Mississauga Rangeview | ?m | 15s

W

WislaHD

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
10,038
Reaction score
9,627
Location
Midtown Toronto
Surprised to find there was no thread for this yet. This is next to the Lakeview Village master plan.

is where you can find the project page. According to it, an application was submitted to the City of Mississauga in November 2022, but I haven't found anything online for it.

1696356159288.png

1696356186159.png

1696356204761.png

1696356240363.png

1696356264975.png

1696356285411.png

1696356313735.png

1696356405359.png


The ownership group:

The Rangeview LOG was formed in 2021 through efforts initiated by key landholders in the area. Its purpose is to act as a cohesive and collaborative group which will work together in securing
development approvals for Rangeview Estates, while sharing costs associated with these approvals. Since its formation, the Rangeview LOG has worked effectively to identify priorities and
constraints, based on which it has developed a master plan concept that implements and expands on the community and City’s preliminary visions for Rangeview Estates as set out in the
Inspiration Lakeview Master Plan and Lakeview Waterfront Major Node policies of the Mississauga OP.
Click to expand...
1696356453810.png

1696356478175.png


And finally, the unit count:

1696356725448.png
 
ben.thebean1 said:
@Northern Light is about to go MIA for 3 days and come back drooling from all this material, LOL
Click to expand...

When did my reading skills atrophy so badly? LOL

I'm finished the Sustainability document.

It's got some decent aspirational fuzzy going on...........but a lot of it is under 'strategies to be explored' and not clear, explicit commitments.

Many of the items lack clarity. They want shade trees, great.......... I'm interested in the target tree canopy at 15 years maturity. What percentage of the site will be covered in shade?

I didn't see a clear strategy on mitigating the use of road salt. Some mention of permeable paving, but nothing on snow melt systems using waste heat from the buildings or sewers.

No plant list, no clear biodiversity strategy.

Too much PR, not enough substance.

I will digest the Master Plan shortly. But should take 15 minutes to do paid work, LOL
 
Ok, I've had a few moments to muddle through the MasterPlan.

There is a fair bit to like, but more than a few........hey wait a minutes too.

Lets start with the latter. I'm not crazy about the overall Parks Strategy.

I get the idea of the linear parks that link Lakeshore to the existing waterfront parks. I'll give that a pass.

But then creating 3 additional very small parks that are very challenging to program does not work for me...........I also take some issue with what I would call a deceptive concept.

This is Rangeview Park below: (concept)

1696360884607.png


Its shows a soccer pitch and clearly describes that that is one. The dimensions of the Park are in the plans; they literally can't meet the minimum dimensions for a regulation soccer pitch in the space allocated.

A short soccer pitch is 90M long x 45M wide. The orientation shows the long side of the field on a block that's only 75M long in its entirety, and yet there are still buffers around the field. Uh uh. Also the distance between the pitch and residences would preclude adult/teen play and field illumination.

I don't know what demand and supply of soccer pitches is like in this area of Mississauga, but if there's enough demand for another soccer pitch, you'll need to site it on a larger parcel of land.

I would remove at least one of the smaller parks and consolidate it to create a single more usable space. I'm not sure I wouldn't do that w/all three.

The dimensions are shown here:

1696361317315.png


****

The road/sidewalk layout on Lakeshore doesn't work for me:


1696361549357.png


We have 2 de facto sidewalk sections above, one the bare minimum of 2.1 M is public, and separated from the buildings by a planted bouvelvard, before a private sidewalk of ~6M kicks in. Meanwhile, the cycle track gets no vegetated buffer from traffic.

I would prefer to see a planted buffer between the cycle track and Lakeshore, which would also serve to shade the pavement. Then another buffer between the cycle track and the sidewalk. I'd prefer one public sidewalk, with width of 4-5M depending on projected pedestrian volumes and whether patios are planned to be incorporated.

Similar issue on Rangeview Road:

1696361810111.png


On transportation, the plan needs more support from Mississauga/Peel to make a lower level of car ownership plausible.

A new GO Station at Cawthra is discussed, one there or at Ogden is necessary, but then you also need the walking and cycling connections to that GO Station to be in place.

The plan must design for the provision of at least one supermarket and other food retail to support walkability.

Lots of refinement and detail required.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Ok, I've had a few moments to muddle through the MasterPlan.

There is a fair bit to like, but more than a few........hey wait a minutes too.

Lets start with the latter. I'm not crazy about the overall Parks Strategy.

I get the idea of the linear parks that link Lakeshore to the existing waterfront parks. I'll give that a pass.

But then creating 3 additional very small parks that are very challenging to program does not work for me...........I also take some issue with what I would call a deceptive concept.

This is Rangeview Park below: (concept)

View attachment 510848

Its shows a soccer pitch and clearly describes that that is one. The dimensions of the Park are in the plans; they literally can't meet the minimum dimensions for a regulation soccer pitch in the space allocated.

A short soccer pitch is 90M long x 45M wide. The orientation shows the long side of the field on a block that's only 75M long in its entirety, and yet there are still buffers around the field. Uh uh. Also the distance between the pitch and residences would preclude adult/teen play and field illumination.

I don't know what demand and supply of soccer pitches is like in this area of Mississauga, but if there's enough demand for another soccer pitch, you'll need to site it on a larger parcel of land.

I would remove at least one of the smaller parks and consolidate it to create a single more usable space. I'm not sure I wouldn't do that w/all three.

The dimensions are shown here:

View attachment 510849

****

The road/sidewalk layout on Lakeshore doesn't work for me:


View attachment 510850

We have 2 de facto sidewalk sections above, one the bare minimum of 2.1 M is public, and separated from the buildings by a planted bouvelvard, before a private sidewalk of ~6M kicks in. Meanwhile, the cycle track gets no vegetated buffer from traffic.

I would prefer to see a planted buffer between the cycle track and Lakeshore, which would also serve to shade the pavement. Then another buffer between the cycle track and the sidewalk. I'd prefer one public sidewalk, with width of 4-5M depending on projected pedestrian volumes and whether patios are planned to be incorporated.

Similar issue on Rangeview Road:

View attachment 510851

On transportation, the plan needs more support from Mississauga/Peel to make a lower level of car ownership plausible.

A new GO Station at Cawthra is discussed, one there or at Ogden is necessary, but then you also need the walking and cycling connections to that GO Station to be in place.

The plan must design for the provision of at least one supermarket and other food retail to support walkability.

Lots of refinement and detail required.
Click to expand...
As a park for a regulation soccer pitch, it does not work. As a grassy area for an unstructured kick around, tyke soccer, ultimate, a little bit of cricket….then there are possibilities.

Looking for references to school services, day care etc. with both this proposal and the Doug Ford planned Lakeview community, there should be questions of how these new neighbourhoods will be served by community services such as schools, day care etc.
 
just east of the creek said:
As a park for a regulation soccer pitch, it does not work. As a grassy area for an unstructured kick around, tyke soccer, ultimate, a little bit of cricket….then there are possibilities.
Click to expand...

Maybe....but with residential tight up against the grassy area, there will be windows close by, I'm not sure I would want either of cracked windows, or to stare into a high fence or net.
 
just east of the creek said:
Looking for references to school services, day care etc. with both this proposal and the Doug Ford planned Lakeview community, there should be questions of how these new neighbourhoods will be served by community services such as schools, day care etc.
Click to expand...

From DMP docs w/appendix:

1696613279592.png

1696613317895.png


Looks like they're relying on a new elementary school on the Lakeview lands next door:

1696613379754.png
 
Northern Light said:
From DMP docs w/appendix:

View attachment 511598
View attachment 511599

Looks like they're relying on a new elementary school on the Lakeview lands next door:

View attachment 511600
Click to expand...
Thank you for this. I have not yet had the time to read the docs. But I am quite familiar with the area. I would suggest the reference to grocery stores in the map above is hugely imaginative. That will be a requirement. There are a number of schools in the area above the elementary stage. I am presuming again that they would all be bus access from these new developments, and I am not sure of the current and projected enrolments

The area is all 1950s/60s low ceiling , low intensity commercial/industrial building that either needed to be demolished and rebuilt as high intensity warehousing of some use, or, with the adjacent lake, lake access, and parks, to be rebuilt into a people place.

The general concept makes all sort of sense. The details will be the drivers of its success.
 
I'd rather lose much of the townhouses, add the density to the mid-rise and high-rise component and add more parkland. It seems surprisingly unambitious from a density perspective.
 
afransen said:
I'd rather lose much of the townhouses, add the density to the mid-rise and high-rise component and add more parkland. It seems surprisingly unambitious from a density perspective.
Click to expand...
Just wait until they get an MZO.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top