Mississauga Erin Mills Town Centre Northwest Redevelopment | 142.65m | 44s | Pemberton | BDP Quadrangle

What I dont understand is why they chose this corner of EMTC to start the redevelopment of the Mall - the Corner of Erin Mills and Eglinton already has transit, bike networks, and is designated as one of the city nodes, and it has all the Daniels buildings and hospital - seems like a strange choice.
 
What I dont understand is why they chose this corner of EMTC to start the redevelopment of the Mall - the Corner of Erin Mills and Eglinton already has transit, bike networks, and is designated as one of the city nodes, and it has all the Daniels buildings and hospital - seems like a strange choice.
The block at the intersection of Eglinton/Erin Mills appears to have been planned with provisions for the extension of Line 5 in mind, similar to how the Sherway Gardens development is being planned around an extension of Line 2. The master plan shows a small piece of land at the corner left off the plans, which is almost certainly for a station in a future extension. This square is still part of the EMTC property, but the fact that they left it off indicates there may be some very early discussions happening.

It would also be strategically advantageous for the developers to start as far away from the “station” as possible at this stage, as anything closer would command a higher sale price if an extension of Line 5 is formally announced in the future.
IMG_4880.jpeg
 
The block at the intersection of Eglinton/Erin Mills appears to have been planned with provisions for the extension of Line 5 in mind, similar to how the Sherway Gardens development is being planned around an extension of Line 2. The master plan shows a small piece of land at the corner left off the plans, which is almost certainly for a station in a future extension. This square is still part of the EMTC property, but the fact that they left it off indicates there may be some very early discussions happening.

It would also be strategically advantageous for the developers to start as far away from the “station” as possible at this stage, as anything closer would command a higher sale price if an extension of Line 5 is formally announced in the future.
View attachment 709986
Some poor bastard is really holding out for Line 5 to reach EMTC?
In which decade? Of which century?
IMG_5455.jpeg
 
The block at the intersection of Eglinton/Erin Mills appears to have been planned with provisions for the extension of Line 5 in mind, similar to how the Sherway Gardens development is being planned around an extension of Line 2. The master plan shows a small piece of land at the corner left off the plans, which is almost certainly for a station in a future extension. This square is still part of the EMTC property, but the fact that they left it off indicates there may be some very early discussions happening.

It would also be strategically advantageous for the developers to start as far away from the “station” as possible at this stage, as anything closer would command a higher sale price if an extension of Line 5 is formally announced in the future.
View attachment 709986

I would also add, and this doesn't really get talked about in development application materials generally, there may be 'no-build' or 'no development' areas created as part of the leases for the anchor spaces of the mall. This is not uncommon. You see from the overhead, the NW corner is the only direction that doesn't have a 'spoke' with an anchor tenant space projecting toward it.

Edit: on further review and thoughts, I don't agree with the idea that the SW corner was left off the plans to make room for a 'station'. I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but it's either the typically sized daylight triangle off a major public intersection, or it's this thing:

1769013621509.png


Which is not part of the development lands. It's a hydro building. That almost certainly will not be turned into a station.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the city here on the height and density issues... not necessarily stoked on the architecture of the buildings... but my biggest gripe is the lack of replacement retail. I don't like that, I don't think it's right.
 
Because physical retail is booming these days and because a dollarama and a homesense is worth stopping development for. I didn’t like this lay out but it’s crazy to say because of these few stores development can’t take place.
I probably would approve this project as is. I like the height and density. The retail concerns are real though.

The city yesterday released a big retail report, which I summarized in the LRT zoning thread. Basically, the city's population is set to grow by 31% over the next 25 years. Some high growth areas are set to lose retail, as housing developments replace retail plazas. The city wants to encourage walkable neighbourhoods, so that people don't have to drive long distances to get their groceries, or to get a haircut.

I did a deep dive on the final Mississauga retail development report. Here are some of the key recommendations:

Seek area-specific market research and information that considers the amount, type and location of retail at a finer grain to ensure greater alignment between retail supply and more localized needs, demand and market positioning.

At the municipal level, design an incentive that can be stacked with current incentive programs in Mississauga to encourage mixed use (e.g., Vaughan, through a Community Improvement Plan (CIP), is proposing to use a mix of development charge deferrals, grants and forgivable loans to promote the development of office and non-residential uses).

Recognizing the need for flexibility for landowner and the prime objective to create mixed use communities, the City may consider creating a mechanism to transfer minimum retail requirements between sites within a specified area.

(Note: this means that when replacement retail is required as part of a development, not all retail would have to be built on-site, but could be nearby)

As identified in the Mayor’s Housing Task Force Report as a strategy to make non-residential space more affordable, explore incentives for multi-floor retail to support the OP density bonus policy, which indicates that non-residential uses above the ground floor do not count in a building's height calculation

Re-evaluate or simplify requirements for form and design elements (i.e., entrance requirements, loading areas, etc.) that could compound challenges in developing new retail space.

Through the development of a retail design or an area-specific design manual, the city should seek to encourage and promote flexible retail design (e.g., moveable fixtures and walls, reduction in the use of structural columns and permanent or fixed barriers, adjustable lighting tracks) that support more flexible interior partitioning. This will help preserve opportunity for larger unit formats, in addition to 'micro-retail' units that are more affordable and of less risk from a tenanting perspective.

Advocate support for taxation policy at the provincial level (i.e., explore mixed use retail tax class)

Here is what I would like to see that's not in the report:
- I'm a bit disappointed the tax incentives are being put off for further study. I suppose those might have to wait for that recommended more granular, neighbourhood by neighbourhood study of retail shortages, but I was hoping it would be in this report
- While there's some language about reducing red tape for developers, and ensuring that zoning by-laws allow for retail, there's no specific proposal to re-zone any areas. As a start, I'd like the city to re-zone residential apartment buildings on major streets to mixed use.
- No specific mention of reducing required amenity space in residential buildings, which might free up space for retail. (Though there is a report about amenity space coming to city council soon.)

Lastly, here are some good graphics from the report.

This is the breakdown of how much retail Mississauga needs added in net terms city-wide in the next 5 years and the next 25 years, broken down by type of retail. Note that the city already has 30.5 million square feet of retail. The chart below shows that it needs to add 2 million square feet in the near future to keep up with demand from a growing population.
View attachment 710088

This shows how construction costs in Canada have risen, expressed as a percentage change over the previous year. Construction costs have gone up from the previous year almost every year, which makes retail construction more expensive.
View attachment 710089
 
Last edited:
The block at the intersection of Eglinton/Erin Mills appears to have been planned with provisions for the extension of Line 5 in mind, similar to how the Sherway Gardens development is being planned around an extension of Line 2. The master plan shows a small piece of land at the corner left off the plans, which is almost certainly for a station in a future extension. This square is still part of the EMTC property, but the fact that they left it off indicates there may be some very early discussions happening.

It would also be strategically advantageous for the developers to start as far away from the “station” as possible at this stage, as anything closer would command a higher sale price if an extension of Line 5 is formally announced in the future.

I would think it's for a bus transit hub, I think a BRT on Erin Mills with a terminal in that area is more likely than Line 5 going this far into Mississauga.
 
I probably would approve this project as is. I like the height and density. The retail concerns are real though.

The city yesterday released a big retail report, which I summarized in the LRT zoning thread. Basically, the city's population is set to grow by 31% over the next 25 years. Some high growth areas are set to lose retail, as housing developments replace retail plazas. The city wants to encourage walkable neighbourhoods, so that people don't have to drive long distances to get their groceries, or to get a haircut.
As a suburbanite who had nothing but a plaza to walk to for any urbanity I understand the loss. However the mall is literally feet away. Anyways put a hair dresser on the bottom of the condo and a hero’s burgers if it’s that important.
 
I would also add, and this doesn't really get talked about in development application materials generally, there may be 'no-build' or 'no development' areas created as part of the leases for the anchor spaces of the mall. This is not uncommon. You see from the overhead, the NW corner is the only direction that doesn't have a 'spoke' with an anchor tenant space projecting toward it.

Edit: on further review and thoughts, I don't agree with the idea that the SW corner was left off the plans to make room for a 'station'. I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but it's either the typically sized daylight triangle off a major public intersection, or it's this thing:

View attachment 710222

Which is not part of the development lands. It's a hydro building. That almost certainly will not be turned into a station.
What I am talking about is the piece at the SE corner of Block 3, kitty corner with the hospital (Eglinton/Erin Mills), not part of the first phase at the northwest of the EMTC property. I will admit that this is a very speculative point on my part, but my opinion is that there is little reason for the plan to carve out a 35x35m square of blank land that they own, at a major intersection, and leave it undeveloped for pretty much anything other than a future transit infrastructure provision. Many of the main station buildings for Line 5 (Keelesdale, Fairbank, Oakwood, and Cedarvale, just to name a few) take up approximately the same size footprint. What is also notable is that Daniels has designed their building at Kith + Kindred development across Erin Mills to curve away from the street close to the intersection, and even avoided excavating in that area when they were building the undergound parking garages, despite it also remaining within their owned land parcel. Obviously really difficult to say at this point but it looks suspicious to me.

Screenshot 2026-01-21 233616.png
 
There was supposed to be an OLT case management conference meeting for this on Feb 18. Does anyone know what came of that?
 

Back
Top