Mississauga Mississauga Transitway | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | IBI Group

[doady]

I didn't know cities without glass condo towers constitute being called "total fails". I think when it comes down to urbanism and being in an urban environment, downtown Brampton takes the cake. Try walking in downtown Mississauga, then try walking in downtown Brampton. Does a skyline trump a walkable, dense, historic downtown? I personally don't think so.

Yeah, Mississauga would have been much better off today if they had just let typical single-family houses be built around Square One instead of office towers, high-rise condominum apartments and street-level retail.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yeah, Mississauga would have been much better off today if they had just let typical single-family houses be built around Square One instead of office towers, high-rise condominum apartments and street-level retail.

Another problem with Mississauga's "downtown" is that Square One is almost 2 km to the nearest GO Train station (Cooksville). Cooksville or Streetsville or Port Credit should have developed into their "downtown", except (I think) for the NIMBY's in the area. Square One was farmland, so the old NIMBY's would have been the farm animals.

 

[Tuscani01]

Another problem with Mississauga's "downtown" is that Square One is almost 2 km to the nearest GO Train station (Cooksville). Cooksville or Streetsville or Port Credit should have developed into their "downtown", except (I think) for the NIMBY's in the area. Square One was farmland, so the old NIMBY's would have been the farm animals.

Port Credit would have made for an amazing "Downtown Mississauga", however, it wouldn't have been so accessible for the majority of the city, not to mention it would also change the character of Port Credit. I like the small town feel, and I think that is what makes Port Credit what it is today.

 

[salsa]

Yeah, Mississauga would have been much better off today if they had just let typical single-family houses be built around Square One instead of office towers, high-rise condominum apartments and street-level retail.

I'm sorry but the build form of MCC sucks. To me it doesn't feel urban at all with it's huge roads, large blocks, abundant parking lots, no rapid transit, and long walking distances between points of interest. I much prefer places like Brampton, Oakville, Port Credit, or Toronto's streetcar suburbs than this blight they call downtown.

And who said the alternative to high-rises has to be single family houses? I think Yonge & St. Clair or Mel Lastman Square is a much better example of highrise urbanism in the suburbs.

 

[doady]

Another problem with Mississauga's "downtown" is that Square One is almost 2 km to the nearest GO Train station (Cooksville).

There's way more GO Transit riders at GO's Square One terminal than at Cooksville station. GO provides way, WAY more service at Square One than any other stop in the 905. It's not even close.

Cooksville or Streetsville or Port Credit should have developed into their "downtown", except (I think) for the NIMBY's in the area. Square One was farmland, so the old NIMBY's would have been the farm animals.

Cooksville isn't NIMBY. It's already zoned similarly to MCC. It's lack of demand that's the problem. Why would people and businesses pay a premium to locate there? Cooksville station doesn't have all-day two-way train service. That would help. Same with Hurontario LRT. But would LRT even be warranted for Hurontario today if there was no MCC?

But it's not like Cooksville is a typical, low density subdivision in the first place. It used to be the official downtown of Mississauga after all. If you expect better, then blame GO Transit for their crappy train service, not the City of Mississauga.

Port Credit has already seen much development recently. I don't understand what would change if MCC was just a regular subdivision of single-family homes. It is the historic downtown of a former town and it is even bigger now. Does municipal boundaries change the fact that it is a downtown?

Streetsville of course is more the small town feel, in a very wealthy area, not far from giant mansions. Too isolated to be a giant downtown. Would you build an LRT or subway down Mississauga Road? Think about that.

Mississauga is just not about MCC, same as Toronto is not just about downtown. I don't see how people can complain about Mississauga trying to promote urbanism at multiple locations when Toronto does exactly the same thing: SCC, NYCC, ECC, Yonge-Eglinton, the Avenues, and so on. It's hypocritical. How much has Etobicoke City Centre hurt Downtown Toronto?

 

[doady]

I'm sorry but the build form of MCC sucks. To me it doesn't feel urban at all with it's huge roads, large blocks, abundant parking lots, no rapid transit, and long walking distances between points of interest. I much prefer places like Brampton, Oakville, Port Credit, or Toronto's streetcar suburbs than this blight they call downtown.

Right because MCC is finished. Nothing under construction. No more development of greenfields. No redevelopment of parking lots is possible. No new more streets to be built. Not a single rapid transit line under construction or proposed. What you see now is what you get forever.

 

[salsa]

Right because MCC is finished. Nothing under construction. No more development of greenfields. No redevelopment of parking lots is possible. No new more streets to be built. Not a single rapid transit line under construction or proposed. What you see now is what you get forever.

So all the planning errors that were made must be fixed after the fact, rather than doing it right the first time. Mississauga is the 6th largest city in Canada, and only now is the right time to talk about transit and urban development? The only way to fix MCC is to build baby build? What if the city doesn't sustain it's growth for many more decades before the area to fully develops?

A real downtown is supposed to grow organically, so that when development eventually stops it doesn't feel like a nowhere land. If downtown toronto were to stop growing today, it wouldn't be such a big deal. If it stopped growing 50 years ago, the build form would have consisted of smaller Art Deco buildings but it would still be urban. If it stopped growing 100 years ago, it would feel like a historic village today. Meanwhile, look how Scarborough Centre ended up. It has all the planning errors of MCC but without much construction. Is it a nice place to take a walk?

There's way more GO Transit riders at GO's Square One terminal than at Cooksville station. GO provides way, WAY more service at Square One than any other stop in the 905. It's not even close.

Most downtowns are build around rail or some sort of rapid transit, which is the way it should be done. If MCC was build at Cooksville, the bus terminal and the train station would have been integrated into a seamless transit hub, like in Brampton. Otherwise, it's like putting Union station in the port lands and forcing everyone onto a bus or LRT to go downtown.

Is this a nice transit hub?

And you call this LRT a great solution? "Oops the train I boarded at Dundas wants to bypass the city's main mobility hub".

Cooksville isn't NIMBY. It's already zoned similarly to MCC. It's lack of demand that's the problem. Why would people and businesses pay a premium to locate there? Cooksville station doesn't have all-day two-way train service. That would help. Same with Hurontario LRT. But would LRT even be warranted for Hurontario today if there was no MCC?

But it's not like Cooksville is a typical, low density subdivision in the first place. It used to be the official downtown of Mississauga after all. If you expect better, then blame GO Transit for their crappy train service, not the City of Mississauga.

So developers shouldn't build at Cooksville because there's no all-day two-way service (for now), but it's ok to build at MCC where there's no rail service at all?

Mississauga is just not about MCC, same as Toronto is not just about downtown. I don't see how people can complain about Mississauga trying to promote urbanism at multiple locations when Toronto does exactly the same thing: SCC, NYCC, ECC, Yonge-Eglinton, the Avenues, and so on. It's hypocritical. How much has Etobicoke City Centre hurt Downtown Toronto?

Fair enough, but MCC is supposed to be their downtown, yet little former villages like Streetsville are more loveable than MCC. How good would it be if NYCC was more attractive than downtown Toronto?

 

[ehlow]

Everything built before the 1940's was generally very nice and walkable. Everything built after was heavily influenced by the car, modernism, Le Corbusier, highways, suburban sprawl etc. This doesn't just affect the buildings, but the street layout & how wide the streets are, things of that nature that don't change much. King St may now be have lots of new glass condos (along with many historical buildings that are essential to its nature), but the street width is roughly the same as when it had horse carriages on it.

As far as I know, most of Mississauga is post-war, except places like Streetsville and Port Credit. Most of old Toronto had its streets laid out before 1940, usually way before.
Yonge St up to North York Centre and some small villages beyond was developed due to the streetcar than ran up it.

I think it could be possible that the giant parking lots around malls like MCC could be re-developed to be walkable and more like the older parts of the city. It wouldn't be easy though and take a while though, and would meet lots of resistance. People looove their suburban parking lots, malls and big box stores.

 

[Tuscani01]

A real downtown is supposed to grow organically, so that when development eventually stops it doesn't feel like a nowhere land. If downtown toronto were to stop growing today, it wouldn't be such a big deal. If it stopped growing 50 years ago, the build form would have consisted of smaller Art Deco buildings but it would still be urban. If it stopped growing 100 years ago, it would feel like a historic village today. Meanwhile, look how Scarborough Centre ended up. It has all the planning errors of MCC but without much construction. Is it a nice place to take a walk?

So how about giving MCC a chance to grow organically? You seem to be quick to dismiss that it will ever become anything, when in reality it is less than 50 years old. Give it as much time as Streetsville, or Port Credit had to develop, and it will become something more. There is more than enough time and space to fix the mistakes of the past, and new developmens such as Parkside Village and "Main Street" are doing just that.

Also, to suggest that development just stops, or that a downtown can be 'finished' is just absurd.

 

[salsa]

Everything built before the 1940's was generally very nice and walkable. Everything built after was heavily influenced by the car, modernism, Le Corbusier, highways, suburban sprawl etc. This doesn't just affect the buildings, but the street layout & how wide the streets are, things of that nature that don't change much. King St may now be have lots of new glass condos (along with many historical buildings that are essential to its nature), but the street width is roughly the same as when it had horse carriages on it.

As far as I know, most of Mississauga is post-war, except places like Streetsville and Port Credit. Most of old Toronto had its streets laid out before 1940, usually way before. Yonge St up to North York Centre and some small villages beyond was developed due to the streetcar than ran up it.

I think it could be possible that the giant parking lots around malls like MCC could be re-developed to be walkable and more like the older parts of the city. It wouldn't be easy though and take a while though, and would meet lots of resistance. People looove their suburban parking lots, malls and big box stores.

So how about giving MCC a chance to grow organically? You seem to be quick to dismiss that it will ever become anything, when in reality it is less than 50 years old. Give it as much time as Streetsville, or Port Credit had to develop, and it will become something more. There is more than enough time and space to fix the mistakes of the past, and new developmens such as Parkside Village and "Main Street" are doing just that.

Also, to suggest that development just stops, or that a downtown can be 'finished' is just absurd.

It really shouldn't be impossible to build a modern yet walkable urban centre, but it has to be well planned early on. North York Centre was built along a subway line that already existed. Then a new station was built between Finch and Sheppard. The heart of NYCC consists of a square, a community centre, an urban shopping mall, and a mix of office, residential, and street retail.

Meanwhile, the heart of Mississauga (and Scarborough) is essentially a huge shopping mall surrounded by an ocean of parking lots. It's not impossible to change, but it is very difficult to do so.

 

[Tuscani01]

Well said. It really shouldn't be impossible to build a walkable urban centre, but it has to be well planned early on. North York Centre was built along a subway line that already existed. Then a new station was built between Finch and Sheppard. The heart of NYCC consists of a square, a community centre, an urban shopping mall, and a mix of office, residential, and street retail.

Meanwhile, the heart of Mississauga (and Scarborough) is essentially a huge shopping mall surrounded by an ocean of parking lots, and that is very difficult to change.

Huh? Do you know anything about MCC? It also consists of a square, community centre, a shopping centre which is becoming more urban as it builds up to the street, and a mix of office space and street retail. The only difference is that NYCC has seen more growth due to the presence of the subway line. MCC should see a boost in development once the LRT and Transitway open.

The fact that MCC has seen as much growth as it has without rapid transit shows that there is potential for it to become something much better once there is improved transit serving it.

 

[salsa]

Huh? Do you know anything about MCC? It also consists of a square, community centre, a shopping centre which is becoming more urban as it builds up to the street, and a mix of office space and street retail. The only difference is that NYCC has seen more growth due to the presence of the subway line. MCC should see a boost in development once the LRT and Transitway open.

The fact that MCC has seen as much growth as it has without rapid transit shows that there is potential for it to become something much better once there is improved transit serving it.

I know it has these things, but people associate MCC with the shopping mall more than anything else. I can see the potential, it's just that as a former European I am pissed off with the car-depencency and suburban build form that defines North America.

 

[Tuscani01]

I know it has these things, but people associate MCC with the shopping mall more than anything else. I can see the potential, it's just that as a former European I am pissed off with the car-depencency and suburban build form that defines North America.

And what is wrong with being associated with a shopping mall? It is one of the largest malls in the country. Of course Mississauga is going to be associated with it. Ask anyone what comes up when they think of Edmonton, and they will say West Edmonton Mall. Does that make downtown Edmonton any less of a downtown? (Though WEM isn't even downtown)

There's no reason why Mississauga City Centre cannot flourish with Square One being the main attraction. The parking lots provide lots of space for future development, and the mall itself draws tourists and others from the GTA. Better transit will bring more people, and more people means demand for more urban services. MCC already has good bones, and you just acknowledged that yourself. It will just take time for everything else to develop, as a city isn't built overnight.

 

[salsa]

I don't see much wrong with the mall if it can become more urban (like the Eaton's centre), but it should have been designed like that in the first place. It will take massive investment just to undo some of the problems I see with MCC in general. This article is an example of why I have a hard time being optimistic about the realities. The city used to collect huge development fees and was debt free for many years, but the mayor chose to keep taxes low rather than invest in city building and transit. Now that the lucrative fees have dried up, the city's finances are in dire straits. They have to beg for money to build anything, whether it's for LRT or for fixing their infrastructure deficit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One problem a lot of the suburban malls have is that they are located AWAY from the main street, separated by a desert of asphalt called a parking lot. Pedestrians and transit users were an afterthought, forcing them to safari across during blizzards, thunderstorms, windstorms, ice-storms, and avoiding herds of automobiles to gather and trade inside isolated fortresses.