HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #641  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 3:21 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Riverside/Sunshine Coast
Posts: 3,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by 905er View Post
having experienced both, i think Metrotown and Mississauga have a lot in common actually so it makes complete sense to compare the two. That said, these last two images of Mississauga are just awful imo and do not do the skyline justice whatsoever .. it only captures one small portion. The best view of the skyline would be on hurontraio/10 just where it meets with the 403 looking south. Once the LRT and rogers Mcity development and edge towers are in place i'd give the edge to Mississauga, but then again i'm not as informed on the future developments happening in Burnaby. I think it'll be really interesting to see what changes will happen in the next 10 yrs in both cities. i see both making efforts to improve it's urban grid which is a start.

I don't think we were talking about the skylines, we were talking about the street grids and pedestrian experience.
__________________
I'm insidious! LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #642  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 5:10 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 28,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Ugh, don't compare it to Missasauga's, it's 10 x better and more urban in feel in my opinion.
2nd that. And I have experienced both first hand many times.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #643  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 7:02 PM
905er 905er is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
I don't think we were talking about the skylines, we were talking about the street grids and pedestrian experience.
my bad. yes, street grids/pedestrian experience i give Burnaby/metrotown the edge
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #644  
Old Posted May 16, 2017, 9:37 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,560
It's been many years since I've been in Metrotown. Lots of towers in park but, the point towers forms, greenery and, localized streets definitely makes it a much more pleasant experience than the mega block slab arrangements, minimal landscaping and, surface/decked parking lots.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #645  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 4:31 AM
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,711
Metrotown is North York with a mall. Mississauga is basically a larger Coquitlam or Brentwood. Actually both the latter are fast becoming better by virtue of rapid transit. No comparison, even without factoring the bleak desolate landscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #646  
Old Posted May 17, 2017, 8:25 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 4,418
So North York is worse than Mississauga?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #647  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2017, 7:06 AM
mcminsen's Avatar
mcminsen mcminsen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 3,897
Some shots I got today in Burnaby looking south on Willingdon Avenue. In the foreground is Amazing Brentwood #1 rising on the left, Altus (Solo District phase #2) on the right. Metrotown skyline in the distance.



Burnaby, July 8 '17, my pics






Reply With Quote
     
     
  #648  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 4:19 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,829
You guys are comparing the walkability of Mississauga, incorporated 1974, to Burnaby, incorporated 1892?

No, you're just comparing their city centres, one 20km from downtown Toronto, the other 10km from downtown Vancouver.

Vancouver city proper is much smaller. The inner city, the pre-war city, extends beyond the city itself into adjcent municipalities including Burnaby. Burnaby had population ~60k in 1951, compared to ~30k for Mississauga. Burnaby is older, more akin to North York and Etobicoke.

Mississauga is more comparable to Surrey. Mississauga is newer and on the fringe of the urban area.

But if you really must compare the walkability of a part of Burnaby to a part of Mississauga, maybe it would make more sense to compare Metrotown to Port Credit instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #649  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 4:55 AM
Westview Westview is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post

But if you really must compare the walkability of a part of Burnaby to a part of Mississauga, maybe it would make more sense to compare Metrotown to Port Credit instead.
Good points and to a smaller extent Streetsville..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #650  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 5:02 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 4,418
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #651  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 2:13 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
You guys are comparing the walkability of Mississauga, incorporated 1974, to Burnaby, incorporated 1892?

No, you're just comparing their city centres, one 20km from downtown Toronto, the other 10km from downtown Vancouver.

Vancouver city proper is much smaller. The inner city, the pre-war city, extends beyond the city itself into adjcent municipalities including Burnaby. Burnaby had population ~60k in 1951, compared to ~30k for Mississauga. Burnaby is older, more akin to North York and Etobicoke.

Mississauga is more comparable to Surrey. Mississauga is newer and on the fringe of the urban area.

But if you really must compare the walkability of a part of Burnaby to a part of Mississauga, maybe it would make more sense to compare Metrotown to Port Credit instead.
Port Credit is closer to Burnaby in scale and massing which is probably why it feels more enjoyable to walk than the city centre.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59362...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.22618...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #652  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 4:07 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Delta,Vancouver
Posts: 3,238
Surrey will, however, end up more urban than Mississauga. While it's pretty bare at the moment, it has the street grid for urban growth. More streets are planned, and the ones that exist are fairly narrow, as opposed to Mississauga's boulevards. It'll definitely at least appear less car-centric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #653  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 7:09 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,829
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.).

Quote:
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.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59362...7i13312!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.

Quote:
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
     
     
  #654  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2017, 7:35 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 14,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
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.).



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.



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.
We're in 2017. Few people would distinguish the Valley from MCC if these first residential towers weren't planned in tandem with the city centre (I don't know but, I doubt you) There's also no office buildings from the 1950s in MCC. Square One, Mississauga's first City Hall and one of the office towers were complete in the early 1970s beside the first residential towers in the valley . More were added throughout the rest of the 1970s.

Metrotown started building tower around the same time. It's more recent history and high rise form has mirrored Mississauga City Centre for the past 40 years.
__________________
53 built and 26 under construction for a total of 79 towers over 150 metres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #655  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2017, 11:18 PM
sunsetmountainland sunsetmountainland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Another great post taking place from the best place on earth!
Posts: 682
Quote:
New Westminster’s rising tower power
Quote:
The City of New Westminster is averaging more than 50 new building permits every month this year, on a pace to edge out the $189 million in permits issued in 2016, the 10th straight year the Royal City has topped $100 million in permit values.
As of the end of May, permit values had already eclipsed $144.5 million, and housing starts, at 612 units, were far ahead of the 339 starts in the same period last year.

“If the pace holds, [2017] will work out to a 12.7% increase from the previous year,” said Blair Fryer, communications and development manager for the city of 71,000 on the banks of the Fraser River.

There is little doubt the pace will hold up.

This month, New Westminster council approved zoning for the largest tower the city has ever seen: Bosa Development’s 53-storey condominium skyscraper.

The building is part of a project that will include a second 43-storey tower and a three-storey commercial building, all built on the New Westminster riverfront.
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/7/n...g-tower-power/

Nice article on the rising towers of New Westminster! I understand lots is talked out for Metrotown, Brentwood and Lougheed town centers in Burnaby. I think New Westminster sometimes gets overlooked!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #656  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2017, 7:26 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
We're in 2017. Few people would distinguish the Valley from MCC if these first residential towers weren't planned in tandem with the city centre (I don't know but, I doubt you)
Why call it MCC, and use it to represent MCC and use it as a basis for critcizing MCC, if it's not MCC, it's a different neighbourhood with different policies? I think it's misleading.

I can do the same:
https://goo.gl/maps/t3JYTtBj4u72

More MCC awfulness?
https://goo.gl/maps/3En1GEp2Hp92

There are already enough reasons to criticize MCC before including the stuff surrounding it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
There's also no office buildings from the 1950s in MCC. Square One, Mississauga's first City Hall and one of the office towers were complete in the early 1970s beside the first residential towers in the valley . More were added throughout the rest of the 1970s.

Metrotown started building tower around the same time. It's more recent history and high rise form has mirrored Mississauga City Centre for the past 40 years.
Point is, there were only 4 office buildings and Square One in MCC in 1982. Everything else was built after, as greenfield development, not redevelopment. I see little in common with Burnaby's Metrotown.

Here's Mississauga City Centre in 1978. Compare with that 1982 picture of Metrotown that Pinion posted:

http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/res...%3Fstart%3D181
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #657  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 6:05 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Delta,Vancouver
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
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.).



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.



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.
If you can't see Surrey's grid (or Mississauga's cul-de-sacs) then I'm not really sure what to say. Both of them have similar structures of a large grid with typical suburban swirly streets within them, but Surrey's grid utilizes narrower streets with more intersections, whereas Mississauga's is much more heavily reliant on wide boulevards and is more reflective of a typical suburban local-collector-arterial road system. Most of its major streets, which form the grid, have no buildings fronting them.

Street networks are what make places suburban or urban, not the height of their buildings. And while both places have swirly roads within larger grids, Mississauga's grid is clearly just a gridded-version of the large arterials that you find in typical suburbs: wide and without fronting buildings. Surrey may appear heavily suburban at the moment with its low density, but it has a much higher opportunity to urbanize in the future as the bones are already there. Replace the run-down SFHs fronting the main arterials with mid-rise developments and CRUs and all of a sudden its streets are indistinguishable from those in inner-city anywhere. Surrey has an urban skeleton—it is just underdeveloped at the moment. No matter how dense you build Mississauga, it will never be urban.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #658  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 1:51 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 28,895
good to hear about the boom in New West. I used to work in New West for a spell in the early 90s. Things were not so rosy back then (anyone remember "The Paramount"?), although the city was trying with the Quay development. The city had great bones, however.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #659  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 2:19 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
C'est quoi l'affaire?
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 27,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
If you can't see Surrey's grid (or Mississauga's cul-de-sacs) then I'm not really sure what to say. Both of them have similar structures of a large grid with typical suburban swirly streets within them, but Surrey's grid utilizes narrower streets with more intersections, whereas Mississauga's is much more heavily reliant on wide boulevards and is more reflective of a typical suburban local-collector-arterial road system. Most of its major streets, which form the grid, have no buildings fronting them.

Street networks are what make places suburban or urban, not the height of their buildings. And while both places have swirly roads within larger grids, Mississauga's grid is clearly just a gridded-version of the large arterials that you find in typical suburbs: wide and without fronting buildings. Surrey may appear heavily suburban at the moment with its low density, but it has a much higher opportunity to urbanize in the future as the bones are already there. Replace the run-down SFHs fronting the main arterials with mid-rise developments and CRUs and all of a sudden its streets are indistinguishable from those in inner-city anywhere. Surrey has an urban skeleton—it is just underdeveloped at the moment. No matter how dense you build Mississauga, it will never be urban.
These are excellent observations.
__________________
"Anglo-Canada": it's where you live!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #660  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 2:47 PM
GeneralLeeTPHLS's Avatar
GeneralLeeTPHLS GeneralLeeTPHLS is offline
Midtowner since 2K
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 618
I agree....I live in Mississauga (temporarily) and really, there's no way it'll be truly urban. The "downtown" is going to improve a bit (the city has filed a few documents to extend roads to actually form a more cohesive grid in the area near the highway...just around Confederation) but Mississauga can't be more urban then Surrey, heck I would say Brampton is more urban than Mississauga.

I walk a lot in Mississauga and pretty much it's a mudhole of a place to walk along. Major roadway just suck, with the amount of lanes and people turning into commercial plazas.
__________________
"Living life on the edge"
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.