News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 259     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 799     1 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 636     0 

Downtown Mississauga Master Plan

At Aug 5 Council meeting:

A by-law to temporarily close a Public Highway, City Centre Drive from Duke of York Boulevard to Living Arts Drive from September 8, 2009 to January 12, 2011 for the purpose of construction.
 
Living not far from MCC, I'm glad to see that there is some kind of plan to unify the streets and buildings in some way. The current situation makes it a very disjointed, uncomfortable neighborhood. I'm not sure I would narrow all the streets quite like they plan to, considering they plan to double the number of residents and businesses, but if even parts of this can be done in the 8 year window they are suggesting it would be a huge improvement.

If only we could obliterate that eyesore of a city hall...
 
DHLawrence85 said:
In the eyesore's defence, many of the other designs weren't much better.
Click to expand...
That was before my time in Mississauga began. I don't doubt it all - especially when a lot of these designs and decisions are committee based. Its a clear example of trying to include too many things in one design, in this case the historical influences.

I'd quote Rand, but just signed up here and don't want to make too many enemies right off the bat ;)

Any chance you have a link to some of the other designs? I'd love to see them.
 
All Mississauga City Hall needs is gargoyles...heh.

The downtown plan has the scarberiankhatru potato stamp of approval. Bonus points for more roads across the 403 and for the pencil crayon aesthetics that make everything seem both cuter and more doable.
 
I'd really prefer if bridges over highways weren't on a grade though. The highway should have been built lower.
 
Marko said:
That was before my time in Mississauga began. I don't doubt it all - especially when a lot of these designs and decisions are committee based. Its a clear example of trying to include too many things in one design, in this case the historical influences.
Click to expand...


Don't blame a "committee"; blame the Postmodern architectural Zeitgeist in 1982.

And because we're talking about an 80s architectural monument of international importance (whatever its fashionability today), it probably merits historical designation more than it merits demolition or disfiguring alteration...
 
Besides, some of us actually LIKE Mississauga City Hall.

Maybe it's due to seeing it so often, but I really like the building.
 
adma said:
And because we're talking about an 80s architectural monument of international importance (whatever its fashionability today), it probably merits historical designation more than it merits demolition or disfiguring alteration...
Click to expand...
So because it was internationally important, somehow they get a free pass for a bad design? And I'm not talking about fashionability today. It's only my opinion, of course, but the alternates had to have been REALLY bad for that to come out as the winner. It would have been a messy concept then, too, but I imagine that it was heralded for the exact same features that I consider flaws no matter what time period it was built in...you're right about the 80's postmodern wave, though.

As for ripping it down or changing it... I'm new here on UT so I'm still learning my way around and getting a feel ... but does this forum take itself so seriously that it can't recognize an obviously facetious, throw in comment?
 
Marko said:
So because it was internationally important, somehow they get a free pass for a bad design? And I'm not talking about fashionability today. It's only my opinion, of course, but the alternates had to have been REALLY bad for that to come out as the winner. It would have been a messy concept then, too, but I imagine that it was heralded for the exact same features that I consider flaws no matter what time period it was built in...you're right about the 80's postmodern wave, though.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't like the only "internationally important" city hall building that has to be defended against people like you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Marko said:
Really? I disagree with you (civilly, I might add) and the insults start to fly?
Click to expand...

Well, whatever anyone's casual opinion of Mississauga City Hall's success-or-failure, the mere fact of its "internationally important" status should be enough to, from any comprehensive heritage perspective worth its salt, ensure its retention and respect. (And that, on top of the City of Mississauga milking its iconic potential for all its worth--only the most hardcore and hamhandedly Hazelphobic would object.)

So, basically, even through civil disagreement, you've earned your steamrollering.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Well, whatever anyone's casual opinion of Mississauga City Hall's success-or-failure, the mere fact of its "internationally important" status should be enough to, from any comprehensive heritage perspective worth its salt, ensure its retention and respect.

So, basically, even through civil disagreement, you've earned your steamrollering.
Click to expand...
Steamrollering? lol. Hardly.

I'm curious where this label of "internationally important status" has come from? I can't imagine why design of this project would be of any importance internationally, except to the architects. I'm entirely willing to accept that it may well have garnered some sort of acclaim (and thus some perceived importance), but I'd love it if you could provide links or point me in the direction of anything that backs up your "designation".

I'm inclined to think that aside from locals making the claim it to puff their feathers, there's very little international importance at all, let alone enough for historic designation after just 22 years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top