Tuscani01
Senior Member
Actually its entirely scale. Look at the size of the townhomes in the Chicago plot of land relative to the size of townhomes in the other two developments. They are huge!
Each parcel was drawn at a different scale.
Mississauga Chicago Condos | ?m | 36s | Daniels | Kirkor
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Actually its entirely scale. Look at the size of the townhomes in the Chicago plot of land relative to the size of townhomes in the other two developments. They are huge!
Each parcel was drawn at a different scale.
FutureMayor
Active Member
Removal of Circular Driveways
Taking a closer look, and I've noticed that the Chicago site plan does not include a circular driveway like the previous two phases, which is a good thing!
I know City Hall had a real problem with them and was asking Daniels to remove them from future plans.
Louroz
Taking a closer look, and I've noticed that the Chicago site plan does not include a circular driveway like the previous two phases, which is a good thing!
I know City Hall had a real problem with them and was asking Daniels to remove them from future plans.
Louroz
khris
Senior Member
What was the City's problem with them?
Jarrek
Active Member
These townhomes don't belong in this development. They should have built a 6-8 storey base similar to Citygate, would have been so much better.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
No, the townhomes work. I suggest you take a walk between the ones in the Capitol development. It worked out better than I thought it would and looks great. Dont forget, none of the townhomes front onto a street.
Jarrek
Active Member
Don't a couple of them face Princess Royal Dr? I did take a walk, and considering this is the future "downtown" something denser would have been appropriate. I would have lined the pedestrian walkway, with restaurants, shops, etc ...
Tuscani01
Senior Member
You dont need tall buildings to achieve high density. The mix of housing types is what makes the area unique and quite interesting. Yes, some (minimal) do front onto Princess Royal, but that isn't really a bad thing. It looks like the main retail strips will develop around Sq.1 Drive and Confederation pkwy.
Jarrek
Active Member
6-8 floors is not my idea of a tall building.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I didnt say it was. I said You don't need a tall building to achieve high density.
khris
Senior Member
And even then, it's not all about density either.
doady
Senior Member
Yeah sure, high density is possible without high-rises, but high-rise is still denser than low-rise, and in a suburb like Mississauga which has allowed so much single-detached houses to be built already, high-rises are the only solution for high-density.
As for One Park Tower, I think a proper podium similar to Citygate would have been much better. Same goes for Absolute; the townhouses just don't belong there.
As for One Park Tower, I think a proper podium similar to Citygate would have been much better. Same goes for Absolute; the townhouses just don't belong there.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I disagree. I think the townhomes work well with the development. A podium the size of the one on Citygate would be overwhelming for the mew and would look disgusting along side it. The townhomes also provide a greater variety of housing stock for MCC which is good to have. It gives families more choice and appeals to a greater range of people than a condo or loft would. (referring to the Capital Tower block)
As for One Park Tower... the concept was great, the execution is horrible. There will be a restaurant at the base fronting the park and im hoping some retail will move in along Confederation. What I hate is the fact that there appears to be no doors along Confederation, making it one long wall of windows.
Last but not least... Absolute... who the hell would buy a townhome that fronts onto Burnhamthorpe? I still cant believe those went through. The city shouldn't have allowed that, but then again... its better than having a tower set back from the street.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
The flaw in your argument is that while such towers do provide density in terms of population, they rarely give the feel of a dense, urban environment. This is because the towers are recessed from the street and rest their foundations on large podiums; which also are recessed from the street. To make something feel dense it has to be close together. Take pretty much any European city - Rome for example. While the city actually does not have a single proper skyscraper, it still has the feel of a real, lived in city. And it achieves this feeling with few, if any, buildings exceeding ten stories.
I know, Rome v Mississauga? Pretty silly, but I'm using such hyperbole to illustrate my point. You don't need towers to achieve density and - in conjunction with what you said earlier - you definitely don't need townhomes!
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Chicago Site with Universal in the background:
Universal:
Universal:
urbandreamer
recession proof
Why are they still building slabjunk like that? Who buys this garbage? Ugh.