View Single Post
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 7:09 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,281
I look at Surrey on the map and I see cul-de-sacs everywhere, no grid. Mississauga has very few cul-de-sacs. But otherwise, I don't see any difference fundamental difference in their planning. Looking at satellite image, I see the same TOD features in Surrey that Mississauga has, but noticeably fewer high rises. Concession roads in Surrey closer together, so they didn't need to build new corridors like Mississauga did (Bristol Rd., Glen Erin Dr., Courtneypark Dr., Mavis Rd., etc.).

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Port Credit is closer to Burnaby in scale and massing which is probably why it feels more enjoyable to walk than the city centre.!8i6656
That's Mississauga Valleys, not Mississauga City Centre. Mississauga Valleys is a subdivision from the 70s. Mississauga's downtown at the time was Cooksville; MCC was not even a concept yet.

Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Surrey is Mississauga in its dreams. Metrotown was nothing but a big hill on the edge of town in the 80s.

e.g. photo from 82:


Still more built up than Surrey is today.
In 1982, Mississauga City Centre and the surrounding area was mostly farmland. There were 4 office buildings built in what is now MCC in the 50s and 60s, the mall was built in the 70s, but everything else was built in the late 80s onward. MCC is all greenfield development, and there are still greenfields. That's why I say walkability of Metrotown is more comparable to a place like Port Credit, or Cooksville (the original downtown of Mississauga), or North York City Centre.

Mississauga City Centre skyline in 2007:

I don't want to diminish how impressive Metrotown is, but keep in mind the difference in history and context when comparing it to MCC.
Reply With Quote