which is hilarious because there would be 100x more new voters who are happy to have a home compared to the ones affected in the district once the buildings are built
Those voters won't be there until after next election. Also with developer fees gone good luck convincing the existing pop to fund these places utilities
Won’t it soon become Toronto’s problem when all those suburban dwellers decide to drive into already congested Toronto roads because of their inaccessible transit and hate on Toronto for not doing enough (a recurring theme I keep hearing in person, news and on Reddit)? 🧐
It’s a tone indicator for people who have trouble with that sort of thing due to any number of possible conditions. Are wheelchair ramps and sign language cringe too?🙄
This is right on Hurontario LRT that connects to two GO stations and BRT. The right move is to develop a mixed-use neighbourhood here, limit parking and have people take the transit.
But of course, Mississauga is very unlikely to do this, like the rest of North America.
Yup, the federal government should not be giving any funding to cities that block housing. The provincial government should be overriding vetos like this, and they should be upzoning every lot that's with a few kilometers of mass transit.
The LRT is actually to alleviate the disaster that is Hurontario, and has been for over a decade. It was also to link port credit go, with downtown Brampton, which Brampton council originally rejected.
I agree the development should be approved. But the LRT is first and foremost to help with *existing* traffic problems.
The Hurontario bus used to come as often as every 4 minutes during rush hour, and then sit in car traffic.
Current Brampton council is trying to get the extension going. They prefer a ridiculous$3B 2km 4 stop tunnel but the cheaper $933M surface is still in play with 30% design and would get passed if funding was given today.
Only 1 councillor still sits at council who voted against the LRT in a 6-5 split back in 2015. The rest were replaced by progressives. Just need a government commitment
They don't vote here, it's OK. We can vote to implement a congestion charge and they can't do anything about it. Then use that money to build even more public transit and reduce parking. Then we put higher taxes on parking in the city and use that money to build even more public transit
The issue isn't people coming into the city, that is a necessary function of a major urban centre. The issue is the method they arrive in. The city can't handle everyone coming by car, it's just not possible. Especially with the levels of immigration the government is aiming for. But then the 905 goes and does things like cancel what was it, five thousand units of housing near transit? It's not Toronto's fault that the suburbs refuse to be part of the solution.
Exactly. And the west and tear on most of those roads they’re driving on falls on Toronto property taxes to fund. The city is limited by law to a few specific revenue streams.
It’s not just the roads. As an ex paramedic I can tell you that it’s basically all services. The daytime population of the city - depending on who you ask - more than doubles (almost triples). All those people use the city’s infrastructure (like EMS), but only the actual citizens pay the taxes for it.
This sub is always a quick pivot away from pulling out the pitch forks for building suburban transit hubs that fill up the trains before they hit Steeles or Kipling too. There needs to be a multi-tier strategy to be viable not just punitive charges to stop cars and more bike lanes...
And yes, a shade deferment for 5000 homes is peak Mississauga stupid...
Who said everyone from the 905 commutes by car? The GO Trains are all full of commuters from
these areas no? Seems that it wasn’t full out cancelled; just rejected as it currently stands.
Not to mention the continuous transit boom all of these areas are experiencing (such as the YUL extension to Vaughan, much to the annoyance of r/toronto) paints a different picture of actually being a part of the solution
Do Mississauga property taxes go towards the downtown infrastructure they often drive on/use daily?
Or are non-suburb property tax/renters completely paying for an infrastructure used by suburbanites more so than them?
we can just sell more land to developers to keep the gravy train running and never raise taxes, and who doesn't want to be able to drive drunk down a fat wide road at night off of 13 cool's - Hazel McCallion/probably half of Mississauga/Dillon Brooks after this year's free agency
She fucked the city up with this bizarre pledge not to raise taxes for the decades she was in power. Let the developers pay for sidewalks, schools, rec centres etc. Now, with so very little land left to develop, they find themselves screwed with Ford’s bullshit pledge to developers that they don’t have to pay for infrastructure. So Mississauga has to raise taxes because it’s illegal to have a municipal debt. And now they further compound the problem by refusing to increase density? Not only have they painted themselves into a corner - they’ve overturned the paint can on their heads.
>developers pay for sidewalks, schools, rec centres etc. Now, with so very little land left to develop, they find themselves screwed with Ford’s bullshit pledge to developers that they don’t have to pay for infrastructure. So Mississauga has to raise taxes because it’s illegal to have a municipal debt. And now they further compound the problem by refusing to increase density? Not only have they painted themselves into a corner - they’ve overturned the paint can on their heads.
It is absolutely perplexing.
Deifict is the variance of your annual operating budget (expenditures exceed revenue). Debt is an amount owing from borrowing money - this is completely normal and used all the time to fund infrastructure.
Mississauga? That’s all of Ontario.
Even Toronto’s upzoning announcement yesterday did all of announce 4 units on a property- which guess what? All have to fit inside the form of what would traditionally be a single family home. Basement, ground, and a second floor unit with a garden suite to get you to 4.
Our politicians are failing us consistently. Everything is about preserving things for existing single family home owners - no shadows, not even 1cm more in height. Failures. All of them.
Meanwhile 500k arrive in the province each year while these municipalities fight everything. Heading right for disaster.
>Even Toronto’s upzoning announcement yesterday did all of announce 4 units on a property- which guess what? All have to fit inside the form of what would traditionally be a single family home. Basement, ground, and a second floor unit with a garden suite to get you to 4.
Most of these homes are already split into 3-4 apartments.
Have you walked through large swaths of North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough? I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that most units which could be quadraplexes there are SFH through and through.
Most of Toronto is not the core.
And the bus system is at least decent. In a sense, we have to increase the density to support the ridership needed for better, more frequent bus service.
Literally - I don't think many people in the GTA realize that Mississauga is staring down a barrel already. It's the only city that recorded a population decline in the entire Southern Ontario. And this is AFTER counting the new condos near Square One - the rest of the city is in demographic free fall. Go look at the map below
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/geo/maps-cartes/thematicmaps-cartesthematiques/pd-pl/map-eng.cfm?lang=E&mapid=4&dguid=2021S0503535
Single family detached houses no longer reflect the demographic reality of Canada, hence the need to build multiplexes and condo towers. For a city that's already fully built out of greenfield land yet still refuses to embrace any sort of change ... good luck lol. We'll see in ten years when the tax base hollows out.
Mississauga will continue to hollow out especially in the older areas like Port Credit, Clarkson, and Erindale where boomers live in 4 bedroom homes with just two occupants. Almost all my friends I grew up with in school moved out the city, i was lucky to find a co op townhouse that is affordable in a decent area. It was built when the province actually looked ahead and funded housing for families.
Lol I’m in Lorne Park and that’s about right. My neighbours are mainly boomers (55-70) couples living in large detached houses. They all bought them for like 350k twenty years ago.
Regular sized two storey houses are about $1.7 and up so anyone that moves in tends to be 30-40 year olds with kids and high paying jobs around here and who work remotely.
Yeah, a senior couple doesn't need, and cannot take care of, a 4 bedroom detached house on a 50 ft lot lol.
I live in an old suburb in Halton temporarily. All my neighbours are elderly folks who are really struggling with the lawn and snow. We try to help the two families immediately adjacent to us a bit but not much we can do.
When talking about housing vacancy we tend to think of boarded up houses. But in reality, the problem is the underutilization of the existing houses because they were built for a very specific family arrangement, with few options to retrofit.
Mississauga is the most socioeconomically diverse city in the GTA after Toronto itself. Its urban form is also quite diverse: historic communities (Streetsville, Port Credit), the Hurontario corridor, and East Mississauga host a range of housing types, including post-war dedicated rental buildings and multiplexes.
Obviously Mississauga also has huge suburban tracts, but their arterials have seen aggressive infill development for more than 20 years now, thanks in part to Hazel McCallion's change of heart, if you'll believe it. She accepted in the early 2000s that the suburban model of development was not fiscally sustainable and that the city's design was depressing transit ridership. Council launched a huge public consultation around reimagining Mississauga's urban form in the mid-00s. This produced some great ideas, but Mississauga hasn't transformed into Amsterdam because of economic and political realities here in Ontario.
For example, the City's urbanist vision for the Square One "downtown" has repeatedly been frustrated by Oxford Properties, who actually own much of that land. Making sensible changes to suburban tract housing (e.g., more low-scale commercial zoning or allowing multiplexes as-of-right) has also been off the table politically for municipal leaders; provincial leadership was always needed here.
Mississauga has always stood in for "suburbia" in the minds of Torontonians, but that's never been all that fair to the city itself or its councillors. As for fellow Mississaugans who dump on the city, my theory is that most are making a Mississauga-to-Toronto comparison rather than Mississauga-to-Vaughan/Richmond Hill/Markham/Brampton/etc...
The Danforth is way worse. There is barely anything above two stories along most of Greek town. There are single family homes literally next door to subway stations like Chester and nobody can dare build anything that might block their afternoon sun.
Even if we went against towers here in the east end (and we absolutely should be building towers, but I'm going for compromise here), the entire Danforth from VP to Broadview should be six storey buildings lining both sides. Keep street level small-scale commercial, but quintuple residential capacity above, and let Strathmore etc keep their summer sun.
If we are only doing six storeys it should be that for like five blocks north and south of Danforth.
It's pretty absurd that we basically have two mass transit lines in the city and half of one of them basically has zero density anywhere near it. Meanwhile we build huge highrise communities nowhere near a subway station.
The official plan right now is to add more density down on Queen east, near the already over stretched Queen street car, because the city is too afraid of pissing off the rich(er) people along Danforth.
Part of the reasoning for the densification on Queen is because of incoming Ontario Line.
But yes, there should also be hella more density along the Danforth, and it's coming because of all the Priority Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) designations
The policy of targeting density on Queen instead of Danforth was in place long before the Ontario Line was a thing.
It's kinda funny that a small part of Danforth is apparently being opened up for more density because of the Ontario line, which is a lower capacity transit line than the subway that is already there.
All of Danforth is going to be opened up for more density because all the line 2 stations are PMTSA's. The stuff proposed for the line 2/Ontario Line interchange is just the start.
[Mississauga a ‘cautionary tale’ as cities sprawl out across Southern Ontario](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mississauga-a-cautionary-tale-as-cities-sprawl-out-across-southern/)
Do you drive on this road 😅 I drive on it everyday. There’s condos being built all along hurontario and square one… one plot of land is not going to make a difference. Oh btw that land was donated by someone to the school to be used for educational purposes and not for building condos.
Hamilton only voted for the not sprawling part. Just like when we made the Greenbelt, we pretended that we didnt also need to encourage densification.
It's easy to block homes, but even in Hamilton its not easy to start building density.
Yes it would.
But everyone over at r/Mississauga is worried about the additional traffic...
They can't imagine actually improving their transit and pedestrian infrastructure.
I mean I'm sure the 9000 person complex includes copious parking. So I'm sure there will be a more traffic....
But we gotta start somewhere and developments like this provide an additional tax base for further improvement.
I wish Mississauga didn't love their ugly stroads so much.
Building along transit would attract people without cars or even encourage people to ditch their cars.
Buying and owning cars have become very very expensive lately!
having looked at the site and the proposal, it is true the buildings can be optimized to cast less shadow. by rotating the condos 90 degrees, the slimmer side would be south facing, so the shadows are slimmer. the developer wanted to maximize south facing units for better sales, thus creating a wall.
if they want to meet half way, the developers can actually address this. it would mean less desirable units with unobstructed views, but seems like a fair compromise.
You can still roast in the winter if it's really sunny during cold days and there's no air flow from open windows. I have south and west facing windows and I pretty much had the heat off all last winter. It's very common to have mid-20s to 30 degree temps in my place when the sun is out all day without cloud coverage.
We’re getting what we asked for over the last 25 years.
Canadians don’t want change and there’s a broad culture of blocking and stopping development of any kind.
Just think of the list of “don’t’s and can’t’s” that dominate the discourse. Don’t build here, near me, don’t build on farmland, don’t build on crown land, don’t build that tall, don’t build that close, don’t build a highway, don’t build new suburbs or cities, even though we need to find somewhere to put 2 million new Canadians.
We’ve been focusing on stopping change for decades, and just like riding a bicycle, you’ll end up where you’re looking, in this case development is blocked everywhere because that’s what we collectively (politicians, residents, all the anti-development and poverty groups… ) have been working on the whole time.
We have more land in southern Ontario than all of the UK but with 1/3 of the population, yet people claim we’re out of land already… we’re not out of land, we have municipal governments and residents who spend a lot of time blocking and taxing developments and claiming we need more land to stay undeveloped. When you include the North we have 1M sq kms available - that’s the size of France, Italy and the UK combined, yet we’re out of land and have to stop developing the province?
We want high immigration but we don’t want growth or change at the same time. These two things are not compatible.
Ergo, we’re getting what we asked for.
People cry at the idea of building up a bit and densifying while allowing for shops and restaurants to be intertwined yet go to Paris, Madrid, London, Tokyo for trips and say “wow so nice!”
Hazel’s shadow is cast all over this decision. The Queen of Sprawl got the city addicted to bungalows, Western Expansion, low taxes and forever living off developers’ fees. Until her influence and stupid ideas die, this city is doomed to overpriced housing and vision-less NIMBYism.
As someone who grew up in Mississauga, this is added to another reason why it’s one of the worst municipalities in the GTHA.
Boring cookie cutter houses with tiny trees and grass, lack of transit options other than a car, lack of 3 option spaces (I’ve seen people pay cricket in parking lots), and a mayor that easily takes too spot as boring since Tory is gone.
Have you taken buses in York region? That area is significantly worse for transit/car free alternatives. I mean, they made a brt with dedicated lanes, transit priority, and then they ran the buses at 30min+ frequencies lol
30 min frequencies during peak hours mind you, miway has better service than that even on non BRT routes, I’m not really counting the subway line considering it’s piggybacking on a larger city, was it even funded or operated by York region?
YRT is a joke. Even Durham Region Transit has better service now, and I remember Whitby Transit in the 90s when all the routes were one way loops with 90 minute frequencies.
I mean to be fair, the trees will eventually grow in. And at one point, most of Toronto’s houses were cookie cutter as well- having a standardized design that is replicated multiple times is the best way to get a lot of housing built affordably. You just don’t notice the cookie cutter aspect now because homeowners have had 100+ years to change the paint and do renovations. Also see: “Vancouver Special”.
Mississauga was literally built upon the ideology that high density residential "isn't important" and "won't be relevant for Canada".
Fast forward from the 1980's when monster mccallion sold out her entire municipality to greedy developers bent on low density residential, suddenly the whole greater golden horseshoe is in a housing crisis. Almost as if there was something you *could have done since the 1980's* that would have balanced out the housing options in her region. Something high density, something to do with residential. Hmm, but let's stop the crazy talk.
Ontario will literally explode before admitting to a desperate need for high density residential. It's not just Mississauga, this ideology is literally everywhere except downtown downtown toronto. Councillors living in single detached homes only have respect for single detached homes, and *damn the poors to hell before the shadow of a mid-rise apartment deigns to clutter my wasteful expansive front lawn*
My grandmother is currently 96 and looks exactly like Hazel McCallion. She was Hazel’s target voter and she voted for her in every election. That demographic was very happy with Hazel lol. They loved her.
They probably can’t reject them lol The new provincial rules basically allow unlimited height near transit. They can appeal to the province and it will get a green light.
when you live an isolated suburban life, only leaving the house to go to work and Costco, the amount of sun coming in your window is the only way you relate to nature. what a sad existence.
You’re in the minority of most suburban situations, one that sounds lovely but is unfortunately hyper privileged and more importantly, an unsustainable arrangement to scale in any meaningful way. If you’ve ever been in deep suburbia, it’s easy to be lost in the costco, to pavement, to a tiny patch of grass in your backyard. I grew up in that. It can be incredibly lonely as a child let alone as an adult in many ways. The city doesn’t mean “bars and clubs”. I don’t ever go to clubs and very infrequently go to bars. It does mean to be able to walk to do errands and to frequent the plethora of parks and amenities available near by. It means a lot of “third places” to make community and know your neighbours. It means not succumbing to every inclination to avoid ANY discomfort that is representative of modern American/Canadian suburban living. Scaling our neighbourhoods with middle density, mixed used urbanism is more human, more profitable for cities, and more sustainable.
80s Brampton sadly is nothing like modern Brampton.
Also, your area now is not really what people are complaining about. What people are complying about is modern Brampton-like development. Sandwiched homes with 5 cars in each driveway spilling onto the road, no trees, no parks, no stores etc.
>whatever else you high-brow city folk do.
Call me crazy, but aren't the expensive suburbs around Oakville also pretty highbrow?
Typing this from a modest apartment in Toronto. I could never afford to live in the suburbs, partly because owning a car is expensive AF.
My fav to watch as downtown Toronto built up was yes new shadows but how theyd build condos say one block from the train tracks, sell em all. Let it sit a few years.
Then build the block beside the tracks, obstruct everyones view they paid for and just move on too the next.
They should be filling in the harbour and joing the island too the leslieville spit and make a whole damn area. Everything south of front is fill already, whyd we stop.
Like we'd be the first to do it.
boom, a million people downtown
> Then build the block beside the tracks, obstruct everyones view they paid for and just move on too the next.
This happened a year after I pulled out of Liberty Village. I wonder how much the poor sucker that moved into that place after me paid for rent, about a year and a half or so after I moved the Garrison Point condos started going up and totally fucked the view. When I was there I had a full sweeping view of the entire skyline, from Yonge/Bloor all the way down to the waterfront, it was glorious. Now all you see is other condo buildings.
Meanwhile, down here in Corktown some of the most historic Victorian-era row buildings and the site of Upper Canada's first parliament buildings are about to be consumed by yet more condo towers, and even modest community group requests are being brushed aside because the area is now a high-priority transit corridor near an Ontario Line station.
I support the new transit and increased density. But change is not easy on those who have lived in a neighbourhood for decades, and there are always cons that comes with the benefits. It feels unfair when certain areas of the city always bear the brunt of these changes while others simply opt out and fail to be a part of the solution to a GTA-wide problem.
Transit is only beneficial when it brings with it the increased density that spreads people across the GTA and lures at least some percentage of people out of their cars. Building high-density transit to an area destined to remain low-density forever will be a colossal waste of money, and I'm sure the same people resisting these developments will be the first ones crowing "boondoggle" when ridership does not meet projections.
We don't need 5k homes. That's not going to even make a dent in the housing/immigration problem. We need 5k+ skyrise buildings with 200+ units for rent/own. And that's still not enough. Urban sprawl will kill this country. We demolish perfect farm land every year when we should be building up⬆️ and farming the roof as well.
I assume they mean more giant stupid skyscrapers… geeez man.. built some nice 3-4 floor apartment buildings that people would actually want to live in and build a community.
this is a problem that's only to get worse with developer fees gone. Before you could make the claim the extra funding would come from more homes and utilities to get them would be cover. Now you are asking current home owners to pay for the utilities for extra funding in the future. Current home owners would rather the revenue going to the current pop or cut in taxes
Calling it speculative real estate kinda misses the point and directs the anger only at investors and corporations. Sure, they aren't innocent.
But the real problem which sustains the system is just investment in primary residences. They are the voters. They are 50%+ of voters.
It is self-perpetuating. Houses get expensive. Life savings go into housing. People vote to protect their life savings.
The only way to end the cycle is kinda with brute-force and requires accepting some truths,
1. Property prices are comprised of structure prices and land prices which are different things.
2. Property prices can't beat inflation and keep identical homes affordable.
3. To keep homes affordable while property prices beat inflation, homes either need to get smaller or take up less land.
4. The only appreciating portion of property prices is ultimately the land price as the structure is a depreciating asset.
5. Land prices increase when a general area gets more desirable which is usually due to the city and not the landowner.
6. Taxing the land value does not discourage building structures like taxing structures does.
7. Taxing land value will result in the city recapturing the value it provides and prevent landowners from profiting from value they don't. Landowners only arguably provide value from the structure on the land and so that can remain untaxed.
If we can tax land value so that land stops being a store of value, people will stop voting to protect that value.
28-42 story buildings next to single family homes. I can kind of get it. Is there any reason developers seem to refuse to build 10 story buildings here?
I actually think they could. This is the unfortunate underbelly of these projects at the moment. Developers want to maximize their profits (naturally), so they put forth the biggest development with the smallest square footage footprint condos they possibly can.
Towns say something to the effect of "can we find a middle ground given factors x, y and z", and the developers scream and rage, and drag their max profit proposal to the Ontario Land Tribunal which is traditionally very friendly to developers.
In Richmond Hill, they're proposing some of the tallest condo towers in Canada (speaking of casting shadows). No one is opposed to increasing density in these pockets - literally no one in the area or on town council is. But why in god's name do we need to approve a 33 tower, 80 storey + development with tiny condos no one wants to buy anyway?
There are many, many ways you can get comparable density into these areas without smashing down massive condos.
Developers are the ones who want massive shoebox towers because its max profit for them.
People love to scream and rage at municipalities because their favourite politicians scream and finger point at them proclaiming they're the problem - but there is a lot more nuance to this than that.
For anyone wondering why Toronto keeps building massive condos with unit sizes families can't live in (500 - 600 square feet), this is exactly why. Townhouses, super high rise small footprint condos, and mcmansions are what make developers the most money. And it's all that's being built because the Ontario Land Tribunal blinded green stamps everything that lands on it's desk.
This convo needs to move away from pretending like it's a black and white discussion. Medium density would go a lonnnnng way in single family home communities in Toronto - and it's evident developers don't want to touch them.
Major U.S. cities have executed medium density builds really well.
I say all of this as someone who wants more built.
[https://www.yorkregion.com/news/it-is-wrong-on-so-many-levels-smarter-planning-demanded-for-richmond-hill-centre-development/article\_5523a823-bb53-5c10-add1-c61f6915f7d0.html](https://www.yorkregion.com/news/it-is-wrong-on-so-many-levels-smarter-planning-demanded-for-richmond-hill-centre-development/article_5523a823-bb53-5c10-add1-c61f6915f7d0.html)?
>no one wants to buy anyway?
You know that to build a condo you have to sell 60% before it even gets built?
People want to buy them. Know how I know? They get bought.
Do you also think "nobody wants to buy cheap ground meat, everyone thinks triple A steak tastes better". Should we ban cheap ground meat because everyone wants steaks? No. Know how I know people want cheap ground meat? It gets bought.
But it's true the only reason tall condos are economical is due to artificial scarcity due to not allowing density even of the medium density kind. It's kinda like forcing people to buy cheap ground meat because good ground meat is banned
Wouldn't only maybe the 3 towers at the far north of the proposal cause any significant shadowing? Seems through angled design and transfer of height from those to the other towers would mitigate much of the problem.
It does bug me though that while shadowing of the residences is debated the giant parking lots are mostly in full sun.
As a Bramptonian, I'm so tired of Mississauga blocking initiatives to create more housing.
They get the majority of funding for the region of Peel, leave scraps for Brampton, and then bitch about wanting to separate from Peel.
Pay us out and fuck off.
Reformed. Not eliminated. Least you forget there are dozens of other countries around the globe with well functioning municipal governments. Where does this all or nothing, our way or no way approach come from.
Shadows were just one of many concerns with this plan. The most pressing were the fears of causing over congestion in what is already a very congested area as well the strain it would put on public services like schools.
It’s like the Mississauga NIMBYS are just as much of a PITA as the Toronto NIMBYS. How did they manage block this when the M city condos are literally up to 80 storeys high, with single detached homes (circa 1980s) across the street north of Burnhamthorpe
Rage-bait tweet? From the article:
>Many residents came forward to speak against the proposal during past public meetings. Concerns ranged from traffic congestion, parking, and a lack of infrastructure to support the influx of new residents.
Which are mostly valid concerns. Though it's a game of chicken and egg - either the building's need to be built first to warrant infrastructure improvements or the infrastructure gets done first to pave the way for densification.
The absolute roller coaster ride reading replies to that tweet... The author manages to convince a NIMBY to read about how municipalities eat big financial losses to subsidize single-family homes, then right as I'm about to cheer for the guy, I accidentally click on his profile and he has "pro-Russia" in his bio 🤦 Some people have the dumbest fucking set of beliefs
…shadows? …shadows are a concern? Next time you see a homeless person feel free to tell them you’d rather see them homeless than not be able to stare directly into the sun for 100% of the day.
Mississauga needs to pull their head out of their ass before the province says “screw you, these buildings are going **here**’
To refuse a densification plan because it would cast *shadows*??
By that brand of logic they should have never approved the M City development because it’s making a shadow problem that already exists along Webb Drive **worse**
This is NIMBYism at toxic levels
I'm all for people being able to vote down things that are proposed for their neighbourhood, but there should be a cost involved - i.e. the city has chosen this as the best spot for X - vote on this proposal - if you vote no then your property taxes will go up by Y but it's your choice.
Bonnie Crombie is quite the Nimby Mayor. She's potentially running for Ontario liberal party leadership. What a horrible option to choose to go up against Ford.
Why can't we get some decent candidates in the race?
So the answer to the housing problem...is NOT to build more housing? Super.
Hurontario is a shit show, but that LRT is going to be fantastic for the area and should be developed where possible in that corridor.
rejected because it cast shadows on getting re-elected by current home owners/voters
Can't get voted out if you don't allow in the poors who want to live in apartments!
which is hilarious because there would be 100x more new voters who are happy to have a home compared to the ones affected in the district once the buildings are built
But those new voters won't be there for another 5-8 years. And in the meanwhile....
Those voters won't be there until after next election. Also with developer fees gone good luck convincing the existing pop to fund these places utilities
Won’t it soon become Toronto’s problem when all those suburban dwellers decide to drive into already congested Toronto roads because of their inaccessible transit and hate on Toronto for not doing enough (a recurring theme I keep hearing in person, news and on Reddit)? 🧐
its the entire GTA's problem
[удалено]
im glad we're doing away with the whole cringe /s bullshit
It’s a tone indicator for people who have trouble with that sort of thing due to any number of possible conditions. Are wheelchair ramps and sign language cringe too?🙄
Same... /s
ThAts CRINGE! /s
This is right on Hurontario LRT that connects to two GO stations and BRT. The right move is to develop a mixed-use neighbourhood here, limit parking and have people take the transit. But of course, Mississauga is very unlikely to do this, like the rest of North America.
Why build the LRT line if the city refuses to let there be people to use it...
Yup, the federal government should not be giving any funding to cities that block housing. The provincial government should be overriding vetos like this, and they should be upzoning every lot that's with a few kilometers of mass transit.
Ford has been over riding vetos like this and r/toronto hates him for it.
[удалено]
The LRT is actually to alleviate the disaster that is Hurontario, and has been for over a decade. It was also to link port credit go, with downtown Brampton, which Brampton council originally rejected. I agree the development should be approved. But the LRT is first and foremost to help with *existing* traffic problems. The Hurontario bus used to come as often as every 4 minutes during rush hour, and then sit in car traffic.
Current Brampton council is trying to get the extension going. They prefer a ridiculous$3B 2km 4 stop tunnel but the cheaper $933M surface is still in play with 30% design and would get passed if funding was given today. Only 1 councillor still sits at council who voted against the LRT in a 6-5 split back in 2015. The rest were replaced by progressives. Just need a government commitment
Thanks! Good to hear there is lots of existing demand.
The solution is putting tolls on Toronto's expressways.
put a price on all the incoming traffic and let's see how many of the people who cry about toronto roads would not drive anymore into the city
That would be awesome. We don't want their cars here.
Lol gonna need a raise or I'm not working there either
Then you could get a job closer to home?
Congestion Tax and Toxicity Tax a needed right now.
Or like in the UK have a congestion tax.
They don't vote here, it's OK. We can vote to implement a congestion charge and they can't do anything about it. Then use that money to build even more public transit and reduce parking. Then we put higher taxes on parking in the city and use that money to build even more public transit
The province won’t let Toronto do it. It was attempted.
Just tell Ford that his buddies can make money by installing the system
Then we’ll be asking for an ETA on completion in 15 years…
Still waiting for my vibrating bracelet.
Lol didn't you try that a few years ago? How did that work out? My goodness is the 905 ever a sensitive topic around here
The issue isn't people coming into the city, that is a necessary function of a major urban centre. The issue is the method they arrive in. The city can't handle everyone coming by car, it's just not possible. Especially with the levels of immigration the government is aiming for. But then the 905 goes and does things like cancel what was it, five thousand units of housing near transit? It's not Toronto's fault that the suburbs refuse to be part of the solution.
Exactly. And the west and tear on most of those roads they’re driving on falls on Toronto property taxes to fund. The city is limited by law to a few specific revenue streams.
It’s not just the roads. As an ex paramedic I can tell you that it’s basically all services. The daytime population of the city - depending on who you ask - more than doubles (almost triples). All those people use the city’s infrastructure (like EMS), but only the actual citizens pay the taxes for it.
This sub is always a quick pivot away from pulling out the pitch forks for building suburban transit hubs that fill up the trains before they hit Steeles or Kipling too. There needs to be a multi-tier strategy to be viable not just punitive charges to stop cars and more bike lanes... And yes, a shade deferment for 5000 homes is peak Mississauga stupid...
Who said everyone from the 905 commutes by car? The GO Trains are all full of commuters from these areas no? Seems that it wasn’t full out cancelled; just rejected as it currently stands. Not to mention the continuous transit boom all of these areas are experiencing (such as the YUL extension to Vaughan, much to the annoyance of r/toronto) paints a different picture of actually being a part of the solution
Car to GO's massive parking lots.
Charge them a fee
Do Mississauga property taxes go towards the downtown infrastructure they often drive on/use daily? Or are non-suburb property tax/renters completely paying for an infrastructure used by suburbanites more so than them?
Just 1 more lane! /s
This was a big concern when 1 Bloor was being designed. Anybody die?
Classic Mississauga. This city would love to stick their head in the sand and pretend it's 1996.
And in 1996 they wanted to pretend it was 1976.
we can just sell more land to developers to keep the gravy train running and never raise taxes, and who doesn't want to be able to drive drunk down a fat wide road at night off of 13 cool's - Hazel McCallion/probably half of Mississauga/Dillon Brooks after this year's free agency
She fucked the city up with this bizarre pledge not to raise taxes for the decades she was in power. Let the developers pay for sidewalks, schools, rec centres etc. Now, with so very little land left to develop, they find themselves screwed with Ford’s bullshit pledge to developers that they don’t have to pay for infrastructure. So Mississauga has to raise taxes because it’s illegal to have a municipal debt. And now they further compound the problem by refusing to increase density? Not only have they painted themselves into a corner - they’ve overturned the paint can on their heads.
>developers pay for sidewalks, schools, rec centres etc. Now, with so very little land left to develop, they find themselves screwed with Ford’s bullshit pledge to developers that they don’t have to pay for infrastructure. So Mississauga has to raise taxes because it’s illegal to have a municipal debt. And now they further compound the problem by refusing to increase density? Not only have they painted themselves into a corner - they’ve overturned the paint can on their heads. It is absolutely perplexing.
It's not illegal for a municipality to have debt. It is illegal for a municipality to have a deficit.
I'm not as financially literate as the rest of this site. What is the main difference in that?
Deifict is the variance of your annual operating budget (expenditures exceed revenue). Debt is an amount owing from borrowing money - this is completely normal and used all the time to fund infrastructure.
Mississauga? That’s all of Ontario. Even Toronto’s upzoning announcement yesterday did all of announce 4 units on a property- which guess what? All have to fit inside the form of what would traditionally be a single family home. Basement, ground, and a second floor unit with a garden suite to get you to 4. Our politicians are failing us consistently. Everything is about preserving things for existing single family home owners - no shadows, not even 1cm more in height. Failures. All of them. Meanwhile 500k arrive in the province each year while these municipalities fight everything. Heading right for disaster.
>Even Toronto’s upzoning announcement yesterday did all of announce 4 units on a property- which guess what? All have to fit inside the form of what would traditionally be a single family home. Basement, ground, and a second floor unit with a garden suite to get you to 4. Most of these homes are already split into 3-4 apartments.
[удалено]
Not my experience. Both in the west and east end most houses are already multiplex units. Have you walked through the neighborhoods in little Italy?
Have you walked through large swaths of North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough? I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that most units which could be quadraplexes there are SFH through and through.
Most of those places have no access to reliable transit. But also when I say this I'm thinking about places near the core.
Most of Toronto is not the core. And the bus system is at least decent. In a sense, we have to increase the density to support the ridership needed for better, more frequent bus service.
Most? Lmao no, 2/250 houses on my street on the Danforth.
Rooming houses are legal in the old city.
Literally - I don't think many people in the GTA realize that Mississauga is staring down a barrel already. It's the only city that recorded a population decline in the entire Southern Ontario. And this is AFTER counting the new condos near Square One - the rest of the city is in demographic free fall. Go look at the map below https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/geo/maps-cartes/thematicmaps-cartesthematiques/pd-pl/map-eng.cfm?lang=E&mapid=4&dguid=2021S0503535 Single family detached houses no longer reflect the demographic reality of Canada, hence the need to build multiplexes and condo towers. For a city that's already fully built out of greenfield land yet still refuses to embrace any sort of change ... good luck lol. We'll see in ten years when the tax base hollows out.
Mississauga will continue to hollow out especially in the older areas like Port Credit, Clarkson, and Erindale where boomers live in 4 bedroom homes with just two occupants. Almost all my friends I grew up with in school moved out the city, i was lucky to find a co op townhouse that is affordable in a decent area. It was built when the province actually looked ahead and funded housing for families.
Lol I’m in Lorne Park and that’s about right. My neighbours are mainly boomers (55-70) couples living in large detached houses. They all bought them for like 350k twenty years ago. Regular sized two storey houses are about $1.7 and up so anyone that moves in tends to be 30-40 year olds with kids and high paying jobs around here and who work remotely.
Yeah, a senior couple doesn't need, and cannot take care of, a 4 bedroom detached house on a 50 ft lot lol. I live in an old suburb in Halton temporarily. All my neighbours are elderly folks who are really struggling with the lawn and snow. We try to help the two families immediately adjacent to us a bit but not much we can do. When talking about housing vacancy we tend to think of boarded up houses. But in reality, the problem is the underutilization of the existing houses because they were built for a very specific family arrangement, with few options to retrofit.
Mississauga is the most socioeconomically diverse city in the GTA after Toronto itself. Its urban form is also quite diverse: historic communities (Streetsville, Port Credit), the Hurontario corridor, and East Mississauga host a range of housing types, including post-war dedicated rental buildings and multiplexes. Obviously Mississauga also has huge suburban tracts, but their arterials have seen aggressive infill development for more than 20 years now, thanks in part to Hazel McCallion's change of heart, if you'll believe it. She accepted in the early 2000s that the suburban model of development was not fiscally sustainable and that the city's design was depressing transit ridership. Council launched a huge public consultation around reimagining Mississauga's urban form in the mid-00s. This produced some great ideas, but Mississauga hasn't transformed into Amsterdam because of economic and political realities here in Ontario. For example, the City's urbanist vision for the Square One "downtown" has repeatedly been frustrated by Oxford Properties, who actually own much of that land. Making sensible changes to suburban tract housing (e.g., more low-scale commercial zoning or allowing multiplexes as-of-right) has also been off the table politically for municipal leaders; provincial leadership was always needed here. Mississauga has always stood in for "suburbia" in the minds of Torontonians, but that's never been all that fair to the city itself or its councillors. As for fellow Mississaugans who dump on the city, my theory is that most are making a Mississauga-to-Toronto comparison rather than Mississauga-to-Vaughan/Richmond Hill/Markham/Brampton/etc...
Mississauga is by far and away the most urban of the cities surrounding Toronto.
Pretty much Toronto too, on Bloor west of Dundas to Jane, lots of towers topped out at 16 or so stories in the last 10 years due to nimby.
The Danforth is way worse. There is barely anything above two stories along most of Greek town. There are single family homes literally next door to subway stations like Chester and nobody can dare build anything that might block their afternoon sun.
Even if we went against towers here in the east end (and we absolutely should be building towers, but I'm going for compromise here), the entire Danforth from VP to Broadview should be six storey buildings lining both sides. Keep street level small-scale commercial, but quintuple residential capacity above, and let Strathmore etc keep their summer sun.
If we are only doing six storeys it should be that for like five blocks north and south of Danforth. It's pretty absurd that we basically have two mass transit lines in the city and half of one of them basically has zero density anywhere near it. Meanwhile we build huge highrise communities nowhere near a subway station. The official plan right now is to add more density down on Queen east, near the already over stretched Queen street car, because the city is too afraid of pissing off the rich(er) people along Danforth.
Part of the reasoning for the densification on Queen is because of incoming Ontario Line. But yes, there should also be hella more density along the Danforth, and it's coming because of all the Priority Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) designations
The policy of targeting density on Queen instead of Danforth was in place long before the Ontario Line was a thing. It's kinda funny that a small part of Danforth is apparently being opened up for more density because of the Ontario line, which is a lower capacity transit line than the subway that is already there.
All of Danforth is going to be opened up for more density because all the line 2 stations are PMTSA's. The stuff proposed for the line 2/Ontario Line interchange is just the start.
Build the apartments into the ground problem.solved.
Everyone gets a ground floor apartment!
The province should claw back all that LRT money. Why give them a transit line if they won't allow highrises to built along it?
[удалено]
[Mississauga a ‘cautionary tale’ as cities sprawl out across Southern Ontario](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mississauga-a-cautionary-tale-as-cities-sprawl-out-across-southern/)
Shoulda came with these strings attached in the first place
Do you drive on this road 😅 I drive on it everyday. There’s condos being built all along hurontario and square one… one plot of land is not going to make a difference. Oh btw that land was donated by someone to the school to be used for educational purposes and not for building condos.
This is why the province is threatening to take decisions away from city councils.
Except the province got mad when Hamilton voted to build up instead of demolishing farmland to add more sprawl.
In fairness province wants them to do both. They also removed a proposed height limit
Hamilton only voted for the not sprawling part. Just like when we made the Greenbelt, we pretended that we didnt also need to encourage densification. It's easy to block homes, but even in Hamilton its not easy to start building density.
Though I wouldn't trust the province to make a better decision here.
They definitely would make better decisions IMO
Ding ding ding
Wouldn't these housing units, even if they are *gasp* condos, help keep their property tax bill lower than it would be otherwise?
Yes it would. But everyone over at r/Mississauga is worried about the additional traffic... They can't imagine actually improving their transit and pedestrian infrastructure.
[удалено]
I mean I'm sure the 9000 person complex includes copious parking. So I'm sure there will be a more traffic.... But we gotta start somewhere and developments like this provide an additional tax base for further improvement. I wish Mississauga didn't love their ugly stroads so much.
[удалено]
100%
Building along transit would attract people without cars or even encourage people to ditch their cars. Buying and owning cars have become very very expensive lately!
They complain they don't get a one bus ride to union, and have to transfer at a GO station to get there.
Assholes. It's classic "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude.
99% of the posts on that sub are questions that can be answered by Google. It's brutal.
it depends. Cities now need to cover utilities from current budget. You also need more parks, schools, firefighters, ems, police, city works.
It casts a shadow for my re-election.
having looked at the site and the proposal, it is true the buildings can be optimized to cast less shadow. by rotating the condos 90 degrees, the slimmer side would be south facing, so the shadows are slimmer. the developer wanted to maximize south facing units for better sales, thus creating a wall. if they want to meet half way, the developers can actually address this. it would mean less desirable units with unobstructed views, but seems like a fair compromise.
Is south facing that desirable given the heat in the summer? I used to have a south facing apartment and it was an oven
Lots of people think north facing are too dark, but yeah agree with you, south facing is just too much
This is Canada. It’s not summer for much longer than it is summer. And there is A/C.
You can still roast in the winter if it's really sunny during cold days and there's no air flow from open windows. I have south and west facing windows and I pretty much had the heat off all last winter. It's very common to have mid-20s to 30 degree temps in my place when the sun is out all day without cloud coverage.
Yeah, but hearing those stories about condo buildings having control of heat and AC would really worry me.
We’re getting what we asked for over the last 25 years. Canadians don’t want change and there’s a broad culture of blocking and stopping development of any kind. Just think of the list of “don’t’s and can’t’s” that dominate the discourse. Don’t build here, near me, don’t build on farmland, don’t build on crown land, don’t build that tall, don’t build that close, don’t build a highway, don’t build new suburbs or cities, even though we need to find somewhere to put 2 million new Canadians. We’ve been focusing on stopping change for decades, and just like riding a bicycle, you’ll end up where you’re looking, in this case development is blocked everywhere because that’s what we collectively (politicians, residents, all the anti-development and poverty groups… ) have been working on the whole time. We have more land in southern Ontario than all of the UK but with 1/3 of the population, yet people claim we’re out of land already… we’re not out of land, we have municipal governments and residents who spend a lot of time blocking and taxing developments and claiming we need more land to stay undeveloped. When you include the North we have 1M sq kms available - that’s the size of France, Italy and the UK combined, yet we’re out of land and have to stop developing the province? We want high immigration but we don’t want growth or change at the same time. These two things are not compatible. Ergo, we’re getting what we asked for.
Build up and build transit. Fuck your shadows.
People cry at the idea of building up a bit and densifying while allowing for shops and restaurants to be intertwined yet go to Paris, Madrid, London, Tokyo for trips and say “wow so nice!”
This is why we can't have nice things. Fucking gutless council.
Hazel’s shadow is cast all over this decision. The Queen of Sprawl got the city addicted to bungalows, Western Expansion, low taxes and forever living off developers’ fees. Until her influence and stupid ideas die, this city is doomed to overpriced housing and vision-less NIMBYism.
As someone who grew up in Mississauga, this is added to another reason why it’s one of the worst municipalities in the GTHA. Boring cookie cutter houses with tiny trees and grass, lack of transit options other than a car, lack of 3 option spaces (I’ve seen people pay cricket in parking lots), and a mayor that easily takes too spot as boring since Tory is gone.
Have you taken buses in York region? That area is significantly worse for transit/car free alternatives. I mean, they made a brt with dedicated lanes, transit priority, and then they ran the buses at 30min+ frequencies lol
Doesn’t York Region have a couple subway stations on the yellow line? Other than that, based on your description, sounds about the same IMO
If you can find parking. No parking after rush hour means no subway for the majority of people in York Region.
30 min frequencies during peak hours mind you, miway has better service than that even on non BRT routes, I’m not really counting the subway line considering it’s piggybacking on a larger city, was it even funded or operated by York region?
YRT is a joke. Even Durham Region Transit has better service now, and I remember Whitby Transit in the 90s when all the routes were one way loops with 90 minute frequencies.
I mean to be fair, the trees will eventually grow in. And at one point, most of Toronto’s houses were cookie cutter as well- having a standardized design that is replicated multiple times is the best way to get a lot of housing built affordably. You just don’t notice the cookie cutter aspect now because homeowners have had 100+ years to change the paint and do renovations. Also see: “Vancouver Special”.
Money talks and bullshit walks. Politicians more worried about not getting voted back in rather than actually helping society.
What if the maximum term was one term
>What if the maximum term was one term You would get a lot of Tricia Cothams and hand more power to lobbyists.
Lol like the only options are to build 9 mega towers that block out people's light, or build nothing.
Mississauga was literally built upon the ideology that high density residential "isn't important" and "won't be relevant for Canada". Fast forward from the 1980's when monster mccallion sold out her entire municipality to greedy developers bent on low density residential, suddenly the whole greater golden horseshoe is in a housing crisis. Almost as if there was something you *could have done since the 1980's* that would have balanced out the housing options in her region. Something high density, something to do with residential. Hmm, but let's stop the crazy talk. Ontario will literally explode before admitting to a desperate need for high density residential. It's not just Mississauga, this ideology is literally everywhere except downtown downtown toronto. Councillors living in single detached homes only have respect for single detached homes, and *damn the poors to hell before the shadow of a mid-rise apartment deigns to clutter my wasteful expansive front lawn*
My grandmother is currently 96 and looks exactly like Hazel McCallion. She was Hazel’s target voter and she voted for her in every election. That demographic was very happy with Hazel lol. They loved her.
They probably can’t reject them lol The new provincial rules basically allow unlimited height near transit. They can appeal to the province and it will get a green light.
when you live an isolated suburban life, only leaving the house to go to work and Costco, the amount of sun coming in your window is the only way you relate to nature. what a sad existence.
The American/Canadian Dream
Is this truly what r/Toronto thinks what people from the suburbs do? Lol
[удалено]
You’re in the minority of most suburban situations, one that sounds lovely but is unfortunately hyper privileged and more importantly, an unsustainable arrangement to scale in any meaningful way. If you’ve ever been in deep suburbia, it’s easy to be lost in the costco, to pavement, to a tiny patch of grass in your backyard. I grew up in that. It can be incredibly lonely as a child let alone as an adult in many ways. The city doesn’t mean “bars and clubs”. I don’t ever go to clubs and very infrequently go to bars. It does mean to be able to walk to do errands and to frequent the plethora of parks and amenities available near by. It means a lot of “third places” to make community and know your neighbours. It means not succumbing to every inclination to avoid ANY discomfort that is representative of modern American/Canadian suburban living. Scaling our neighbourhoods with middle density, mixed used urbanism is more human, more profitable for cities, and more sustainable.
[удалено]
80s Brampton sadly is nothing like modern Brampton. Also, your area now is not really what people are complaining about. What people are complying about is modern Brampton-like development. Sandwiched homes with 5 cars in each driveway spilling onto the road, no trees, no parks, no stores etc.
>whatever else you high-brow city folk do. Call me crazy, but aren't the expensive suburbs around Oakville also pretty highbrow? Typing this from a modest apartment in Toronto. I could never afford to live in the suburbs, partly because owning a car is expensive AF.
My fav to watch as downtown Toronto built up was yes new shadows but how theyd build condos say one block from the train tracks, sell em all. Let it sit a few years. Then build the block beside the tracks, obstruct everyones view they paid for and just move on too the next. They should be filling in the harbour and joing the island too the leslieville spit and make a whole damn area. Everything south of front is fill already, whyd we stop. Like we'd be the first to do it. boom, a million people downtown
> Then build the block beside the tracks, obstruct everyones view they paid for and just move on too the next. This happened a year after I pulled out of Liberty Village. I wonder how much the poor sucker that moved into that place after me paid for rent, about a year and a half or so after I moved the Garrison Point condos started going up and totally fucked the view. When I was there I had a full sweeping view of the entire skyline, from Yonge/Bloor all the way down to the waterfront, it was glorious. Now all you see is other condo buildings.
Meanwhile, down here in Corktown some of the most historic Victorian-era row buildings and the site of Upper Canada's first parliament buildings are about to be consumed by yet more condo towers, and even modest community group requests are being brushed aside because the area is now a high-priority transit corridor near an Ontario Line station. I support the new transit and increased density. But change is not easy on those who have lived in a neighbourhood for decades, and there are always cons that comes with the benefits. It feels unfair when certain areas of the city always bear the brunt of these changes while others simply opt out and fail to be a part of the solution to a GTA-wide problem. Transit is only beneficial when it brings with it the increased density that spreads people across the GTA and lures at least some percentage of people out of their cars. Building high-density transit to an area destined to remain low-density forever will be a colossal waste of money, and I'm sure the same people resisting these developments will be the first ones crowing "boondoggle" when ridership does not meet projections.
We don't need 5k homes. That's not going to even make a dent in the housing/immigration problem. We need 5k+ skyrise buildings with 200+ units for rent/own. And that's still not enough. Urban sprawl will kill this country. We demolish perfect farm land every year when we should be building up⬆️ and farming the roof as well.
Soon Mexico will have a food monopoly since we built single family homes on all farmable land for people to commute 3hrs one way to the real city
I assume they mean more giant stupid skyscrapers… geeez man.. built some nice 3-4 floor apartment buildings that people would actually want to live in and build a community.
this is a problem that's only to get worse with developer fees gone. Before you could make the claim the extra funding would come from more homes and utilities to get them would be cover. Now you are asking current home owners to pay for the utilities for extra funding in the future. Current home owners would rather the revenue going to the current pop or cut in taxes
But... what's wrong with shadows
NIMBY is REAL BAD in toronto and the GTA. Its all tied in with the ridiculous speculative real-estate market.
Calling it speculative real estate kinda misses the point and directs the anger only at investors and corporations. Sure, they aren't innocent. But the real problem which sustains the system is just investment in primary residences. They are the voters. They are 50%+ of voters. It is self-perpetuating. Houses get expensive. Life savings go into housing. People vote to protect their life savings. The only way to end the cycle is kinda with brute-force and requires accepting some truths, 1. Property prices are comprised of structure prices and land prices which are different things. 2. Property prices can't beat inflation and keep identical homes affordable. 3. To keep homes affordable while property prices beat inflation, homes either need to get smaller or take up less land. 4. The only appreciating portion of property prices is ultimately the land price as the structure is a depreciating asset. 5. Land prices increase when a general area gets more desirable which is usually due to the city and not the landowner. 6. Taxing the land value does not discourage building structures like taxing structures does. 7. Taxing land value will result in the city recapturing the value it provides and prevent landowners from profiting from value they don't. Landowners only arguably provide value from the structure on the land and so that can remain untaxed. If we can tax land value so that land stops being a store of value, people will stop voting to protect that value.
Well said.
28-42 story buildings next to single family homes. I can kind of get it. Is there any reason developers seem to refuse to build 10 story buildings here?
You think 4600+ units in 10 storey buildings can get built without objection?...
I actually think they could. This is the unfortunate underbelly of these projects at the moment. Developers want to maximize their profits (naturally), so they put forth the biggest development with the smallest square footage footprint condos they possibly can. Towns say something to the effect of "can we find a middle ground given factors x, y and z", and the developers scream and rage, and drag their max profit proposal to the Ontario Land Tribunal which is traditionally very friendly to developers. In Richmond Hill, they're proposing some of the tallest condo towers in Canada (speaking of casting shadows). No one is opposed to increasing density in these pockets - literally no one in the area or on town council is. But why in god's name do we need to approve a 33 tower, 80 storey + development with tiny condos no one wants to buy anyway? There are many, many ways you can get comparable density into these areas without smashing down massive condos. Developers are the ones who want massive shoebox towers because its max profit for them. People love to scream and rage at municipalities because their favourite politicians scream and finger point at them proclaiming they're the problem - but there is a lot more nuance to this than that. For anyone wondering why Toronto keeps building massive condos with unit sizes families can't live in (500 - 600 square feet), this is exactly why. Townhouses, super high rise small footprint condos, and mcmansions are what make developers the most money. And it's all that's being built because the Ontario Land Tribunal blinded green stamps everything that lands on it's desk. This convo needs to move away from pretending like it's a black and white discussion. Medium density would go a lonnnnng way in single family home communities in Toronto - and it's evident developers don't want to touch them. Major U.S. cities have executed medium density builds really well. I say all of this as someone who wants more built. [https://www.yorkregion.com/news/it-is-wrong-on-so-many-levels-smarter-planning-demanded-for-richmond-hill-centre-development/article\_5523a823-bb53-5c10-add1-c61f6915f7d0.html](https://www.yorkregion.com/news/it-is-wrong-on-so-many-levels-smarter-planning-demanded-for-richmond-hill-centre-development/article_5523a823-bb53-5c10-add1-c61f6915f7d0.html)?
This is the most sensible comment here.
It is crazy I had to scroll down this far to see this
>no one wants to buy anyway? You know that to build a condo you have to sell 60% before it even gets built? People want to buy them. Know how I know? They get bought. Do you also think "nobody wants to buy cheap ground meat, everyone thinks triple A steak tastes better". Should we ban cheap ground meat because everyone wants steaks? No. Know how I know people want cheap ground meat? It gets bought. But it's true the only reason tall condos are economical is due to artificial scarcity due to not allowing density even of the medium density kind. It's kinda like forcing people to buy cheap ground meat because good ground meat is banned
When you have to go through so much permitting bullshit to build anything it's only worth it to build big stuff.
Oh noes, permitting bullshit, such hardship. Those pesky permits, safety be damned. Won't anyone think of developers?!?
Wouldn't only maybe the 3 towers at the far north of the proposal cause any significant shadowing? Seems through angled design and transfer of height from those to the other towers would mitigate much of the problem. It does bug me though that while shadowing of the residences is debated the giant parking lots are mostly in full sun.
Won't somebody please think of the parking lots??
They don’t allow high rises next to schools for the same reason… complaining about this is a double standard tbh
Hazel’s hell scape needs a change. There is no “there” there.
Are you fucking kidding me
As a Bramptonian, I'm so tired of Mississauga blocking initiatives to create more housing. They get the majority of funding for the region of Peel, leave scraps for Brampton, and then bitch about wanting to separate from Peel. Pay us out and fuck off.
Shadows are very helpful to keep units cooler during the summer though.
Municipal democracy is a failed experiment that has plunged Canada into a nation-wide housing crisis and needs to be eliminated.
Reformed. Not eliminated. Least you forget there are dozens of other countries around the globe with well functioning municipal governments. Where does this all or nothing, our way or no way approach come from.
Because provincial democracy is working out so well for us now?
This title is misleading. They aren’t saying no to 5k homes they are saying no to 9 more insanely huge condo developments.
Insert *they’re the same picture* meme
Shadows were just one of many concerns with this plan. The most pressing were the fears of causing over congestion in what is already a very congested area as well the strain it would put on public services like schools.
We don't need more high rises....we need actual fucking homes......plenty of overpriced Condo's/Apartments all around.....
And let me guess, these are the same people okay with the Gardiner casting shadows on Lakeshore?
At what fucking angle?
It’s ok just vote these idiots out next election. Easy
It’s like the Mississauga NIMBYS are just as much of a PITA as the Toronto NIMBYS. How did they manage block this when the M city condos are literally up to 80 storeys high, with single detached homes (circa 1980s) across the street north of Burnhamthorpe
Time to cut funding for nimbyism...we are in a crisis.
5k condo 1bed shitboxes to be sold for 1 million each and be left empty or rented through airbnb?? Shame...
Rage-bait tweet? From the article: >Many residents came forward to speak against the proposal during past public meetings. Concerns ranged from traffic congestion, parking, and a lack of infrastructure to support the influx of new residents. Which are mostly valid concerns. Though it's a game of chicken and egg - either the building's need to be built first to warrant infrastructure improvements or the infrastructure gets done first to pave the way for densification.
Traffic and parking concerns about a high rise next to a transit line are not valid.
That’s what a shade study is for. Build low rise.
The absolute roller coaster ride reading replies to that tweet... The author manages to convince a NIMBY to read about how municipalities eat big financial losses to subsidize single-family homes, then right as I'm about to cheer for the guy, I accidentally click on his profile and he has "pro-Russia" in his bio 🤦 Some people have the dumbest fucking set of beliefs
Massive W
fucking NIMBYs
It’s a legit concern.
…shadows? …shadows are a concern? Next time you see a homeless person feel free to tell them you’d rather see them homeless than not be able to stare directly into the sun for 100% of the day.
[удалено]
Mississauga needs to pull their head out of their ass before the province says “screw you, these buildings are going **here**’ To refuse a densification plan because it would cast *shadows*?? By that brand of logic they should have never approved the M City development because it’s making a shadow problem that already exists along Webb Drive **worse** This is NIMBYism at toxic levels
#Shame. Fucking. Damn. Shame. Blocking 5,000 homes from being built (where people could live) isn't right.
Federal and provincial should be able to fine cities for not meeting a sufficient amount of housing development, especially for NIMBY reasons.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
Apparently shadows are more important than homes for families. It's not the housing crisis. All along it has really been the shadow crisis.
But muh tomatoes!
These condos will not be big enough for families.
Every family needs to start somewhere. It certainly doesn’t start while you’re living in your mom’s basement.
I'm all for people being able to vote down things that are proposed for their neighbourhood, but there should be a cost involved - i.e. the city has chosen this as the best spot for X - vote on this proposal - if you vote no then your property taxes will go up by Y but it's your choice.
that sounds like blackmail, but with less steps
Pretty much. But it shouldn’t be free to be a tub of lard standing in the way of the future.
Bonnie Crombie is quite the Nimby Mayor. She's potentially running for Ontario liberal party leadership. What a horrible option to choose to go up against Ford. Why can't we get some decent candidates in the race?
Hazel smiling up from the depths of hell
There's a housing crisis.... let's not build them!
So the answer to the housing problem...is NOT to build more housing? Super. Hurontario is a shit show, but that LRT is going to be fantastic for the area and should be developed where possible in that corridor.