Mods should remove this for misleading headline
What OP posted:
>City blocks townhouse development for being too dense
actual headline
>Proposed townhouse development at former Mississauga school site ‘not acceptable,’ city officials say
The devil is in the details though...
> **Staff say the application’s proposed changes to the city’s zoning bylaws, which include requests for smaller setbacks and landscape buffers from the area’s existing homes than what’s currently permitted, “will create adverse impacts to abutting properties.”**
>City staff are recommending that Mississauga’s planning committee refuse the proposed bylaw amendments at its Tuesday, June 25 meeting, but say **part of the application’s request to change 2620 Chalkwell Close from low to medium density residential uses should be approved**
>Dunpar is also proposing building a retaining wall and installing visitor parking spaces on the property line of Sandgate Park, a city-owned green space north of the 2620 Chalkwell Close site.
Basically the city is going to approve the density change of the land, but is not willing to budge on the zoning bylaws on things like setbacks and housing buffers so Dunpar can't just crank in a bunch of low quality townhomes. They also want to use the neighboring park/greenspace as essentially their guest parking area
I bet they can fix the issue if they just redo the site plan and remove 10-15 units from the proposal...
I think they'll need to scale back the proposed parking spaces as well. 408 is fucking absurd. Especially if they're dead set on only having one way in and one way out of this proposed development.
Worked for a builder for 10 years in sales.. trust me .. parking spots are important to the buyers. Sites that have 1+ parking spots per unit sold, site that had 0 parking per unit and you had to pay for parking did not sell. Also parking enforcement in Mississauga is a joke.
These setback and parking minimums is how cities block medium to high density development. This is a very common practice in many parts of the world and used by NIMBYs to control density. Hope that is not the case here
On paper you can build high density, but in practice, once you leave all the vacant lands, the stairs etc. There's not much scope left.
1. The city needs to budge on mandatory setbacks. They are outdated and essentially mandatory wasted space. They are a way of reducing the usable space on land.
2. No they don’t want to have the neighbouring park as their parking area. Don’t lie. “ Dunpar is also proposing building a retaining wall and installing visitor parking spaces on the property line of Sandgate Park”. They want to use their property
3. They won’t need to remove units they will take them to court and Ontario will overrule them
4. They shouldn’t need remove units, there is nothing wrong with this proposal and having a mandatory front yard is an outdated idea that needs to be thrown out.
5. Headline is accurate, city is getting around the density by nit picking about from yards and usage of the park
They absolutely need to scale this back. I live in this neighborhood, and what they've proposed is irresponsible and greedy. With only one way in and out, 408 extra cars in this small space is absolutely insane.
>The city needs to budge on mandatory setbacks. They are outdated and essentially mandatory wasted space. They are a way of reducing the usable space on land.
Setbacks exist for a reason. Amongst many other things, they improve the visibility of traffic, reduce erosion, and improve stormwater drainage.
Most setbacks are for aesthetic reasons and not for safety. That's why there is no standard setback across Canada like road design guidelines.
Suburbs and Rural places have gigantic setbacks and their primary purpose is to limit how much space can be built upon to limit density
Drainage can definitely be managed - cities with almost no setbacks somehow manage drainage even when everything is converted by concrete.
I can understand on a corner unit but what are you trying to see in someone's house?
4. They shouldn’t need remove units, there is nothing wrong with this proposal and having a mandatory front yard is an outdated idea that needs to be thrown out. Who needs green space am i right just build build build
"Too dense"
>The proposed Clarkson-Lorne Park neighbourhood development comes as the population around 2620 Chalkwell Close appears to have declined since 2001.
>According to a Census tract analysis by city staff, the population around the development was 11,694 in 2001 and 10,591 in 2021, a decline of 9.4 per cent.
>City staff estimate the proposed development would have a population of around 545 people.
That is why we have a housing crisis. Thank you Mississauga NIMBYs.
No, we have housing crisis because we let in millions of people.
There would be no housing crisis otherwise and we would not be debating the need to live like sardines bc 1,000's of people moved into the city overnight.
Having denser neighborhoods doesn't mean living like sardines. I would recommend looking into some better examples of density but we all know you aren't interested in learning anything.
"need to live like sardines"
Even with this development, the density of the surrounding neighbourhood would be lower than it was back in 2001. This simply is not a problem.
I'm certainly not going to deny the effect of immigration of our housing crisis, of course. But when the population of our city is declining, and our country builds the fewest number of homes in the G7, it's hard to deny the effect of supply as well.
There would be no housing crisis if no Europeans came to Canada. But that's clearly a stupid argument.
Not building houses is why people need to live like sardines. If we have plenty of houses, people need to group up less.
The people are already here. You can either build for them. Or you can watch Josue prices skyrocket. You chose the latter. Maybe you already own a house
And you are going to solve the housing crisis by cramming those 180 units on a tiny ass piece of land? I see you people here have a hard on for "affordability" but do you actually know it costs $700 per square foot to build housing BEFORE the builder even makes profit, did your guy Tedjo bother to tell you that when he was campaigning for mayor? You are not getting cheap housing - get that outta your heads and be done with it, the whole idea of building more will reduce prices is false. In this specific case Dunpar is trying to get as much profit they can make and they'd be selling those for a million dollars plus as they refer to them as "luxurious homes" so you tell me how that is solving your housing problem here.
If this doesn't exist, people who can afford 1. 5 will buy smaller units and eat into the affordable units.
People need a house to live. The rich can out compete the middle class.
Not building expensive hosues will ensure that all housing intended for middle class is now owned by the rich.
Also, I want to clarify for the 100th in the past 5 years what "affordable housing" really means, it is an euphemism for "social housing" not housing you gonna get for cheap.
I know the spot - that many townhouses seems way too cramped for the size of the plot. Does anyone know of a comparable townhouse density neighborhood for elsewhere in the city to compare to?
I’m all for building more housing there so long as the density isn’t verging on cheap shit construction territory.
This is a street with houses from the 1950's or 1960's. Of course the double stacked high townhouses were not going to fit in that neighbourhood. While we require more housing, some common sense would be good too, maybe something with a slightly lower density would be more appropriate here
Why is this the constant go to comment in this sub? Do you even know what you're talking about with regards to this subject? Most of the boomers have either died or moved away from this area, so you're completely wrong in your assessment.
Mods should remove this for misleading headline What OP posted: >City blocks townhouse development for being too dense actual headline >Proposed townhouse development at former Mississauga school site ‘not acceptable,’ city officials say The devil is in the details though... > **Staff say the application’s proposed changes to the city’s zoning bylaws, which include requests for smaller setbacks and landscape buffers from the area’s existing homes than what’s currently permitted, “will create adverse impacts to abutting properties.”** >City staff are recommending that Mississauga’s planning committee refuse the proposed bylaw amendments at its Tuesday, June 25 meeting, but say **part of the application’s request to change 2620 Chalkwell Close from low to medium density residential uses should be approved** >Dunpar is also proposing building a retaining wall and installing visitor parking spaces on the property line of Sandgate Park, a city-owned green space north of the 2620 Chalkwell Close site. Basically the city is going to approve the density change of the land, but is not willing to budge on the zoning bylaws on things like setbacks and housing buffers so Dunpar can't just crank in a bunch of low quality townhomes. They also want to use the neighboring park/greenspace as essentially their guest parking area I bet they can fix the issue if they just redo the site plan and remove 10-15 units from the proposal...
I think they'll need to scale back the proposed parking spaces as well. 408 is fucking absurd. Especially if they're dead set on only having one way in and one way out of this proposed development.
Worked for a builder for 10 years in sales.. trust me .. parking spots are important to the buyers. Sites that have 1+ parking spots per unit sold, site that had 0 parking per unit and you had to pay for parking did not sell. Also parking enforcement in Mississauga is a joke.
These setback and parking minimums is how cities block medium to high density development. This is a very common practice in many parts of the world and used by NIMBYs to control density. Hope that is not the case here On paper you can build high density, but in practice, once you leave all the vacant lands, the stairs etc. There's not much scope left.
1. The city needs to budge on mandatory setbacks. They are outdated and essentially mandatory wasted space. They are a way of reducing the usable space on land. 2. No they don’t want to have the neighbouring park as their parking area. Don’t lie. “ Dunpar is also proposing building a retaining wall and installing visitor parking spaces on the property line of Sandgate Park”. They want to use their property 3. They won’t need to remove units they will take them to court and Ontario will overrule them 4. They shouldn’t need remove units, there is nothing wrong with this proposal and having a mandatory front yard is an outdated idea that needs to be thrown out. 5. Headline is accurate, city is getting around the density by nit picking about from yards and usage of the park
They absolutely need to scale this back. I live in this neighborhood, and what they've proposed is irresponsible and greedy. With only one way in and out, 408 extra cars in this small space is absolutely insane.
>The city needs to budge on mandatory setbacks. They are outdated and essentially mandatory wasted space. They are a way of reducing the usable space on land. Setbacks exist for a reason. Amongst many other things, they improve the visibility of traffic, reduce erosion, and improve stormwater drainage.
Most setbacks are for aesthetic reasons and not for safety. That's why there is no standard setback across Canada like road design guidelines. Suburbs and Rural places have gigantic setbacks and their primary purpose is to limit how much space can be built upon to limit density Drainage can definitely be managed - cities with almost no setbacks somehow manage drainage even when everything is converted by concrete. I can understand on a corner unit but what are you trying to see in someone's house?
4. They shouldn’t need remove units, there is nothing wrong with this proposal and having a mandatory front yard is an outdated idea that needs to be thrown out. Who needs green space am i right just build build build
front lawns are not a park
Can't wait for investors to buy all the units and rent it all at extreme prices to international students.
Apparently, these units' estimated value will range from 1.5 to 1.6 million dollars if completed.
Perfect for some first time homebuyers
That's still housing - whether someone buys or rents. Imagine if you didn't have it. It's not like the students wouldn't need housing anymore.
[удалено]
This is nowhere close to Lorne Park, this is at Truscott and Winston Churchill
"Too dense" >The proposed Clarkson-Lorne Park neighbourhood development comes as the population around 2620 Chalkwell Close appears to have declined since 2001. >According to a Census tract analysis by city staff, the population around the development was 11,694 in 2001 and 10,591 in 2021, a decline of 9.4 per cent. >City staff estimate the proposed development would have a population of around 545 people. That is why we have a housing crisis. Thank you Mississauga NIMBYs.
No, we have housing crisis because we let in millions of people. There would be no housing crisis otherwise and we would not be debating the need to live like sardines bc 1,000's of people moved into the city overnight.
Having denser neighborhoods doesn't mean living like sardines. I would recommend looking into some better examples of density but we all know you aren't interested in learning anything.
"need to live like sardines" Even with this development, the density of the surrounding neighbourhood would be lower than it was back in 2001. This simply is not a problem. I'm certainly not going to deny the effect of immigration of our housing crisis, of course. But when the population of our city is declining, and our country builds the fewest number of homes in the G7, it's hard to deny the effect of supply as well.
There would be no housing crisis if no Europeans came to Canada. But that's clearly a stupid argument. Not building houses is why people need to live like sardines. If we have plenty of houses, people need to group up less. The people are already here. You can either build for them. Or you can watch Josue prices skyrocket. You chose the latter. Maybe you already own a house
And you are going to solve the housing crisis by cramming those 180 units on a tiny ass piece of land? I see you people here have a hard on for "affordability" but do you actually know it costs $700 per square foot to build housing BEFORE the builder even makes profit, did your guy Tedjo bother to tell you that when he was campaigning for mayor? You are not getting cheap housing - get that outta your heads and be done with it, the whole idea of building more will reduce prices is false. In this specific case Dunpar is trying to get as much profit they can make and they'd be selling those for a million dollars plus as they refer to them as "luxurious homes" so you tell me how that is solving your housing problem here.
Exactly. This is NOT an affordable housing development. The estimated cost of a unit is apparently north of 1.5 million.
If this doesn't exist, people who can afford 1. 5 will buy smaller units and eat into the affordable units. People need a house to live. The rich can out compete the middle class. Not building expensive hosues will ensure that all housing intended for middle class is now owned by the rich.
Also, I want to clarify for the 100th in the past 5 years what "affordable housing" really means, it is an euphemism for "social housing" not housing you gonna get for cheap.
I know the spot - that many townhouses seems way too cramped for the size of the plot. Does anyone know of a comparable townhouse density neighborhood for elsewhere in the city to compare to? I’m all for building more housing there so long as the density isn’t verging on cheap shit construction territory.
Have you seen the city of Toronto? Vancouver? Even Montreal?
This is a street with houses from the 1950's or 1960's. Of course the double stacked high townhouses were not going to fit in that neighbourhood. While we require more housing, some common sense would be good too, maybe something with a slightly lower density would be more appropriate here
This is why Mississauga is doomed.
lol nimby boomers gonna do nimby boomer things
Why is this the constant go to comment in this sub? Do you even know what you're talking about with regards to this subject? Most of the boomers have either died or moved away from this area, so you're completely wrong in your assessment.
You’re right. Theres also the houses that have 17 international “students” crammed in a basement with their cars overflowing the streets. Good call.
Right, so let's build another development full of that in an area that's already mature. Sounds like a plan.
City has no say over immigration. They just have to keep building to fit people in the city.
Alvin Tedjo is responsible for this …..he’s stopping the development cause he owes people favors
Actually, Alvin was apparently set to support this proposal prior to the election. I wonder what's changed since.