I shall...when I find the time. However, here are some examples from 'round the world that make a ton of sense here, adapted to local culture:
1) On most of the main drag & 3-6 side streets "deep" from Main Street, a variety & scale more similiar with
Parkhill by Nice Architects.
^Ironically, it's a "Village" that is "Parkside." Wow, what a difference in priorities!
Real urban density is more than about height, square footage and setbacks. Real urban pedestrianized areas are more than sterile generic "cookie cutter" spaces. Both are best appreciated on foot. Designed for humans, not robots.
2) Locally, Toronto's Pan Am Village & Freedville/King West are perhaps the ideal "max height" & scale you should see on a main LRT strip, especially around major nodes. That sort of scale should not be too frequent--perhaps two areas the size of Pan-Am Village, with the majority a variety of 2-4-8 storey buildings is perfect along the LRT strip. 2 storeys!? Yes, 2s is way way way more urban if done right than 40s of Daniels "Chicago" repeated a thousand times over.
3) Details matter. Details needn't cost money. With 3D printer technology, gorgeous quirky details on facades could easily be achieved.
4) Where would you rather walk: Port Credit or the area here as currently proposed?
5) Retail does not have to be
everywhere. It is better to create 4-6 long small blocks of intimate-scaled retail then a break than 20 blocks of corporate bland 3rd rate retail built into 3rd rate architecture.
6) The less "planned" an area is, the more likely to be successful.
7) Mississauga is a suburb. Get over your pretensions of urban city life. Cities aren't created over night. Let's find a happy medium--a modern version of Bloor West Village/West Toronto Junction ("streetcar suburb") vs wasting our time on height. Depth, not height. Spread the love, not the war.