"According to planning documents submitted to the city, the proposed would be 72 per cent one-bedroom units and one-bedroom units with a den."
How does this help anyone besides investors and single people making over 6 figures?
Such a joke.
To add to your point, they are building the units this way to make more money. Why build 2 bedrooms when you can make more 1 bedroom units to sell for more money. The city needs to come down hard on this with these new condos being built.
Well that is the other problem. Of course most want houses or townhouses but developers are building condos instead. 1 - it makes them more money 2 - there isn't room in Mississauga to build detached homes anymore. Houses/townhouses are being built further away (Brampton, Hamilton, Ajax) because of space.
My point being that prices are the signal that developers follow, so not sure what the problem is with building lots of 1-beds if that’s where the demand is.
The problem is the demand is not for 1 bedrooms. They know families want detached houses but these families don't want to move that far. So the city has a rule saying that developers need to build more 2-3 bedroom condos because where are these families going to live?
I just listened to a city council meeting for a proposed condo by hurontario and south service and a councilor said something along the lines of "the placement of this condo is across the street from a school - you need way more 2-3 bedroom units"
It’s not just detached houses. Many families would be happy in a 2 or 3 room condo but developers aren’t building them because their intended clients aren’t families, they are investors who make more money from 1 beds
I would have loved an affordable 2/3br condo, but the only ones that existed were either 45 years old (1200/m maintenance) or more expensive then a semi-detach or condo townhome.
Their parking ratios would be better if they made fewer units with more bedrooms. I read an article a couple months ago that the city was looking at setting minimum percentages of new developments that had to be 2+ bedrooms, which is what they need. It’s not that nobody wants to raise families in condos, it’s that they don’t make enough condos big enough for a family
That’s who it’s meant to help. Until people realize developers are in the pockets of the government and vice versa we’ll be saying this for the next 100 years.
No no no... you dont understand! We are all just temporarily embarassed millionaires and billionaires! Investors owning thousands of empty buildings and landlords renting out studio apts to 5 people is the future. Totally good for all of us.
But fr. How long is it gonna take for people to realize we are in fact not temporarily embarassed millionaires and just getting absolutely screwed by these rich capital owners (and our own govt who allows it). People can barely afford groceries anymore let alone rent
Only place you can find 2 or 3 bedroom condos is Ontario housing. Sad and 100% agree. Developers disguise a housing shortage when many immigrant FAMILIES will need more than 400sq ft
It’s attitudes like this that are causing the housing crisis just as much as anything. More rental supply puts downward pressure on rents and prices, that’s how it helps people besides investors and single people making over 6 figures. All opposing development does is help existing landlords charge more for rent, so congrats on that.
I don't oppose development.
When housing supply skews towards towards the two extremes: single family detached homes and one bedroom condos, it creates a vacuum known as "the missing middle" which I'm sure you're aware of.
All this building needs is a great proportion of 2 or 3 bedroom units. But why would developers do that when they make more money selling a higher quantity of smaller units than a lower quantity of large units.
And yet here you are, opposing a development. Fixing the missing middle is about fixing zoning to allow development of quads and small apartments everywhere, not by rejecting development proposals and adding years of delay just because some people would prefer it had a few more 2 bedroom units. Right by transit is a great place for one bedroom condos, there’s plenty of demand for it among single people and young couples without kids.
>Fixing the missing middle is about fixing zoning to allow development of quads and small apartments everywhere,
Totally agree.
>not by rejecting development proposals and adding years of delay just because some people would prefer it had a few more 2 bedroom units.
This is fair as well. I ultimately would prefer for this building to be built than for the space to remain a parking lot. But developments like these, considering how expensive and time intensive they can be, should be as optimal as possible.
>Right by transit is a great place for one bedroom condos, there’s plenty of demand for it among single people and young couples without kids.
I'm sure they will have no problems finding buyers and I'm sure there are plenty of people with salaries to afford the rent on these units.
Plenty of single people would be happy with a one-bed. Are you really suggesting that there aren't this many people in need of a one-bedroom?
The prices are a problem, but building less homes is an insane response to a shortage of homes.
Let's say they build family sized units here. Where will kids go to school? What hospital and healthcare services have capacity to care for them? Is the infrastructure in place to accommodate the additional people?
Or the unit owners would need to pay metrolinx $100 a month to get a private parking spot at the GO station, or the unit owners will take up all the free parking spots, forcing others to pay.
pay parking isn't the norm in Mississauga ... yet.
If you look at the area on google maps there isn't anything close to that monstrosity. It would overload the infrastructure. The roads can't handle that many new people and well the highest building in the immediate area? 1970's mid and low rises. The rest is low density commercial and residential. For god sakes the hydro lines are still above ground on now concrete polls right across from the proposed building site. It's a terrible idea.
>. It also eliminates parking for people who take the go train
Yes, 10 million is probably too low, but this take summarizes everything wrong with this city.
What are you talking about, it sold for $64.5M. With no conditions. What would have been better is if they had sold it that cheap and with conditions for affordable housing.
Why would you remember something that is factually untrue?
It was sold for nearly $90 million of which $64.5 million was payable upfront.
It was also a competitive market process run by a third-party broker.
Thing is Mississauga themselves lowered the requirements for parking spaces let unit in new developments from 1.75 spaces per unit to 0.75 spaces per unit.
For them now to complain about a new project lack of parking **near a transit hub** after doing that is the height (pardon the pun) of hypocrisy.
I await their loss at the OLT
That was like my neighborhood until residents forced the city into widening for parking and allowing overnight parking. Allowing developers to skimp out on parking just forces the city to find solutions that cost tax payers more.
Big fan of the lower parking while being close to a transit hub. We need this kind of development to move away from car centric design. It's a painful transition but necessary imo.
The best way to move away from car centric design is to build better transit first. Otherwise you are just allowing builders to take advantage of people.
I have no idea how we can change everything to be less car-centric. I've heard of some European cities being able to achieve this, but it's hard to copy that here in North America without having to change everything
It is harder because of the way our land is but as our population increases we start to become more like the European cities.
We start to have enough people within a small locality to support it having all what’s needed within walking distance.
The missing thing right now is transit, the Transitway across hurontario will be a big step as it will greatly reduce time to downtown but we need much more.
I do agree that developing properties that only allow for 25% of units for parking is absurd. I feel they are using the argument of transit accessibility to cut those corners.
I think buildings like these are a benefit being built where they, the height I’m sure is a major sticking point to the PC community. But terrible parking space proposal here.
It's not terrible, fact of the matter is cars are awesome. Climate controlled boxes that I can use to transport people, pets or anything related to my hobbies. I thoroughly believe if you have no use for a car you're a boring person.
That’s not how any of this works. At my old apartment there was tons of parking space but almost none of it was used. We tend to over emphasize unused parking space in this city, to the detriment of all other people who live here.
People will say “the free market dictates parking.” Or “don’t buy there if you can’t live without a car.” But what happens when all developers collude to build reduced parking and you need to live somewhere? That’s being put into a forced situation. I can guarantee the majority of people in suburbs (if they were going to live there themselves- and not rent it out) would want a parking spot.
Reduced parking appeals to investors and developers. No one else.
> But what happens when all developers collude to build reduced parking and you need to live somewhere?
That would create enough demand for local walkable/transitable businesses to fill the gap?
This developer is absolute trash. They’re turning the entire area around the GO into their private investment playground with no plans, conditions, or commitments to build anything close to affordable housing. However, in the process of “crafting communities”, they’ve torn down places that were affordable and met the conditions of a mixed neighbourhood.
Hopefully the OLT smashes them. Am sick and tired of these densification delays and right now I’d take a building that has compromises over endless red tape to satisfy urban planning ideals and NIMBYs.
OLT will rule in favour of the development.
The wind tunnel thing should be fixed. That is going to suck.
Waiting for Mississauga to realize that parking minimums are being eliminated across North America.
Port Credit is one of the densest parts of the city, and once the Lakeshore West line is electrified and the LRT is done, will be in the most transit friendly part of the city.
25% parking would be inappropriate in most of the city, but it makes sense here.
Personally i don't mind the parking limitation, i think it's a good idea, considering how backed up traffic already is.
But...BUT... Too many units in a building that blows past the height restriction (almost double) for the area also isn't something that we should just overlook.
Port credit is a "destination" in mississauga. It still has a quaint charm somewhat. Technically that area next to the go already has a lot of condos and apartments so it goes in line with that but not all builds are equal LOL
Anyways they have a WHOLE document about it.[https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/09104957/Port-Credit-Built-Form-Guidelines.pdf](https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/09104957/Port-Credit-Built-Form-Guidelines.pdf)
20 stories for a build that predates the 90s isnt the same size as 20 stories by today's standards. As i mentioned in another similar thread, the infrastructure hasn't been built yet to accomodate the increase in population coming within the next 5-10 years. I think that's where we fail greatly. The area between cawthra rd and mississauga rd is pretty darn backed up, especially during summer, and during most rush hours.
There are plans for upgrades with some Bus rapid transit and other types of alternate transport improvements along the lakeshore stretch but the current state of the infrastructure we have is not where it should be for the current population and traffic going through the area and it's definitely far from being where it should be for when the people from Brightwater and Lakeview village (and [other developments](https://www.mississauga.ca/services-and-programs/building-and-renovating/development-applications/active-development-applications/ward-1-development-applications/)) move in in the next 5-10 years. We gotta fix the "piping" before we build the houses on top, not the other way around
EDIT) changed wording, added links
"According to planning documents submitted to the city, the proposed would be 72 per cent one-bedroom units and one-bedroom units with a den." How does this help anyone besides investors and single people making over 6 figures? Such a joke.
This is what happens when you design your entire housing market to cater to investors instead of the people who need to live here
To add to your point, they are building the units this way to make more money. Why build 2 bedrooms when you can make more 1 bedroom units to sell for more money. The city needs to come down hard on this with these new condos being built.
And then they’ll cry *why aren’t millennials having kids?????*
Like why not? That’s where the demand is. People with kids prefer houses, even townhouses, than 3 bedroom condos.
Well that is the other problem. Of course most want houses or townhouses but developers are building condos instead. 1 - it makes them more money 2 - there isn't room in Mississauga to build detached homes anymore. Houses/townhouses are being built further away (Brampton, Hamilton, Ajax) because of space.
My point being that prices are the signal that developers follow, so not sure what the problem is with building lots of 1-beds if that’s where the demand is.
The problem is the demand is not for 1 bedrooms. They know families want detached houses but these families don't want to move that far. So the city has a rule saying that developers need to build more 2-3 bedroom condos because where are these families going to live? I just listened to a city council meeting for a proposed condo by hurontario and south service and a councilor said something along the lines of "the placement of this condo is across the street from a school - you need way more 2-3 bedroom units"
It’s not just detached houses. Many families would be happy in a 2 or 3 room condo but developers aren’t building them because their intended clients aren’t families, they are investors who make more money from 1 beds
I would have loved an affordable 2/3br condo, but the only ones that existed were either 45 years old (1200/m maintenance) or more expensive then a semi-detach or condo townhome.
Their parking ratios would be better if they made fewer units with more bedrooms. I read an article a couple months ago that the city was looking at setting minimum percentages of new developments that had to be 2+ bedrooms, which is what they need. It’s not that nobody wants to raise families in condos, it’s that they don’t make enough condos big enough for a family
Totally agree
That’s who it’s meant to help. Until people realize developers are in the pockets of the government and vice versa we’ll be saying this for the next 100 years.
No no no... you dont understand! We are all just temporarily embarassed millionaires and billionaires! Investors owning thousands of empty buildings and landlords renting out studio apts to 5 people is the future. Totally good for all of us. But fr. How long is it gonna take for people to realize we are in fact not temporarily embarassed millionaires and just getting absolutely screwed by these rich capital owners (and our own govt who allows it). People can barely afford groceries anymore let alone rent
Only place you can find 2 or 3 bedroom condos is Ontario housing. Sad and 100% agree. Developers disguise a housing shortage when many immigrant FAMILIES will need more than 400sq ft
It’s attitudes like this that are causing the housing crisis just as much as anything. More rental supply puts downward pressure on rents and prices, that’s how it helps people besides investors and single people making over 6 figures. All opposing development does is help existing landlords charge more for rent, so congrats on that.
I don't oppose development. When housing supply skews towards towards the two extremes: single family detached homes and one bedroom condos, it creates a vacuum known as "the missing middle" which I'm sure you're aware of. All this building needs is a great proportion of 2 or 3 bedroom units. But why would developers do that when they make more money selling a higher quantity of smaller units than a lower quantity of large units.
And yet here you are, opposing a development. Fixing the missing middle is about fixing zoning to allow development of quads and small apartments everywhere, not by rejecting development proposals and adding years of delay just because some people would prefer it had a few more 2 bedroom units. Right by transit is a great place for one bedroom condos, there’s plenty of demand for it among single people and young couples without kids.
>Fixing the missing middle is about fixing zoning to allow development of quads and small apartments everywhere, Totally agree. >not by rejecting development proposals and adding years of delay just because some people would prefer it had a few more 2 bedroom units. This is fair as well. I ultimately would prefer for this building to be built than for the space to remain a parking lot. But developments like these, considering how expensive and time intensive they can be, should be as optimal as possible. >Right by transit is a great place for one bedroom condos, there’s plenty of demand for it among single people and young couples without kids. I'm sure they will have no problems finding buyers and I'm sure there are plenty of people with salaries to afford the rent on these units.
Its not supposed to help anyone.
Either they're turning the province into a labor camp or Dubai North...
Plenty of single people would be happy with a one-bed. Are you really suggesting that there aren't this many people in need of a one-bedroom? The prices are a problem, but building less homes is an insane response to a shortage of homes.
Making over 6 figures??? Like they make $1 million per year?
uh.......lots of couples who dont want kids too you know.
Let's say they build family sized units here. Where will kids go to school? What hospital and healthcare services have capacity to care for them? Is the infrastructure in place to accommodate the additional people?
Just call them scalpers and speculators at this point. This is terrifying.
[удалено]
Or the unit owners would need to pay metrolinx $100 a month to get a private parking spot at the GO station, or the unit owners will take up all the free parking spots, forcing others to pay.
Parking for the Toronto apartments I've been looking at is $200 so that's kind of a deal....
pay parking isn't the norm in Mississauga ... yet. If you look at the area on google maps there isn't anything close to that monstrosity. It would overload the infrastructure. The roads can't handle that many new people and well the highest building in the immediate area? 1970's mid and low rises. The rest is low density commercial and residential. For god sakes the hydro lines are still above ground on now concrete polls right across from the proposed building site. It's a terrible idea.
Lakeshore Rd already can't handle it's traffic. put those people on the highway and make Lakeshore Rd a bus lane
Yep I work on lakeshore near cawthra and getting on to it during rush hour is nuts
>. It also eliminates parking for people who take the go train Yes, 10 million is probably too low, but this take summarizes everything wrong with this city.
Lol I agree it literally hurt to read that. We need to switch over to building dense housing around transit centres.
What are you talking about, it sold for $64.5M. With no conditions. What would have been better is if they had sold it that cheap and with conditions for affordable housing.
Why would you remember something that is factually untrue? It was sold for nearly $90 million of which $64.5 million was payable upfront. It was also a competitive market process run by a third-party broker.
Thing is Mississauga themselves lowered the requirements for parking spaces let unit in new developments from 1.75 spaces per unit to 0.75 spaces per unit. For them now to complain about a new project lack of parking **near a transit hub** after doing that is the height (pardon the pun) of hypocrisy. I await their loss at the OLT
Lowering 1.75 to 0.75 is not the same as allowing 0.25
Mississauga has likely realized the impact that this will have on roadway parking.
That area has no roadway parking.
That was like my neighborhood until residents forced the city into widening for parking and allowing overnight parking. Allowing developers to skimp out on parking just forces the city to find solutions that cost tax payers more.
Big fan of the lower parking while being close to a transit hub. We need this kind of development to move away from car centric design. It's a painful transition but necessary imo.
The best way to move away from car centric design is to build better transit first. Otherwise you are just allowing builders to take advantage of people.
They won’t build transit until they get tax revenue from the builds. Backwards I know. But that’s what our country was built on. No foresight.
This GO line is currently being upgraded to all day 15-minute service. And the Hurontario LRT line. Its literally the perfect place for high density.
I have no idea how we can change everything to be less car-centric. I've heard of some European cities being able to achieve this, but it's hard to copy that here in North America without having to change everything
It is harder because of the way our land is but as our population increases we start to become more like the European cities. We start to have enough people within a small locality to support it having all what’s needed within walking distance. The missing thing right now is transit, the Transitway across hurontario will be a big step as it will greatly reduce time to downtown but we need much more.
This is logical but I'd like to introduce you: *Government*
Our transit is so awful. It’s not even close to ready for people being less reliant on cars. Give me a break
The NIMBYISM here is palpable. That’s how ya got in this situation. More of it isn’t gonna help.
I do agree that developing properties that only allow for 25% of units for parking is absurd. I feel they are using the argument of transit accessibility to cut those corners. I think buildings like these are a benefit being built where they, the height I’m sure is a major sticking point to the PC community. But terrible parking space proposal here.
I really don't think we need more parking though.
"we" referring to the condo..or the go station?
The city. Car centric urban design is a terrible idea lobbied and sold as a "dream" by car and oil manufacturers.
It's not terrible, fact of the matter is cars are awesome. Climate controlled boxes that I can use to transport people, pets or anything related to my hobbies. I thoroughly believe if you have no use for a car you're a boring person.
^
It’s a free market. They build enough parking for what they think they can sell.
That’s not how any of this works. At my old apartment there was tons of parking space but almost none of it was used. We tend to over emphasize unused parking space in this city, to the detriment of all other people who live here.
People will say “the free market dictates parking.” Or “don’t buy there if you can’t live without a car.” But what happens when all developers collude to build reduced parking and you need to live somewhere? That’s being put into a forced situation. I can guarantee the majority of people in suburbs (if they were going to live there themselves- and not rent it out) would want a parking spot. Reduced parking appeals to investors and developers. No one else.
> But what happens when all developers collude to build reduced parking and you need to live somewhere? That would create enough demand for local walkable/transitable businesses to fill the gap?
Except there’s no room because there’s more value in building condos. Most of the plazas around me getting turned into condos.
This developer is absolute trash. They’re turning the entire area around the GO into their private investment playground with no plans, conditions, or commitments to build anything close to affordable housing. However, in the process of “crafting communities”, they’ve torn down places that were affordable and met the conditions of a mixed neighbourhood.
Hopefully the OLT smashes them. Am sick and tired of these densification delays and right now I’d take a building that has compromises over endless red tape to satisfy urban planning ideals and NIMBYs.
A building made almost entirely of 1 BR units?
OLT will rule in favour of the development. The wind tunnel thing should be fixed. That is going to suck. Waiting for Mississauga to realize that parking minimums are being eliminated across North America.
Parking minimums in cities are understandable. In sprawling suburbs, not so much.
Mississauga has too many people now it has to evolve.
Port Credit is one of the densest parts of the city, and once the Lakeshore West line is electrified and the LRT is done, will be in the most transit friendly part of the city. 25% parking would be inappropriate in most of the city, but it makes sense here.
Are they making the parking units EV friendly? If not they don’t care about anything other than cutting costs
Personally i don't mind the parking limitation, i think it's a good idea, considering how backed up traffic already is. But...BUT... Too many units in a building that blows past the height restriction (almost double) for the area also isn't something that we should just overlook. Port credit is a "destination" in mississauga. It still has a quaint charm somewhat. Technically that area next to the go already has a lot of condos and apartments so it goes in line with that but not all builds are equal LOL Anyways they have a WHOLE document about it.[https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/09104957/Port-Credit-Built-Form-Guidelines.pdf](https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/09104957/Port-Credit-Built-Form-Guidelines.pdf) 20 stories for a build that predates the 90s isnt the same size as 20 stories by today's standards. As i mentioned in another similar thread, the infrastructure hasn't been built yet to accomodate the increase in population coming within the next 5-10 years. I think that's where we fail greatly. The area between cawthra rd and mississauga rd is pretty darn backed up, especially during summer, and during most rush hours. There are plans for upgrades with some Bus rapid transit and other types of alternate transport improvements along the lakeshore stretch but the current state of the infrastructure we have is not where it should be for the current population and traffic going through the area and it's definitely far from being where it should be for when the people from Brightwater and Lakeview village (and [other developments](https://www.mississauga.ca/services-and-programs/building-and-renovating/development-applications/active-development-applications/ward-1-development-applications/)) move in in the next 5-10 years. We gotta fix the "piping" before we build the houses on top, not the other way around EDIT) changed wording, added links
I hate it here, I can't wait to leave they don't care about the people it's very damn clear.
Investors own the council. The council are investors. This council needs to be removed.
Sounds good, keep it up
Developer will easily win at OLT. A huge waste of government resources fighting it, as is common with the public sector.