It’s funny you mention Queens because Toronto itself is, in vernacular, a kind of Commonwealth Midtown surrounded by Queens.
I think the problem is Mississauga’s original build era. It isn’t from the same generation as New York’s boroughs (minus the former towns that merged into it, such as Port Credit) and is a lot further out than Queens or Brooklyn are. Even if density was allowed from the ‘70s on, Mississauga still would’ve wound up with massive stroads, loopy residential roads, parking lots, etc that make walkable, bikeable, transit-able(?) cities hard. Of course, we got the less dense version of this too, which has exacerbated the problem. A city with the built form of Mississauga is going to be much harder to retrofit into a 21st-century Outremont or LES than York or even lower Etobicoke will be.
Or maybe I’m just more pessimistic and skeptical because I’ve been burnt by my previous optimism when it comes to North American urbanism so many times.
Oh, I agree that even absent reasonable land-use policy Mississauga wasn't *likely* to end up as dense as Queens because of the vintage of the built environment (even if the opportunity was theoretically there and we needed it). I'm sure it would be denser than Levittown, though.
Having said that, I suspect that that the last twenty years or so would have substantially reshaped the city as land values rose and sprawl alternatives diminished. Hard to say precisely where we'd be at. But I'd imagine there's be *a lot* of 5-over-1s built in the last decade as the housing shortage began to bite. That kind of incremental density is reasonably cheap to build, and quite pleasant even if architecture critics don't love it (I live in one).
Yeah, I agree that, had places like Mississauga been proactive, it could’ve curbed the current issue, at least somewhat. Hard to say how exactly that would look with so many neighbourhoods of loops and lollipops road layouts but even in core areas, around major intersections, there could’ve been a start.
We’ve evangelized single detached homes too long in Canada. It’s quite absurd to see little postwar bungalows a block off Yonge in North York, where out-of-proportion high-rises dominate along the subway spine. Those off Yonge areas shouldn’t be the sacred cow they’ve become and could easily support “missing middle” types of density.
The human-scaled density building is perhaps the one area that American urban policy broadly is better than Canada’s. Although out in Alberta, you do see a minor version of densification of bloated bungalow belts, with the proliferation of “skinny homes” on previous large lot postwar homes. Big thing in Edmonton and Calgary. I know Edmonton is reviewing its zoning to have more liberal use of townhomes and small apartments in these areas to build off of the skinny home craze of the past 10yrs.
This was great. I think a big impediment to growth in Mississauga is the lack of a good rapid transit network. You have one decent GO line (but it skirts the edge of the city), and besides that poor connections to the major employment centres in Downtown Toronto and at the Airport!
Worse still while we should be talking about rapid transit for the city theres basically zero talk about it - and that will take a lot longer to build than the housing!
Oh, absolutely. I focussed on the land-use side, but it absolutely goes hand in hand with transportation. If you zone for almost exclusively detached housing, it's hard to justify higher order transit. And if you don't have higher order transit, harder to make the case for incremental density.
Personally, my few Mississauga transit experiences have not been great. Nothing like the ease of getting to Hamilton or Kitchener. I've let a few good friendships wane over the years because it's hard for me to visit them in Sauga and vice versa.
Really enjoying this blog. Looking at all these different municipalities is fascinating.
Thanks! I'm enjoying it. So many interesting towns around Ontario that I've still yet to explore.
It’s funny you mention Queens because Toronto itself is, in vernacular, a kind of Commonwealth Midtown surrounded by Queens.
I think the problem is Mississauga’s original build era. It isn’t from the same generation as New York’s boroughs (minus the former towns that merged into it, such as Port Credit) and is a lot further out than Queens or Brooklyn are. Even if density was allowed from the ‘70s on, Mississauga still would’ve wound up with massive stroads, loopy residential roads, parking lots, etc that make walkable, bikeable, transit-able(?) cities hard. Of course, we got the less dense version of this too, which has exacerbated the problem. A city with the built form of Mississauga is going to be much harder to retrofit into a 21st-century Outremont or LES than York or even lower Etobicoke will be.
Or maybe I’m just more pessimistic and skeptical because I’ve been burnt by my previous optimism when it comes to North American urbanism so many times.
Oh, I agree that even absent reasonable land-use policy Mississauga wasn't *likely* to end up as dense as Queens because of the vintage of the built environment (even if the opportunity was theoretically there and we needed it). I'm sure it would be denser than Levittown, though.
Having said that, I suspect that that the last twenty years or so would have substantially reshaped the city as land values rose and sprawl alternatives diminished. Hard to say precisely where we'd be at. But I'd imagine there's be *a lot* of 5-over-1s built in the last decade as the housing shortage began to bite. That kind of incremental density is reasonably cheap to build, and quite pleasant even if architecture critics don't love it (I live in one).
Yeah, I agree that, had places like Mississauga been proactive, it could’ve curbed the current issue, at least somewhat. Hard to say how exactly that would look with so many neighbourhoods of loops and lollipops road layouts but even in core areas, around major intersections, there could’ve been a start.
We’ve evangelized single detached homes too long in Canada. It’s quite absurd to see little postwar bungalows a block off Yonge in North York, where out-of-proportion high-rises dominate along the subway spine. Those off Yonge areas shouldn’t be the sacred cow they’ve become and could easily support “missing middle” types of density.
The human-scaled density building is perhaps the one area that American urban policy broadly is better than Canada’s. Although out in Alberta, you do see a minor version of densification of bloated bungalow belts, with the proliferation of “skinny homes” on previous large lot postwar homes. Big thing in Edmonton and Calgary. I know Edmonton is reviewing its zoning to have more liberal use of townhomes and small apartments in these areas to build off of the skinny home craze of the past 10yrs.
This was great. I think a big impediment to growth in Mississauga is the lack of a good rapid transit network. You have one decent GO line (but it skirts the edge of the city), and besides that poor connections to the major employment centres in Downtown Toronto and at the Airport!
Worse still while we should be talking about rapid transit for the city theres basically zero talk about it - and that will take a lot longer to build than the housing!
Oh, absolutely. I focussed on the land-use side, but it absolutely goes hand in hand with transportation. If you zone for almost exclusively detached housing, it's hard to justify higher order transit. And if you don't have higher order transit, harder to make the case for incremental density.
Personally, my few Mississauga transit experiences have not been great. Nothing like the ease of getting to Hamilton or Kitchener. I've let a few good friendships wane over the years because it's hard for me to visit them in Sauga and vice versa.
Yep, have not spent much time there because it's hard to access without a car!