[canarob]

I have little knowledge on this issue but for all the hype how much is Markham just like Mississauga but behind the curve? What I mean is that Mississauga was able to keep it's taxes low because of a relatively strong commercial inventory and prepetual greenfield growth. As this phenomenon unwinds the 'magic" is starting to lose it's luster is it not?

Mississauga has run out of its white belt lands, whereas Markham is still expanding northward, but in this expansion only about half of the new homes will be singles. Some of the new developments in the north of the town are still pretty sprawling, like the new detached homes on wide lots near Angus Glen, but overall new development is far denser than what would have been built in GTA suburbia in the 80s, 90s, etc., and far, far denser than what’s typical in Canada. This is over and above the fact that there is a 60% intensification target for the existing urban area (to be fair, some of this is still empty fields, like much of Markham Centre). The difference between the two municipalities is that Mississauga was almost out of land when it started to embrace higher-density communities, whereas Markham was still significantly underdeveloped when it made the same decision. If Markham had grown more quickly from 1950-1990, things would be very different now.

Also, Markham, like many suburbs, still has to deal with the fact that since there were developed first, many of its low density areas are in more central locations than newer, denser developments that are on the fringes. Cornell is the best example of this. It's one of the densest developments in Markham (and the 905), but transit is poorer because it's on the eastern edge of the town, whereas there are lower density areas right next to GO train stations. Strip malls can be torn down and replaced with low rise condos (this is already starting to happen), but I don't see a day where subdivisions get block busted. At best, large lots can be subdivided or town homes could be used as in-fill.

 

[doady]

The difference between the two municipalities is that Mississauga was almost out of land when it started to embrace higher-density communities, whereas Markham was still significantly underdeveloped when it made the same decision. If Markham had grown more quickly from 1950-1990, things would be very different now.

Seriously? There's been high-density development in Mississauga throughout its history. Even today, most of the high-rises in Mississauga City Centre are from the late 80s and early 90s. Outside MCC, most of those high-rises at Hurontario-Eglinton were probably built furing the same time period. The Kaneff buildings (which are also technically are not part of MCC) are probably from the early 70s. All those high-rises in Meadowvale were probably built in the late 70s or early 80s.

Of course, all that doesn't compare to the amount of high-density developments that took place even before Mississauga existed. The majority of highrises in Mississauga were built in the 50s and 60s. High-density development is not a recent phenomenon in Mississauga. If it was it recent thing, I doubt Mississauga would have more high-rises than major cities like Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, etc. right now. What Markham is doing is great, but I think people give it too much credit.

 

[Memph]

Not to mention the apartment buildings around Dixie and Port Credit which were built quite a while ago.

I don't think Cornell is very unusual though. Most of the new subdivisions throughout the 905 seem to be of similar density to Cornell and denser than the older subdivisions that are more centrally located. I agree that it's unlikely that highrises will be allowed in the middle of older single family neighbourhoods, but allowing sideways oriented townhouses could allow for roughly 5-10 higher densities on individual lots with frontages of about 50-80ft.

This is what I mean by sideways oriented:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Bro...id=GFqj2X2VT1JfHXjmsYZZVA&cbp=12,9.76,,0,-0.8

Although the driveway could be decked or underground and the unit adjacent to the street could front onto it. Sideways oriented townhouses would take advantage of the fact that the lots are quite deep.

 

[doady]

The difference with Cornell is its adherence to New Urbanist principles, meaning semi-faux-historic architecture and garages at the back of the houses along alleyways. It looks a lot nicer than standard subdivision. The density is probably a little higher but it is not a huge difference. As far as I know, other than Markham, only Oakville is building New Urbanist communities at such a large scale.

 

[jaycola]

but I don't see a day where subdivisions get block busted. At best, large lots can be subdivided or town homes could be used as in-fill.

I was recently thinking about this issue. There are many locations within 416 as well as 905 where there are very large, single family lots on main streets where a fairly large tower could be built on the lots of just a handful of homes. Bayview just south of the 401 is one example I can think of in Toronto. Royal York too. In Thornhill, Centre Street and John come to mind. Mississauga road is another.

Maybe the cities need to identify some of the locations where this type of "Blockbusting" might be desirable? If the cities put out there the potential for particular assemblies, sellers and developers might be spurred into action. If someone offered me a 50%premium on my house today, I'd be very enticed to move.

 

[taal]

The reason why downtown Markham works is there is so much office space along Hi-way 7 / 404 ... probably around 10 million square feet and growing.

So there is a huge demand to live there.

 

[junctionist]

While it's good to see the newer suburbs have urban aspirations (and being recognized for it), the fact is that these communities tend to allow most of their land to become sprawl, with one or two places where they try to urbanize like Vaughan is planning to do around the Spadina subway. North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke all did this decades ago, with varying degrees of success. It's not that progressive anymore. What would be more progressive would be consistently medium density with higher density near the best transit amenities, with LRT linking neighbourhoods of townhouses and low to mid-rise condos from the beginning.

 

[taal]

While it's good to see the newer suburbs have urban aspirations (and being recognized for it), the fact is that these communities tend to allow most of their land to become sprawl, with one or two places where they try to urbanize like Vaughan is planning to do around the Spadina subway. North York, Scarborough, and Etobicoke all did this decades ago, with varying degrees of success. It's not that progressive anymore. What would be more progressive would be consistently medium density with higher density near the best transit amenities, with LRT linking neighbourhoods of townhouses and low to mid-rise condos from the beginning.

Well that is what we are seeing across Hi-way 7 (at least the east side) and Yonge no ?

 

[canarob]

Seriously? There's been high-density development in Mississauga throughout its history. Even today, most of the high-rises in Mississauga City Centre are from the late 80s and early 90s. Outside MCC, most of those high-rises at Hurontario-Eglinton were probably built furing the same time period. The Kaneff buildings (which are also technically are not part of MCC) are probably from the early 70s. All those high-rises in Meadowvale were probably built in the late 70s or early 80s.

Of course, all that doesn't compare to the amount of high-density developments that took place even before Mississauga existed. The majority of highrises in Mississauga were built in the 50s and 60s. High-density development is not a recent phenomenon in Mississauga. If it was it recent thing, I doubt Mississauga would have more high-rises than major cities like Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, etc. right now. What Markham is doing is great, but I think people give it too much credit.

Ok, good point. I retract that statement.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I floated the idea in another thread a long time ago around this issue: is a denser urban form in the suburbs really a good idea?

I can't say it is or it isn't but what I can say is that if we just take one parameter such as "density" in isolation I feel we may be missing the larger picture and commiting the same mistakes as our fathers. I feel that density must be coupled to freedom of land-use and ownership responsibility in order to work. What I mean is that increasing the amount of people you shove into a given geographic area by 20 or 30% might just be creating an urban forum that is 20 to 30% more disfunctional. If I can't open and operate commercial and even industrial ventures within or within close proximity to residential enclaves what does it matter if there are 20-30% more people?

I am beginning to suspect that the problem of building a community from zero to half-a-million people is peanuts compared to sustaining a prosperous community of half-a-million for a century.

 

[unimaginative2]

Very good points, TrickyRicky.

Density is fine, but it's the relationship of neighbourhoods to infrastructure that is most important. If getting people to walk and ride transit is your goal, then you should design neighbourhoods around transit. We also engage in a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to TOD. We build little "village centres" with some townhouses and small shops around the train station. While that might be lovely and all, that's not actually the hub of the community. People actually go do their shopping and entertainment in malls and power centres. We need to get over our hangups about malls and accept that they are the hubs of suburban communities. That makes them perfect hubs for transit.

 

[RC8]

But it isn't transit and urban planning that have to adapt to the malls, it's the malls that have to be designed to act as inclusive city centres.

Square One transit terminal will never be anything more than an unpleasant wasteland until anyone can actually walk to it. Right now there's only about 2 buildings that are somewhat within walking distance (15-20min walk in winter) and you have to make your way through highway-like streets and parking lots to get there.

Let me put this in perspective, the distance between the condo closest to Square One and the transit terminal is greater than the distance between Union Station and the Flatiron building (and the whole way is essentially a barren sidewalk with parking lots on both sides).

Take Southcommon, I would bury the parking lot, build a modern but vernacular 'village square' on top of it (as well as 4 new streets), keep the same shops, and build condos and townhomes at the site. People living there would be close to UTM, the highway, walking distance from walmart, no frills, BMO, Rogers, etc. and close to Michaelangelo's supermarket, and would be able to easily walk to a transit terminal that can take them express to Square One (current 110). This type of development would be ideal and would transform wasteland into an urban oasis. The condos across the street are quite well off and sought after, so I would imagine demand in the area would allow for such a development.