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

[waterloowarrior]

here's a report from a June 2011 Brampton planning committee meeting with an update
http://www.brampton.ca/en/City-Hall/meetings-agendas/PDD Committee 2010/20110620pdd_F1.pdf

 

[jje1000]

Yes, the yellow dot is the location.

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

The first step municipalities need to take is to put a foot down and force developers to begin paying a greater portion for the roads, civic services and utilities that are being stretched with sprawl. It costs more for the city to service people living in lower densities, so it would make sense. Something like that could even be used as a deterrent along with incentives for developers to not build on greenfields and start infilling instead.

That, or municipalities could refuse to service subdivisions built too far away.

 

[RC8]

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.

This development will be further away from all the people who currently live in Brampton than it needs be. There is enough space in Brampton in surface parking lots alone to ensure Bramptonians never need to drive outside their city to get to retail locations.

Just came back from Port Credit, where locals buy their stuff on lakeshore or the vicinity. It's shaping up as a very livable place, with parks, restaurants, cafes, and stores constantly opening up.

Brampton could choose to go this way instead of building another Scarborough Town Centre that attracts sprawl and neglect of surroundings. Not to mention stifle and destroy independent brands and stores.

How many 'local' stores do you see at Mapleview, Scarborough Town Centre, Shoppers' world, or Square One? Continuing with the shopping mall mentality attempts against the creativity and uniqueness of locals that can't compete with corporate advertisement in spite of producing a better product.

At the very least Brampton should be trying to do something like Old Quebec Street in Guelph, which in a plasticky way has been bringing people back to the sidewalks.

 

[TOareaFan]

^I mean no disrespect by this comment but that post really sounds like someone who is not really "up to speed" on local Brampton issues. The city spends a massively disproportionate amount of resources trying to do just that.

All available tax funds are spent on the old downtown on streetscapes, on encouraging a more urban setting, on building space to bring all city office staff downtow, on things to do, on restoring heritage properties, on anything really that is meant to develop a downtown that attracts people and investment. While they have done fine work with their own dollars, the grand sum of private sector investment is a couple of condos and a Starbucks.

The ratio of public sector investment to private is extreme. It is a walkable area, with public squares, a theatre, a lovely park, a train station and a bus terminal......yet the market speaks and insists on malls and, to be blunt, if the city tries to just say no to the malls, the conversation will move to the OMB and they will approve the malls.

The city can, and must, deal with the mall proposal while ate same time encouraging investment in the old town. It has learned the hard and expensive way (and they have tried) that they can't say no to greenfield development in the hope that the private sector will just shift their funds to Queen and George Streets.

 

[TOareaFan]

This thing is badly-situated: too far from the GO line and from freeways.

It is about a kilometer from a GO station that is the core of a mobility hub.....and the city has already said that this thing will not ever be approved unless Ossmington pay the full cost of a road and bridge creating a direct link to this development (Station Road).

As for highways...........http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/10806-Halton-Peel-Freeway

 

[waterloowarrior]

^I mean no disrespect by this comment but that post really sounds like someone who is not really "up to speed" on local Brampton issues. The city spends a massively disproportionate amount of resources trying to do just that.

All available tax funds are spent on the old downtown on streetscapes, on encouraging a more urban setting, on building space to bring all city office staff downtow, on things to do, on restoring heritage properties, on anything really that is meant to develop a downtown that attracts people and investment. While they have done fine work with their own dollars, the grand sum of private sector investment is a couple of condos and a Starbucks.

The ratio of public sector investment to private is extreme. It is a walkable area, with public squares, a theatre, a lovely park, a train station and a bus terminal......yet the market speaks and insists on malls and, to be blunt, if the city tries to just say no to the malls, the conversation will move to the OMB and they will approve the malls.

The city can, and must, deal with the mall proposal while ate same time encouraging investment in the old town. It has learned the hard and expensive way (and they have tried) that they can't say no to greenfield development in the hope that the private sector will just shift their funds to Queen and George Streets.

Their downtown being in a floodplain hasn't helped.

 

[TOareaFan]

Their downtown being in a floodplain hasn't helped.

It partially explains the slow development of new buildings.....does not much to explain why existing retail properties are either empty or tattoo parlours

The point was, however, that the city has not earned the criticism they receive on the matter....they are relentless in their efforts to create a downtown feel/vibe/lifestyle/community.....to the extent they hopelessly fight some developments outside of that area just because they would rather the project be downtown.

 

[unimaginative2]

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.

Oh of course, absolutely, it was maybe a bit of a lack of foresight but an understandable error. This would be a completely unmitigated mistake.

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.).

I live in the hope that someday in my lifetime we will actually have real regional rail on those lines so the vehicles would be comparable in their impact to existing subway lines.[/quote]

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.

You make a very valid point about freight trains, but they're not really an issue on most GO corridors. Milton, Bala north of the York Sub and the Mactier Sub are the only ones that see really serious freight traffic.

Even if they build a bridge over to the Mount Pleasant mobility hub, a kilometre is just too far to be a convenient connection.

 

[RC8]

^I mean no disrespect by this comment but that post really sounds like someone who is not really "up to speed" on local Brampton issues. The city spends a massively disproportionate amount of resources trying to do just that.

All available tax funds are spent on the old downtown on streetscapes, on encouraging a more urban setting, on building space to bring all city office staff downtow, on things to do, on restoring heritage properties, on anything really that is meant to develop a downtown that attracts people and investment. While they have done fine work with their own dollars, the grand sum of private sector investment is a couple of condos and a Starbucks.

The ratio of public sector investment to private is extreme. It is a walkable area, with public squares, a theatre, a lovely park, a train station and a bus terminal......yet the market speaks and insists on malls and, to be blunt, if the city tries to just say no to the malls, the conversation will move to the OMB and they will approve the malls.

The city can, and must, deal with the mall proposal while ate same time encouraging investment in the old town. It has learned the hard and expensive way (and they have tried) that they can't say no to greenfield development in the hope that the private sector will just shift their funds to Queen and George Streets.

Justifying suburban sprawl with 'the market' has been done to death. Justifying malls with 'the market' has been done to death. Justifying highways with 'the market' has also been done to death.

Stopping the Spadina freeway was overall against the forces of the market.

Building a new drive-to mall over a farm is clearly one of those things for people like myself. It's replacing a library with a brothel, it might seem like the right thing to do, but down the road the community might regret the loss of the former.

As for Brampton and how it's shaping itself - have you seen the new houses by Mt. Pleasant? They are some of the most wastefully constructed houses out there. One driveway can fit FOUR vehicles. A total of SIX if 2 are in the garage. WHY?!

The space around a GO station should never have been approved for such 'development'. The only retail available is some big box stores sitting on a gigantic parking lot on Bovaird. ALL of the Toronto Eaton Centre would fit in that parking lot. There is no excuse to build a mall on some of the most fertile lands in the country when the taken space has been used so wastefully.

 

[unimaginative2]

I think part of the problem is the disconnect between planners and the way people actually live in the suburbs. Planners try to locate walkable little village centres with offices above shops around the GO stations when in fact people want to shop at the mall or the power centre and work at the office park. We should maybe try working with what we have and locate the mall and the office park at the stations.

Ultimately, we need to make the GO corridors into real regional rail lines. The problem is that most of the stations aren't really hubs of anything because GO is nothing but a commuter railway in most cases. To try and rectify our past mistakes, all major trip generators should have to be adjacent to a rail corridor so that when regional rail service is finally introduced, it can be properly served.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I live in the hope that someday in my lifetime we will actually have real regional rail on those lines so the vehicles would be comparable in their impact to existing subway lines.

Yes that would be may ardent hope as well, thankfully that line is one of the few that are designated to become electrified in the future.

You make a very valid point about freight trains, but they're not really an issue on most GO corridors. Milton, Bala north of the York Sub and the Mactier Sub are the only ones that see really serious freight traffic.

Even if they build a bridge over to the Mount Pleasant mobility hub, a kilometre is just too far to be a convenient connection.

The Halton sub upon which this hub is situation is also a heavy use freight rail line. Its arguably CN's busiest line, any residents living nearby would be exposed to those aforementioned negative effects.

However, I do agree that society as a whole stands to benefit from increasing density near the actual stations themselves and that taking all ramifications into account such benefits would out weigh the negatives. Basically, if your going to intensify near a rail line in the first place, as with this proposal, than it would make more sense to build it as close as possible to the station rather than a kilometer away where the benefit is reduced or lost.

 

[unimaginative2]

The Halton sub upon which this hub is situation is also a heavy use freight rail line. Its arguably CN's busiest line, any residents living nearby would be exposed to those aforementioned negative effects.

Of course you're right; I completely forgot about the by-pass. I've heard musings of moving the freights onto a separate, dedicated corridor perhaps along the 407. That might make sense in the longer-term both to reduce the aforementioned impacts through the city and to give the freights room to breathe.

 

[UrbanPrincess]

I think part of the problem is the disconnect between planners and the way people actually live in the suburbs. Planners try to locate walkable little village centres with offices above shops around the GO stations when in fact people want to shop at the mall or the power centre and work at the office park. We should maybe try working with what we have and locate the mall and the office park at the stations.

I don't want to go to the mall if there are stores down the street from me. If I could pick up my groceries at a grocery store adjacent to the GO station and then get in my car to go home or (a little farfetched) but walk home then it would make my life so much easier. Going to the mall is completely out of the way.

As for Brampton and how it's shaping itself - have you seen the new houses by Mt. Pleasant? They are some of the most wastefully constructed houses out there. One driveway can fit FOUR vehicles. A total of SIX if 2 are in the garage. WHY?!

RedRocket191 and I went on a field trip to Mt. Pleasant Village the other day. I love it how the live/work units and the "urban" units last only 1 block and the rest are single family detched homes. In addition, the 'laneway' behind these live/work units are not really laneways (apart from the one strip that looked like it could be something). I just wonder how it is award winning. that boggles my mind.

Back to the talk about a mall. I think it will be able to survive since, as someone mentioned before, there could possibly be support from Georgetown, Caledon, Acton, and even Milton. I'm just curious to see what retailers are willing to set-up shop in these areas. It may end up looking like Erin Mills

 

[RC8]

RedRocket191 and I went on a field trip to Mt. Pleasant Village the other day. I love it how the live/work units and the "urban" units last only 1 block and the rest are single family detched homes. In addition, the 'laneway' behind these live/work units are not really laneways (apart from the one strip that looked like it could be something). I just wonder how it is award winning. that boggles my mind.

I noticed that too, I was excited by the look of the urban townhouses... then I realised for each unit of them there were several detached houses.

Across the road too, it looks like there's more, but there's literally 2 rows of them next to one another and that's it.

 

[unimaginative2]

I don't want to go to the mall if there are stores down the street from me. If I could pick up my groceries at a grocery store adjacent to the GO station and then get in my car to go home or (a little farfetched) but walk home then it would make my life so much easier. Going to the mall is completely out of the way.

Very unfortunately for all of us, you appear to be in the distinct minority in the 905. Cornell, for example, has dotted the development with retail spaces. Unfortunately, most of them are deserted as the people from the neighbourhood do their shopping by driving to nearby malls and power centres. A grocery store at the GO station would be a great idea, but the supercentre-style store that most people shop at doesn't really fit with the village theme.

The Burnaby Metrotown/Scarborough Centre model isn't the prettiest and it isn't the urban village ideal, but it works. It's transit-centred, economically successful, reasonably high-density, and provides a hub for the surrounding community. There's a limit to the social engineering we can do and most people who move to the outer fringes of the GTA are looking for a single-family home, whether we like it or not, rather than an urban "live-work" experience. If we had real regional rail, a station could be the site of a large shopping centre, a transit hub for bus routes into the adjacent single-family neighbourhoods, some condo towers, and maybe an office park. They would provide a major destination to generate bi-directional flows on regional rail lines and would provide a reasonable amount of high-density residential within walking distance. Whether we like it or not, suburban neighbourhoods are centred on their local mall or power centre. It's far better that the centre located at a regional rail stop rather than a highway interchange.

I'd add that this is also a very European model that I'm proposing. In Berlin, for example, the suburban centres are mostly anchored by a power centre-esque shopping mall, such as the big Gesundbrunnen mall and the shopping centres in Marzahn and Hohenschoenhausen. All of them are adjacent to an S-Bahn stop and serve as a hub for tram and bus routes that can feed both the mall and the station. I'd add that by virtue of being connected to and fed by a rail station, they're much more pedestrian-friendly than your average Toronto suburban mall or power centre.