clear, with the Ford government, even when they make the right decision, they do it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

Canadian politics has always had some measure of patronage and cronyism involved, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less but never none. However, I increasingly think this provincial government might be stepping over the line that separates mere patronage and cronyism from corruption.
 
A Torontonian Now said:
If it is true that the developers will pay the entire cost of a new GO station in proximity to this site, then overall the change in plans here might not be a bad thing.

But one thing is clear, with the Ford government, even when they make the right decision, they do it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

Canadian politics has always had some measure of patronage and cronyism involved, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less but never none. However, I increasingly think this provincial government might be stepping over the line that separates mere patronage and cronyism from corruption.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the announcement that literally promises a GO Station, it specifically says a "prospective GO station", so it does not promise anything at all yet.
 
allengeorge said:
Remember this when the next election rolls around. That’s the only way to make a meaningful impact.

Ford has let his majority go to his head.
Click to expand...
Off topically: I would have said of him that when his government first got elected, as it's been clear when it comes to development and real estate issues, he's been governing for his friends. A terrible way to run the province regardless of ones' stripes, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, none of the other political parties appear to have any sensible or stable policies to deal with housing. Now that it has been defined as a "crisis," we will likely see more poorly-considered strategies being trotted out from across the political spectrum likely delivering their own menu of damaging effects. But right now we have this one - "the damn the torpedos" approach.
 
argus said:
Unfortunately, none of the other political parties appear to have any sensible or stable policies to deal with housing. Now that it has been defined as a "crisis," we will likely see more poorly-considered strategies being trotted out from across the political spectrum likely delivering their own menu of damaging effects. But right now we have this one - "the damn the torpedos" approach.
Click to expand...
Er...how is that?
 
It is pretty funny that an 'expectation that a minimum of 10 per cent of these homes be offered as affordable and attainable homes" is viewed as effectively dealing with a housing crisis. In general, 10% of houses being offered as 'affordable' means that the other 90% of homes will be picking up the selling price difference.

So while I laud the effort, and support incentives for developers to offer more affordable homes, I seriously question whether ~1,600 units will make a dent in the problem.

There are also other questions, is this 'expectation' actually a legal requirement? Can the City enforce it? If not, will the Province enforce it?
 
wopchop said:
It is pretty funny that an 'expectation that a minimum of 10 per cent of these homes be offered as affordable and attainable homes" is viewed as effectively dealing with a housing crisis. In general, 10% of houses being offered as 'affordable' means that the other 90% of homes will be picking up the selling price difference.

So while I laud the effort, and support incentives for developers to offer more affordable homes, I seriously question whether ~1,600 units will make a dent in the problem.

There are also other questions, is this 'expectation' actually a legal requirement? Can the City enforce it? If not, will the Province enforce it?
Click to expand...
you have to be careful with the definition too - "attainable" could simply mean 10% of units are small studios to hit a minimum price point at market rates.
 
wopchop said:
There are also other questions, is this 'expectation' actually a legal requirement? Can the City enforce it? If not, will the Province enforce it?
Click to expand...
No. If so, wouldn’t that be part of the MZO, and more than an ‘expectation’? The mealy-mouthed words in this PR are meant to distract voters with shiny objects.

The only thing developers will do is build those extra homes, and it’ll be some token percentage - 5% max - that’ll be somewhat below market for a short period. The OPC will use this missing GO station as a cudgel to bash their opponents when they (the OPC) are inevitably voted out of office in a couple of terms.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top