Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
I'm not sure what's included in each area (though at 2,000/sqkm it's only a little less dense than the Mississauga-wide average of 2,500/sqkm - not half) and if that includes Port Credit, or the industrial areas, etc;
|
Mississauga's average density of 2,468 people/sqkm includes a huge industrial area and the airport in Mississauga-Malton. ~85% of Mississauga-Malton is non-residential. Compared to the rest of Mississauga excluding Mississauga-Malton, the population density of Mississauga-Lakeshore is less than half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
but regardless, the idea with these sort of railroad suburbs is that you have a dense, walkable, traditionally urban town centre located around a train station, surrounded by lower-density SFH.
So the density levels should - at least in theory - roughly even out between the two, all else being equal; with the higher density of the TOD town centres offsetting the lower density of the surrounding houses. The big difference is that the first type here provides a greater diversity of housing types and is better at providing both "urban" and "suburban" accomodations, and in a more attractive way:
|
Outside of the main street, Port Credit is mostly 50s/60s towers-in-a-park and you can find find those and many newer high-rises throughout Mississauga and the suburban GTA, including Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York.
Outside of Port Credit, south Mississauga is all large detached houses on huge lots - no semi-detached houses or townhouses or apartments. Hardly anyone can afford to live in these neighbourhoods, and transit is not an option. So if anything, south Mississauga is notable for its lack of diversity and inclusiveness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
This is kind of funny. For the record, I wouldn't like to live in either - I'm a city person, myself - but, most of the people living in the suburbs probably would rather live on a farm than in a neighbourhood of packed-in houses, given the option.
|
Yes, they could go live in Caledon or Halton Hills or Georgina or something. If proximity to work, shopping, school, transit, friends, and all the other benefits of urbanity were not at all important to them, then they don't have to live in Mississauga, the same way they don't have to live in Scarborough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
That's why they live in the suburbs and not in the city. People aren't moving to places like Brampton and Vaughan for the density and vibrant urban life.
|
All this time you've been saying that the suburbs are not desirable to suburbanites because they are not low density enough, but now you're saying people are moving to the suburbs because they desire low density. Which is it?
The people of the suburbs have elected their own governments, they have decided this is how they want their neighbourhoods to look like, they have decided to higher density and spend billions of dollars on transit. Do you really think you know better than them what they want?
Most of the City of Toronto is high density, post-war suburbia just like the 905. A true "city person" should not speak on behalf of suburbanites and criticize the resemblance between the city and the suburbs as bad for the suburbs, based on the assumption that the city and the suburbs are completely different and that the city is not the ideal in any way. It makes no sense.