Brampton Mount Pleasant Heights | ?m | 14s | Argo Developments

The GTA is going to grow - the population is going to grow by millions over the next few decades and as Mississauga is built out, this is the next key area for development in the west end. Growth is necessary - Mississauga has finally conceded that up is their only growth opiton - just like Toronto - but up won't work in these outlying areas yet so the regional centre is important.

Interesting note-

In the year 1 - the population of the world was about 200 million

In 1965 the population of the world was 3.5 billion.

This year the population hit 7 billion.

We grew by roughly 3.5 billion in about 2,000 years and the next 3.5 billion came in less than 50 years.

Projections show there will likely be at least another 2 billion people on this planet by 2030 and based on our history, a lot of those people will be coming here.

I hope we're ready.


RegionalMall2.jpg


RegionalMall.jpg
 
Look at that suburban sprawl eating up some of Canada's best farmland. It's like a cancer.

If the yellow spot is where the regional center is going, then it's a bad place- suburbs will eventually sprawl to connect it to the rest of the city.
 
Last edited:
Look at that suburban sprawl eating up some of Canada's best farmland. It's like a cancer.

If the yellow spot is where the regional center is going, then it's a bad place- suburbs will eventually sprawl to connect it to the rest of the city.


Yes, the yellow dot is the location.

So, it's too easy to say "no sprawl" - what's the solution?
 
I don't know a lot of people who would go to Yorkdale from downtown Toronto. Yorkdale is pretty much only accessible from the South using transit, and the vast majority of its shoppers come from east, west, and north.

I don't understand the sorts of seemingly sick people who would rather have a mall than streets. I bet they all go on vacation to Europe and admire it for its history and culture, too.

Namecalling because someone behaves in a different fashion than you do is so Grade 5.....really.
 
Yes, the yellow dot is the location.

So, it's too easy to say "no sprawl" - what's the solution?

The option is "no growth".

The GTA grows by 120,000 + people, or 2%, per year which, I would argue, is unsustainable. It's not as if cities and countries where growth is negligible are doing badly: nobody would accuse the Germans who, if they weren't bailing out the likes of Greece and Italy, probably have the most robust economy on earth right now of doing badly. Ditto for their cities. Hamburg, Frankfurt and Dusseldorf don't have to grow by 2% per year in order for people to invest there or take them seriously; Berlin has had a stagnant population for 50 years, but somehow its cultural and political footprint on the world has grown exponentially.

We think growth is good because our North American economic and political systems are tied to growth. We are a continent built on 19th century expansion and colonialism, so we set up our policies to function best in an environment of aggressive population growth. But just because growth allows our societies to function in the way we've set them up doesn't mean that growth is "good" or "natural".
 
Namecalling because someone behaves in a different fashion than you do is so Grade 5.....really.

"is so grade 5... really"

That on the other hand was an adult comment?

I purposely introduced the word 'seemingly' in there to make sure it was understood they only 'appear' sick to the likes of myself. Regardless, I was not aiming my comment at anyone in particular.

I find advocating for a mall in current farmland much more offensive than any name-calling I can think of.

As if there wasn't enough space for retail elsewhere.
 
"is so grade 5... really"

That on the other hand was an adult comment?

I purposely introduced the word 'seemingly' in there to make sure it was understood they only 'appear' sick to the likes of myself. Regardless, I was not aiming my comment at anyone in particular.

I find advocating for a mall in current farmland much more offensive than any name-calling I can think of.

As if there wasn't enough space for retail elsewhere.

I meant to put a smiley after that grade 5 comment....nevertheless, this land is going to be developed that is a given (in actual fact the lands near it that are developed are much closer than the slightly dated arial map shown above...things move fast in the NW part of Brampton).

Second fact is, that wether you or I or the guy next door like it, people like malls.

Third fact (actually assumed from the renderings) is that this mall is a more modern interpretation of the regional mall (including some residential density, some office, parking structures) than would have been built 10 - 15 years ago.

Not including some sort of regional shopping outlet here would only encourage the thousands of people who will live here to drive to the Bramalea City Centre or Square 1 to do the exact same thing that this mall will allow them to do in their own 'hood.

If it is developed as per the renderings, this is by no means the worst use of this piece of land.
 
The option is "no growth".

The GTA grows by 120,000 + people, or 2%, per year which, I would argue, is unsustainable. It's not as if cities and countries where growth is negligible are doing badly: nobody would accuse the Germans who, if they weren't bailing out the likes of Greece and Italy, probably have the most robust economy on earth right now of doing badly. Ditto for their cities. Hamburg, Frankfurt and Dusseldorf don't have to grow by 2% per year in order for people to invest there or take them seriously; Berlin has had a stagnant population for 50 years, but somehow its cultural and political footprint on the world has grown exponentially.

We think growth is good because our North American economic and political systems are tied to growth. We are a continent built on 19th century expansion and colonialism, so we set up our policies to function best in an environment of aggressive population growth. But just because growth allows our societies to function in the way we've set them up doesn't mean that growth is "good" or "natural".

While I completely agree with you, I don't think intelligent growth would hurt the city that much, to be honest. If the province stepped in and banned single-family units all the way out to Guelph we'd be able to grow while attaining the types of density necessary for streetlife and mass transit. We could fit 2 million more people in Mississauga alone (at least).
 
as long as the government sticks to the greenbelt plan, sprawl won't continue much longer. once all the land is developed, the GTA will be forced to grow up, though not necessarily in a urban fashion. its good to see 1 suburb planning urbanely, and knowing what makes a city and not a suburb, (markham) but the other 10 Toronto suburbs have to learn, and they will learn the hard way, by the looks of it. just wait for when gas hits $3.00 a liter, and watch as suburbs cease to exist. (it will happen)
 
when the suburbs cease to exist....where will the 2 - 3 million people there go? will there be a big exodus, people scrambling for their condo in Toronto?

Of course not....long before gas hits $3.00 a litre, it hits $1.50...then $1.75 then $2 and so on.....to the extent that causes some cost shocks in suburbia, people adjust and adapt their lives accordingly.

So, to keep it somewhat on topic, people in this area will think "mmmmm, my job is downtown but I live out here how do I get to work without spending more than my paycheque? I know, I will hop on that GO train about 1km away".....and they might think "I would love to shop for some new clothes/whatever....but I really can't afford to gas up and go to Square 1 or Sherway or Yorkdale.....I know, I will just hop over to that new mall that Ossmington built. If gas is too expensive for that even I can take the #5 BT bus right to it".

Far from hurting this development, $3 a litre gas (when it finally gets to that) will help this development because the hurndreds of thousands of people in Brampton (specifically the NW part of Brampton) will be looking for the same amenities/conveniences that exist elsewhere without driving to Toronto or 'sauga.

Taking a dogmatic opposition stance to this development not only ignores the reality of the current size of the community it is in and the already approved/happening development, it actually encourages the very behaviour that you seem opposed to.....people driving miles and miles for a regional mall because you would stop their region from having one.
 
Last edited:
my point is that people will drive to this mall in the mean time, but will push so they don't need to drive at all. why spend $15 to drive to the mall if i can walk to it for free? they will push urban developments, so they don't even have to pay for the gas at all.
 
If this mall were directly connected to a major transit corridor, I have no doubt that many people would ride transit. Unfortunately, just like most of the other major destinations outside downtown, it would be stupidly located just far enough from a station to be an unreasonable walk.

my point is that people will drive to this mall in the mean time, but will push so they don't need to drive at all. why spend $15 to drive to the mall if i can walk to it for free? they will push urban developments, so they don't even have to pay for the gas at all.

That's an awfully long drive to a mall! For a return trip in a normal car, that would mean driving at least 70km each way round trip to spend $15 in gas.
 
Last edited:
If this mall were directly connected to a major transit corridor, I have no doubt that many people would ride transit. Unfortunately, just like most of the other major destinations outside downtown, it would be stupidly located just far enough from a station to be an unreasonable walk.

By the time it is built and open, however, Brampton Transit's Bovaird Zum route will be operational....while it is currently planned to have its western terminus at the Mt. Pleasant GO station, I have little doubt that a 1km extension to include this mall will be considered.

Even if it is not a Zum route...the current #5 bus will go right there and that is a route that crosses the entire city east to west while connecting to all of the north south routes that BT has (so just about everyone in the city is within a one-transfer bus trip away)....I would also imagine that by that time there will be a Mississuaga Road bus route on BT......add in that it is on the GO bus route between Brampton and GTown.....it is hard to imagine (other than being in the parking lot of the GO station itself) it being any more transit accessible (in suburban terms).

That said, no matter how transit accessible any mall (anywhere) is....it will attract cars. The key element in the sort of modern "urbanization" of a malls is how the parking is handled. Underground and above ground structures create a more urban feel and a mall more integrated into the community than massive surface parking lots. It is my recollection that just as existing malls are converting a lot of their parking to this type...this mall intends to start off that way.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think how much better transportation would be had Square One been built 2km south, Scarborough Centre 1.5km east

Enviro's exactly right. Regional malls are one of the biggest trip generators in a city and they make outstanding transit hubs. So many of them were built close, but not close enough, to existing rail corridors (STC, Square One).

Scarborough Town Center and Square One were both built in 1973. That pre-dates the commuter train service provided on the Milton(established in 1981) & Stouffville(established in 1982) lines by 8 and 9 years each respectively. The primary purpose of the railways at the time and for the foreseeable future was to move freight not passengers. The little passenger service that was provide was regional in nature and not inter-city. One can't plan for a transit oriented hub when the transit alternatives don't even exist.

Places people go need to be built on the railway and the railway needs to go to places where people go. The province should pass legislation that any building for retail, residential, or office use above a certain square footage needs to be within 1km of a subway line, LRT line, BRT line, or railway line, and that a development within 1km from a subway line, LRT line, BRT line, or railway line cannot be denied based on having too high a density.

Obviously I see no problem with high density beside subways, LRT & BRT but i'm not so sure about heavy rail lines. Personally I would never want to live within approx. 250m of a rail line. Due to exposure from carcinogenic diesel fumes and excessive noise pollution (engine, metal squeal, braking etc.).

Also, If you wondering why I wouldn't want to live so close to a rail line while being more than willing to work on them the reasons are simple. First off Go trains are no where near as polluting as freights in both respects (Diesel & noise). Mitigation measures are taken in a GO train - such as noise dampening insulation. This mitigates a significant amount of engine noise, although it is still quite loud. The engine cab is also structurally sealed minimizing exposure to diesel fumes when inside. The largest exposure I gets is when I walk to and away from the engine while its idling in a yard. An individual would receive a much larger exposure from a passing engine running in full throttle. Its one thing to be exposed to a train or two a day while waiting on a station platform, its another to be exposed to dozens possible hundreds on certain lines, per day.
 

Back
Top