The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[WhipperSnapper]

Mississauga is a good example of where density has really amounted to nothing remotely urbane from emerging.

What are you talking about?!? This is just the beginning of the urbanization of Mississauga City Centre and I think the dozen or so towers have had a tremendous effect on creating a sense of urbanism in the middle of sprawlville. Streetfront retail was pretty much unheard six years ago let alone open 24 hours within walking distance. I keenly await the next twenty years with the addition of six dozen more towers and the urbanization of Square One and the main thoroughfares. These large scale, one developer masterplans will never make a true downtown if that's what you're get at.

Daniels has a great masterplan (architecture notwithstanding) and both Pinnacle and Amacon follow suit.

[sammo]

mississauga is not your traditional city. it's a satellite of the mothercity, and the (largest) industrial base of the entire region -perhaps the nation. mississauga is broad shoulder and very car friendly (for those of us that like to drive thru). not a fair comparison to put it up against older established, somewhat 'indepedant' cities. was never meant to be 'walked' and experienced at the street level. she's not trying to be toronto or montreal, van, calgary.

oh, and she's been thriving for decades.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Sacamano

What are you talking about?!? This is just the beginning of the urbanization of Mississauga City Centre and I think the dozen or so towers have had a tremendous effect on creating a sense of urbanism in the middle of sprawlville. Streetfront retail was pretty much unheard six years ago let alone open 24 hours within walking distance. I keenly await the next twenty years with the addition of six dozen more towers and the urbanization of Square One and the main thoroughfares. These large scale, one developer masterplans will never make a true downtown if that's what you're get at.

Daniels has a great masterplan (architecture notwithstanding) and both Pinnacle and Amacon follow suit.

There are a few problems:

1. The block sizes are about 4 times larger than they should be.
2. The majority of the new buildings have blank inactive frontages.
3. The scale of most of the buildings and their elements are too overwhelming to the pedestrian. They weren't designed with any humans taken into consideration. This is everything from the column sizes, window sizes and all sorts of design issues. Even where they've tried vancouver style townhouse and podium - they are literally identical and repetitive for about 100 metres or more because of the large block sizes - it looks ridiculous. Look at the development along Burnhamthorpe beside Absolute. Also look at the sheer massiveness of the buildings along Living arts drive. They're like buildings designed if humans had elephantitis syndrome.
4. The arterial roads that intersect the City Centre as massively wide and feel actually dangerous to cross.
5. There is no cohesive public realm system. It's a collection of isolated and discrete developments.
6. Office buildings are plunked in the midst of seas of surface parking lots.

I also think it was kind of foolhardy to plan the civic centre of your city in the parking lot of a giant mall. Something that is inherently auto-oriented and inward looking. It makes it that much harder to urbanize when you have that at the heart of the 'Downtown'.

I could go on. I realize that some of the future developments like Amacon seek to improve this, but I'm talking about what's happened so far.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Wooster

There are a few problems:

1. The block sizes are about 4 times larger than they should be.
2. The majority of the new buildings have blank inactive frontages.
3. The scale of most of the buildings and their elements are too overwhelming to the pedestrian. They weren't designed with any humans taken into consideration. This is everything from the column sizes, window sizes and all sorts of design issues. Even where they've tried vancouver style townhouse and podium - they are literally identical and repetitive for about 100 metres or more because of the large block sizes - it looks ridiculous. Look at the development along Burnhamthorpe beside Absolute. Also look at the sheer massiveness of the buildings along Living arts drive. They're like buildings designed if humans had elephantitis syndrome.
4. The arterial roads that intersect the City Centre as massively wide and feel actually dangerous to cross.
5. There is no cohesive public realm system. It's a collection of isolated and discrete developments

I could go on. I realize that some of the future developments like Amacon seek to improve this, but I'm talking about what's happened so far.

Exactly. On thing that particularly irks me is most retail is set back underneath an overhang and screened with columns. Sometimes you even have to walk up a few steps to get to stores. Now I get that developers want to protect people from the elements but it is completely unnecessary. Plus it effectively hides retail making locations less attractive for business. Of course it could all be a clever ruse so that when it comes to the next development they can pull the "well, half the previous retail bays are still vacant so why should we put more in?" trick. Since adding more residential space is generally more lucrative.

I remember a few years ago getting a tour of Mississauga City Centre by a planner and urban designer. After the standard slideshow and rhetoric about what they want to do we got to chat with them one on one. First thing the urban designer said is that he felt sorry for people who move to MCC with expectations of any form of urban lifestyle. They are well aware of the flaws and (for instance) had to fight tooth and nail to even get developers to agree to put any streetfront retail in.

Of course the entire reason MCC does the whole point tower large block thing is because it's easier to attract large developments. Since Mississauga is running into budgetary issues with lack of greenfield to develop this allows for more development charges. The original plan was for shorter towers, smaller blocks and more emphasis on streetfront (somewhat similar to Markham's 'downtown') but they just weren't getting the developer interest. Of course none of this would be official...

[flar]

Originally Posted by Sacamano

What are you talking about?!? This is just the beginning of the urbanization of Mississauga City Centre and I think the dozen or so towers have had a tremendous effect on creating a sense of urbanism in the middle of sprawlville. Streetfront retail was pretty much unheard six years ago let alone open 24 hours within walking distance. I keenly await the next twenty years with the addition of six dozen more towers and the urbanization of Square One and the main thoroughfares. These large scale, one developer masterplans will never make a true downtown if that's what you're get at.

Daniels has a great masterplan (architecture notwithstanding) and both Pinnacle and Amacon follow suit.

Good luck, they're gonna need it. MCC is so far from ideal in an urban sense that no plan can rectify the situation.

[WhipperSnapper]

I see no reason to dwelling on the planning of 30 years ago in respect to the office towers and arterial width which are both planned to be addressed. The isolation of the individual developments somewhat reflects the largely unrealized city centre. As to lacking human scale and block sizes, that's just typical of greenfield developments nowadays.

In no ways am I proclaiming Mississauga City Centre as a model to follow or would I ever live there but it is much better off than it was 8 years ago which includes the earlier planned, inward focus developments such as Ovation.

I also think it was kind of foolhardy to plan the civic centre of your city in the parking lot of a giant mall. Something that is inherently auto-oriented and inward looking. It makes it that much harder to urbanize when you have that at the heart of the 'Downtown'

A mall is far from ideal as a starting off point but what is in suburbia. Suburbs in general are auto-centric and inward focused and the malls just happen to be the gathering points.

A skyline does not a downtown make.

Not to say that there aren't more urban, more pedestrian-friendly places in Mississauga. Port Credit is nice, even if there isn't much of a skyline.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.555...E4WmQIYzwBPeO1wrvCC0dA&cbp=12,69.69,,0,5

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What?? I cant think of a single US city outside Tampa and Phoenix with skylines as small as missisauga... and thats not even considering the fact that Mississauga's is all residential.

Portland, Oregon



Nashville, Tennessee



Not much, if it all, larger of a skyline. (streetlife and density is a whole new ballgame though)

[Witty Nickname]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

prague has a better skyline than calgary.

In your dreams. Prague may have a tonne a history and a plethora of churches... But a better skyline? Give your head a shake.

[Wooster]

If there were ever an apples and oranges debate not worth pursuing it's 20 and 21st century corporate and residential towers vs. Centruries old cathedral spires.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

is the worth of a skyline to be found only in the amount and size of the towers? or is there something to be said for the aesthetic qualities of the actual line formed by the city against the sky?

prague has a better skyline than calgary.

quebec has a better skyline than mississauga (but not as good as prague).

All this "my skyline is better than yours is" stuff is so useless to debate. I think Prague's skyline sucks, mostly because I'm not a big fan of church spires, and Calgary's is totally excellent and blows away Prague. So we have different opinions, what's the point?

[niwell]

^I think that was the point.

[sammo]

^yes, different opinions, that is the point. -and some are more informed than others...
here's mine.
i think mississauga is just fine for what she is -a suburb of toronto. a popular bedroom city that's swelled with opportunity & growth. i think it's foolish trying to emulate a mini toronto or other "sophisticate". not everyone wants to walk (with pug in purse) into a starbucks or sushi/wine fusion restobar to order a $12 organic shrimp espresso. in fact, it's a breath of fresh air (literally) to get away from that phoney world -sometimes. (we don't all wear or care for prada, fendi, burberry...)
mississauga is representative of many quiet yet flourishing suburban (and exurban) cities across the country, the continent.

oh, and the fancy mississauga city hall & civic center was planned and designed in the mid 90's by some of the pointiest head planners and architects in the land(kirkland, mertins, etc.) trying to set the pace for future planning/ers. lol, ya see, they've already tried squeezing this 'full figured' chic into designer jeans. leave her be.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by flar

Another Mississauga view from last year:

how very quaint.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

A skyline does not a downtown make.

Not to say that there aren't more urban, more pedestrian-friendly places in Mississauga. Port Credit is nice, even if there isn't much of a skyline.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.555...E4WmQIYzwBPeO1wrvCC0dA&cbp=12,69.69,,0,5

i'm beggin ya. fer the love of god, post those fanfarkingtastic K-W "skyline" shots from WatInv...the ones with the power pylons overlooking the shoppers drug mart and the fucking awesome bauer lofts.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by sammo

^yes, different opinions, that is the point. -and some are more informed than others...
here's mine.
i think mississauga is just fine for what she is -a suburb of toronto. a popular bedroom city that's swelled with opportunity & growth. i think it's foolish trying to emulate a mini toronto or other "sophisticate". not everyone wants to walk (with pug in purse) into a starbucks or sushi/wine fusion restobar to order a $12 organic shrimp espresso. in fact, it's a breath of fresh air (literally) to get away from that phoney world -sometimes. (we don't all wear or care for prada, fendi, burberry...)
mississauga is representative of many quiet yet flourishing suburban (and exurban) cities across the country, the continent.

oh, and the fancy mississauga city hall & civic center was planned and designed in the mid 90's by some of the pointiest head planners and architects in the land(kirkland, mertins, etc.) trying to set the pace for future planning/ers. lol, ya see, they've already tried squeezing this 'full figured' chic into designer jeans. leave her be.

Wow those are some very sweeping and ridiculous stereotypes about urban living there. sushi/wine fusion resto bars? fendi and prada? Authentic urban places are about choice and diversity. In the real world of cities like Toronto, for every supposedly stereotypical chic lounge or espresso bar there are 50 cheap eats places and dirty hole in the wall shops. Toronto is definitely NOT the phony one in this equation.

[MolsonExport]

indeed. and that is why dt tarana is 1000x better than dt 'sausage. there is NO reason to visit dt 'sausage unless you want to go to squarehead won.

[flar]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

indeed. and that is why dt tarana is 1000x better than dt 'sausage. there is NO reason to visit dt 'sausage unless you want to go to squarehead won.

I once went there in an attempt to photograph the place on foot as I normally do

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by sammo

i think it's foolish trying to emulate a mini toronto or other "sophisticate". not everyone wants to walk (with pug in purse) into a starbucks or sushi/wine fusion restobar to order a $12 organic shrimp espresso. in fact, it's a breath of fresh air (literally) to get away from that phoney world -sometimes. (we don't all wear or care for prada, fendi, burberry...).

wait... what? how did we go from a discussion about traditional urban form (street widths, lot sizes etc.) to this weird, conservative-talk-radio "latte-sipping elitists" thing?

[niwell]

Originally Posted by sammo

i think it's foolish trying to emulate a mini toronto or other "sophisticate". not everyone wants to walk (with pug in purse) into a starbucks or sushi/wine fusion restobar to order a $12 organic shrimp espresso. in fact, it's a breath of fresh air (literally) to get away from that phoney world -sometimes.

Wait... what? Is this supposed to be representative of what Toronto, or even inner-city Toronto is? Because I could certainly take you to a wide range of Portuguese sports bars in a 5 minute walk of me that would shatter that perception. Of course you can also get highly acclaimed fusion cuisine and some of the most authentic sicilian pizza in Toronto in that walk as well.

And since when was Starbucks fancy, 1995?