Mississauga 88 Park | 131.5m | 36s | Edenshaw | Core Architects

"There's prescribed heights and densities in place for a reason," he said (the local councillor). Yet he didn’t list the reasons. I’m sure there’s a ton of valid reasons to only aim for the height minimums steps from two major transit lines.
 
Perhaps a settlement. My prediction is between 32 and 36 storeys but wastewater concerns may trump that.

Wedensday February 21, 2024 in Special Council Meeting Closed Session.

Instructions on a proposed settlement of the appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal by Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited with respect to the lands located at 88 Park Street East, (Ward 1) https://pub-mississauga.escribemeet...-971e-1301d9155236&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English
 
QuentinJJ said:
Perhaps a settlement. My prediction is between 32 and 36 storeys but wastewater concerns may trump that.

Wedensday February 21, 2024 in Special Council Meeting Closed Session.

Instructions on a proposed settlement of the appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal by Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited with respect to the lands located at 88 Park Street East, (Ward 1) https://pub-mississauga.escribemeet...-971e-1301d9155236&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English
Click to expand...
City agrees to settlement, details unknown, by a 10-1 vote with Stephen Dasko against.
 
Anastasia said:
Details of the settlement are provided here.

It appears that the City and Edenshaw reached a resolution that would reduce the proposed heights of the two towers from 42 & 40 storeys to 36 and 29 storeys, respectively.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. I was thinking it would end up around 36s and 34s, respectively, but I'll take it. There is no doubt that the previous limit of 22s for Port Credit, especially on a site adjacent to a GO train station.

I'm curious how this precedent will impact the proposal down the street at at 70 Park.
 
sixrings said:
This makes sense. We can build 50s at cooksville with no all day go access. We can build 70 at MCC with a bus. And where there’s all day go service 36 is a respectable and sensible limit.
Click to expand...
It's almost like municipal planning is, in the 2024 GTA, absolute and utter 'vibes' horseshit...

(Mississauga removed height limits on MCC like a decade ago so it does make 'policy' sense, but the general sense of things is per the above).
 
IMHO, 36 storeys is very tall. It's the 50 and 70 storeys usually with 10 units per floor that I question in suburbia. It's only in Toronto and across the river in New Jersey. Vancouver too however, the municipal area is a sixth the size of Toronto and Miami is the size of a postage stamp.
 
maestro said:
IMHO, 36 storeys is very tall. It's the 50 and 70 storeys usually with 10 units per floor that I question in suburbia. It's only in Toronto and across the river in New Jersey. Vancouver too however, the municipal area is a sixth the size of Toronto and Miami is the size of a postage stamp.
Click to expand...

Fair, it's just frustrating to see 30+ storey buildings being built off highways with minimal transit, while we have to fight tooth and nail for a high rise a stone's throw from a GO Transit.
 
christiesplits said:
Fair, it's just frustrating to see 30+ storey buildings being built off highways with minimal transit, while we have to fight tooth and nail for a high rise a stone's throw from a GO Transit.
Click to expand...
You were super generous with the term “fair.” I think if you wrote your thesis at the beginning you wouldn’t have ended with the term “fair.” At least it doesn’t read… “fair”
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top