News   Jul 04, 2024
That View, Sundown
 43     0 
News   Jul 03, 2024
Gairloch and architects—Alliance's 1414 Bayview Topped Off
 633     0 
News   Jul 03, 2024
The Food Hall at Waterworks Opens Today
 1.9K     0 

Mississauga: Ninth Line Lands redevelopment

76E1BE7C-F906-4A70-99B4-77B7B6805806.jpeg
09523A12-2F42-4DCC-9EE4-3D8313227224.jpeg
7790D318-873D-4D67-AF19-0F9FFDB67B86.jpeg
 
I don't get why they won't allow at-grade retail along the entirety of Ninth Line

I appreciate that they're trying to apply 15-minute city principles, but it seems like they're missing the mark tbh
 
afransen said:
Still not ideal, as this is incredibly car-oriented. What we really need is to make complete communities. The real shame is that we didn't take the opportunity to build TOD complete communities around GO stations (like streetcar suburbs), and forgot to reserve ROWs for regional rail to make more of them.
Click to expand...
The 407 Transitway runs by the project so someday in 2100 they will have rapid transit access😍
 
As this is the last undeveloped remnant of the city of Mississauga, I think its high tilme the city look into annexing land from Halton.

Annex.png
 
Why would Mississauga need to annex? Milton can develop that just as well.

I think it would be a neat idea to drop a new GO station on the Milton line (ownership issues notwithstanding) between Milton and Lisgar stations, and use it as the hub of some transit oriented low-car greenfield developments. Maybe even create a spur heading south off the Milton line running parallel between Eighth Line and Trafalgar and west between Milton and the 407. Much of this land is planned for greenfield development. It would be great if we did it in a more transit-oriented way, with GO RER service forming the backbone (hopefully also getting the upgrade to Milton line through Mississauga.

Something like Houten, but it could support perhaps more midrise to help compensate for the larger unit expectations we can have Canada
 
Undead said:
On a serious note, it's such a shame we didn't build the yellow belt in this way to begin with (townhouses and low rise apartments). We could have had so much more housing stock and room for parks/rec/green space. I think we will forever regret this.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the Toronto Yellowbelt is actually in neighbourhoods that were built for transit (streetcar suburbs or built around the early bus routes) and could successfully densify should the opportunity to do so be granted.

The real shame is that all of residential low-rise Mississauga and Brampton was not built in this manner.

interchange42 said:
That's some 19th century thinking! Expand forever into farmland!

42
Click to expand...
In fairness, if there is any part of the 905 greenfields that should be expanded onto, it's probably the land adjacent to the highway that isn't far away from existing utility and community servicing.

For me, the question is more so whether we have learned anything at all from the past that could be implemented to building sustainable communities for the future, or just continue down our path of urban sprawl.
 
I didn't even know Mississauga own all this property. Why is it shown as Milton and Oakville owning it on the map?
 
interchange42 said:
That's some 19th century thinking! Expand forever into farmland!

42
Click to expand...

I disagree that urban expansion is inherently a bad thing. Especially when it's in an area like this -- sandwiched between a number of built-up areas, with numerous transit and utility corridors in the vicinity. It's not gonna become Rouge Park 2.0, and I can't imagine the soil quality is all that great anyway (not sure how productive the land is for farming/rural uses... would anyone know?)

My thought is this: why not apply principles of sustainability,/walkability/transit-friendliness/lax zoning/whatever and build up this land prudently? Creating a smarter development model for the suburbs would ultimately do more good for the environment, in my opinion, than letting this site go essentially unused. Not to mention we could build an absolute metric f*ckton of housing with a tiny fraction of the NIMBYism...
 
Last edited:
cd concept said:
I didn't even know Mississauga own all this property. Why is it shown as Milton and Oakville owning it on the map?
Click to expand...
The bit that @Big Daddy is referring to is the strip between Ninth Line and the 407 as being the last unbuilt-up "remnant" of Mississauga. That part is Mississauga now (it used to be part of Milton). The rest, the area that he outlined in red, is not owned by Mississauga, it is Milton and Oakville. He's saying (for some unknown reason) that Mississauga should have it.

Meanwhile, Oakville is expanding its urban area north of Dundas up towards Burnhamthorpe (showing up as Regional Road 27 on the map).
WislaHD said:
In fairness, if there is any part of the 905 greenfields that should be expanded onto, it's probably the land adjacent to the highway that isn't far away from existing utility and community servicing.

For me, the question is more so whether we have learned anything at all from the past that could be implemented to building sustainable communities for the future, or just continue down our path of urban sprawl.
Click to expand...
If we have to continue to plough under farmland, it would make more sense to lay it out along the south side of the 401, through which a GO line already runs, and which could have one more station added to it that could become the centre of a new, transit-oriented town centre. East Milton Staton and New Town, anyone?

42
 
interchange42 said:
If we have to continue to plough under farmland, it would make more sense to lay it out along the south side of the 401, through which a GO line already runs, and which could have one more station added to it that could become the centre of a new, transit-oriented town centre. East Milton Staton and New Town, anyone?
Click to expand...
I think this is a good idea, rather than just copying the sprawl in Mississauga and Milton. I think there is an opportunity to reserve an at-grade rail ROW for GO 'RER' service running south down that strip. We should be able to do this pretty cost effectively ($20-30M per km or less without electrification) if we do it now before it starts to be built up.

First preference is to intensify the existing built up area, obviously. But if we are doing more large scale greenfield development (and it is in all the regional planning), we should be trying to make it as TOD as possible. We really should try to do this intelligently, when it comes to surface/regional rail provision while it is cheap to do so. We don't need to limit ourselves to legacy rail ROWs--we can take spurs off those lines.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top