From today's Star..........







Mississauga grows up
For decades, the fast-growing region west of Toronto has been synonymous with urban sprawl

Now, as land disappears, it's aiming to be the `poster child' for smart growth, Joseph Hall reports

JOSEPH HALL
STAFF REPORTER

Drive south on Mavis Rd. as it passes over Highway 403 in Mississauga and sneak a peek to your left.

It can't be — but it is. Off in the middle distance, you'll see the unmistakable emergence of ... a skyline.

Yup. There in the centre of a city that could rightfully be called the Sultan of Sprawl in Canada, a race to the heavens is well underway.

With cranes silhouetted atop rising cement towers, and new, glass-lined condominiums poking toward the clouds, the country's most horizontal municipality is developing, at long last, a vertical downtown core.

"We're at a transition point where we're moving away from being a green fields municipality where farmers' fields are being taken up for low-density development," says Mississauga planning commissioner Ed Sajecki.

"In the past several years we've just seen explosive, high-density growth around the city centre."

It's no coincidence, of course, that this intensification epiphany comes as Mississauga is running out of land to sprawl.

So now, with the approval last month of the largest vertical project in the city's history — one that will include 40-, 45- and 50-storey condominium towers among some 30 new buildings — Mississauga is fulfilling a downtown densification commitment that has lain dormant in its official plan for decades.

That latest project, to be built by Vancouver's Amacon Development Inc., is scheduled to break ground just west of the city's Square One shopping mall sometime next year. It will draw some 12,000 new residents over the next decade.

"In total, we have about 15,000 units of residential space in the mill around the city centre," Sajecki says.

"We have about 6,500 units currently existing and we've got at least 8,500, maybe closer to 10,000 units in various stages of approval."

That represents about 35,000 new people in downtown Mississauga and a radical departure from the city's traditional growth tactics, Sajecki says.

A hodgepodge amalgam of rural towns and villages that were legislated together in 1974, Mississauga morphed over the ensuing decades into a ground-level behemoth of some 640,000 people.

Gradually infilling the farmland between Cooksville, Malton, Streetsville and Port Credit with tracts of single-family homes, low-rise offices, strip malls and factories, the city "grew out" like no other.

With the exception of the high-rise apartments and condos that line segments of Hurontario St., the city's main north-south thoroughfare, Mississauga has devoted itself almost exclusively to sprawl-style growth. Indeed, the city has virtually sprawled out to its very boundaries.

In only three decades of existence, Mississauga added some 440,000 residents — the bulk of these moving into single-family, multi-garaged homes.

And the classic accoutrement to this urban sprawl, the giant suburban shopping mall, became the city's de facto downtown core.

With 360 stores and 8,700 parking spaces to feed it, Square One is the largest shopping mall in Ontario.

But even with development plans around it only fractionally complete, the mall is already being dwarfed by the neighbouring condo towers.

"It's been a challenge — how do you build a city centre around a big shopping mall?" says Sajecki, who readily acknowledges Mississauga's past predilection for sprawl.

"But we would like to become the poster child for urban smart growth, and I think we're well on our way towards doing that."

This opinion might be overly optimistic, many urban planning experts say. With the city running out of land, it may be too late to fix many of the most pressing sprawl-inspired problems.

But that doesn't mean Mississauga is not going to try, Sajecki says.

Mississauga City Hall is a massive, sand-coloured building that stands just west of Square One and celebrates, architecturally, a rural heritage the municipality thoroughly cannibalized.

Segmented into four connected parts, the building thematically represents agricultural structures that have been all but swept from the city's landscape.

A farmhouse, a barn, a silo, and a windmill are all mirrored in the hall's motifs.

But stand atop the central, "farmhouse" tower and there's almost nothing of these rural roots anywhere in sight.

From Lake Ontario in the south, to the distant Caledon hills in the north, the view presents a nearly unbroken panorama of sprawling business and suburbia.

Close by, however, things are changing. A lot.

"As you see, there are basically cranes on every corner and there's an explosive amount of condominium construction happening," says Sajecki, surveying the view from a city hall balcony.

"The Amacon project alone will result in another 12,000 people moving into the city centre."

Approved by an eight to one vote at city council last month, the Amacon development will emerge to the west of city hall on a plot of scrub land running from Burnhamthorpe Rd. north to Rathburn Rd. and encompassing 12 hectares.

Amacon marketing head Cameron McNeill says the new development, which will see buildings from three storeys to full-blown skyscrapers, is being fuelled by a new consumer demand for high-density accommodations.

"The allure of being out in the 'burbs and the picket fences is diminishing fast," says McNeill.

"People are really trying to get back to a sense of community and even if that means vertical communities, that's okay."

When you build out as far as you can, up is the only option left, counters University of Toronto urban expert Eric Miller.

Be that as it may, however, the Amacon project is slated to play a big part in creating a high-density community in central Mississauga, should it unfold as planned over the next eight to 15 years.

Preliminary plans for the 6,000-unit development include at least one 50-storey tower, which at 154 metres will be the city's tallest building. For a similar-sized building in Toronto, look at the 49-storey Harbourview Estates condominium tower that just topped off to the southwest of the Rogers Centre.

But it will also boast a series of low-rise, town house properties and a host of "quaint" shops and civic squares to help build a grade-level "village" within the glass canyons.

"We're excited about having something that doesn't have a lot of uniformity to it," says McNeill.

"We want to have something that is a really animated, pedestrian friendly and varied project. An urban village in the `old world' sense."

Having said that, however, McNeill stresses that no architectural plans have been rendered on any of the project buildings.

And while the height and placement of each has been determined under the municipally approved plan, no one has any idea yet what the ultimate structures will look like. Early drawings are only conceptual in nature.

"We could be hiring numerous architects so that every tower doesn't look the same," McNeill says. "Our vision is Manhattan, Vancouver, San Francisco ... where every building on every corner is unique."

The project drew a modicum of resistance when it was unveiled last month, with several residents of a condominium to the north complaining that Amacon buildings would block views of the lake to the south.

In response, the city ordered alterations to some of the proposed towers, leaving existing sight lines largely open.

In the end, the driving force behind development will be customer demand. And if housing preferences are altered — or economies go south — in the coming years, then the project's ultimate shape could shift substantially.

As it now stands, however, the plan fits in precisely with Mississauga's desire to create a vibrant central core — a vertical downtown that could help lift the city out of its dreary suburban mould.

And it is far from the only project contributing to that shift.

One of the most desolate ground eaters — Square One's massive parking lot — will conceivably play host to a major piece of the urban intensification, Sajecki says.

The introduction of structured parking at the mall will free up surface space that could be used for a road network leading to new retail, high-rise residential and office developments.

As well, recently built, approved and pending development outside of the Amacon property itself includes at least 17 towers of 25 floors or more. Four of those towers reach up to 35 storeys or higher, with one topping out at 40 floors.

Just outside the planning department's designated and somewhat arbitrary downtown envelope, more than a dozen high-rise towers have already been built, with several more pending.

"The spinoff benefits of all this is that the kind of amenities you'd see in a traditional downtown — the restaurants and the retail and the public spaces — will come and they will be filled with people," Sajecki says.

The new residents will also provide ready patrons for events at the Mississauga Living Arts Centre and Central Library, both adjacent to the city hall building, he says.

Most importantly, Sajecki says, the new downtown will serve to anchor an exclusive, bus-only transitway the city hopes to build along the Eglinton Ave./Highway 403 corridor as the backbone of its transit system.

The bus rapid transit line will run from Erin Mills to the west, through the city centre area, past the airport and on into Toronto.

"That is our number one priority for the city centre area," Sajecki says.

"We believe that the bus rapid transit route will help to build up a commercial office presence in the downtown as well."

But this late conversion to high density may have little impact on the city's core sprawl problems, says the U of T's Miller, head of the school's Joint Program in Transportation

In particular, the traffic congestion that's plagued Mississauga — a product of its car dependent suburbia — is unlikely to be affected by the central development.

"I think Mayor (Hazel) McCallion is a genuine convert to this (smart growth) type of development," Miller says.

"But if this (downtown buildup) is done just in isolation, then it probably doesn't accomplish too much."

To really combat sprawl-inspired congestion — as well as the strip mall dreariness of suburbia in general — the same kinds of intensified development would likely have to be built on any available space throughout the city, Miller says.

"If it's the first shot in a long war, then maybe it's not bad," he says.

Miller says Mississauga's foray into high-density residential building is fundamentally different from the railway lands condominium boom now underway in downtown Toronto.

"The railway lands are an extension of an already developed downtown and it will be piggybacking on an existing transit system as well as the existing downtown entertainment and retail (amenities)."

In Mississauga, of course, "downtown" is still under construction.

Additional articles by Joseph Hall

About time too. The urban format of Mississauga is a total mess.

"The urban format of Mississauga is a total mess."


Of course it is...what post-war suburban sprawl zone isn't?

But the amazing thing is, not only is Mississauga trying to do something about it, it may actually acomplish something resembling an urban format...if not the whole city, then at least for a small part of it.

And who can argue about skyscrapers and density? We already have a 505 footer announced for it's downtown...maybe even taller ones will follow? Davies Smith Developments just had a full page ad in today's Star announcing their new Solstice tower...38 floors. Looks a bit like Citygate, and appears to be part of a twin tower project.

Hey...it's never going to be Barcelona, but at least it will show that "something" can be done to improve things. And you never know...once it gets a somewhat urban downtown, it can work on fixing some other areas of the city.

At least it's encouraging.





KGB

Wow in decades to come, Mississauga might just have a skyline that's bigger than Vancouver's. :runaway:

In order for that to happen, there would have to be highrises on every block from Mavis Rd to Hurontario St, Burnhamthorpe Rd. to Eglinton Ave.

^ It's already somewhat similar right now.

That latest project, to be built by Vancouver's Amacon Development Inc., is scheduled to break ground just west of the city's Square One shopping mall sometime next year. It will draw some 12,000 new residents over the next decade.

Suprise Suprise

surprise surprise...what?






KGB

I think it means:

crap buildings built in mississauga by amacon = surprise surprise
where else can someone get away with building retirement grade residential for the mass public. Eden Park, even is pretty bad even for MCC standards. Looks more like something that should go around South Common Mall.

This is good news ! I don't think anyone outside of the GTA considers Missy as anything more than a bedroom community of TO right now. Unfortunate but true....it's getting big enough now that it can define itself. Who knows...in the future it may overtake Toronto for reasons we can't appreciate now.

This is good news ! I don't think anyone outside of the GTA considers Missy as anything more than a bedroom community of TO right now. Unfortunate but true....it's getting big enough now that it can define itself. Who knows...in the future it may overtake Toronto for reasons we can't appreciate now.
It wont' overtake Toronto, it will be ammalgamated sooner than we may think...

So how many years do you think it will be until Mississauga becomes officially part of the city of Toronto, and is it feasible?

^never

"Suprise Suprise"

What - aren't you aware of the GTA's huge residential market and how every developer from Montreal to Edmonton to Calgary to Vancouver all want a piece of it

^never
That's what Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc etc. thought.:D

It's a matter of time, Hazel is holding this city afloat, the next mayor I bet won't be as succesful.

The only way Mississauga will get amalgamated with Toronto, is if you grab it out of Hazel Mcallions hands when shes dead.

The only way Mississauga will get amalgamated with Toronto, is if you grab it out of Hazel Mcallions hands when shes dead.
That's what I was thinking lol, I bet Mississauga will go downhill without her as mayor. And we know she will rule until death, she hardly has opposition.

The only way Missi is going to be amalgamated into Toronto is if they're forced to by the provincial government. But even then, there's a difference. In the next round (if there were to be one) it might well be Missi that swallows up places like Brampton and Oakville. That's as opposed to Toronto incorporating Missi into it's own political body. If Missi had enough 'gravity' it would be able to resist annexation with Toronto. Imagine if Mississauga was a million people by 2030 (not too difficult I don't think); there would be plenty of resistance to the idea of being governed by people further East on the QEW.

The only way Missi is going to be amalgamated into Toronto is if they're forced to by the provincial government. But even then, there's a difference. In the next round (if there were to be one) it might well be Missi that swallows up places like Brampton and Oakville. That's as opposed to Toronto incorporating Missi into it's own political body. If Missi had enough 'gravity' it would be able to resist annexation with Toronto. Imagine if Mississauga was a million people by 2030 (not too difficult I don't think); there would be plenty of resistance to the idea of being governed by people further East on the QEW.
Yup, probably it will happen that Missi gobbles up the whole Peel region. But you never know, that's what happened years ago in Etobicoke. All the little towns were gobbled up by the city of Etobicoke who was later sucked up by Toronto.

Yup, probably it will happen that Missi gobbles up the whole Peel region. But you never know, that's what happened years ago in Etobicoke. All the little towns were gobbled up by the city of Etobicoke who was later sucked up by Toronto.
Of course, what I was getting at isn't that Missi would overtake Toronto anytime soon....that's just not likely. What I mean is that if enough corporations find themselves seriously considering Missi for their head offices it wouldn't be that long before it became a major center in it's own right.

"But you never know, that's what happened years ago in Etobicoke. All the little towns were gobbled up by the city of Etobicoke who was later sucked up by Toronto."


That's not what happened at all.

Before 1850, Etobicoke was just a part of York Country.

In 1850, Etobicoke became a township.

From 1911 to 1930, Long Branch, Mimico, and New Toronto separate from Etobicoke and incorporate as villages or towns.

In 1953: Etobicoke, Long Branch, Mimico, and New Toronto become part of the "new" Toronto.

In 1967, Etobicoke, Long Branch, Mimico, and New Toronto amalgamate and become the Borough of Etobicoke.

In 1983, the Borough of Etobicoke starts calling itself a "city" (although it's status as part of Toronto does not change at all).

In 1998, all former boroughs of Toronto cease to exist when the two-tiered system of city government is replaced by one tier.



I doubt very much that Queen's Park will be interested in expanding the boundaries of Toronto. If anything, it may increase the responsibilities of the Region of Peel, or outright amalgamation of the Peel Region into one tiered municipality.






KGB

"We could be hiring numerous architects so that every tower doesn't look the same," McNeill says. "Our vision is Manhattan, Vancouver, San Francisco ... where every building on every corner is unique."

LOL! Which city doesn't belong in that statement?

"Manhattan, Vancouver, San Francisco ... where every building on every corner is unique."

:hahaha: I'm sorry, but Vancouver is definitely not known for their unique skyscraper architecture. Urban planning yes, but not architecture.

What do you mean? Every tower IS different! :lol:

http://www.gunson.ca/~jim/gallery/albums/Summer-2004/DSCN0312.sized.jpg

http://www.goboatingmag.com/pics/destinations/big/CoalHarbor_11_04.jpg

"McNeill says. "Our vision is Manhattan, Vancouver, San Francisco ... where every building on every corner is unique."

"LOL! Which city doesn't belong in that statement?"



Well, what do you expect a spokesperson from a Vancouver builder to say?

I'm certainly not expecting a Manhattan, a San Fran...or even a Vancouver out of MCC....just something reasonably resembling an urban downtown area.





KGB

Every building IS unique in Vancouver. The first picture posted there is of a group of buildings called "Aquarius 1, 2, 3 & 4" on the false creek waterfront which were meant to look alike as their part of the same complex...even though each one is slightly different, just uses the same building materials. The second picture shows a couple twin towers which will obviously look alike too. If you walk around the streets of downtown vancouver instead of looking at pictures on the internet, you will see why they say every building is unique, because they are!! There is great architecture here...its really hard to see from skyline shots on the internet, unfortunate.

my Suprise, Suprise comment is because a Vancouver company is behind that massive project in Missisauga...goes along with City Place, and probably many other Toronto area towers. Well at least you guys look to the best for urban designers to develop in your town.

^ Umm, said Vancouver firm is only doing Cityplace, which is only one of many developments happening throughout the city. Just because it got such a prominent location is merely luck, and many people are regretting letting them have it. There are many developments that far exceed the quality and look of Cityplace. Why don't you come here and look around Toronto rather than looking at the pictures posted on the internet?

When we say that most buildings in Vancouver look the same, we're not saying that they're identical, but they all stick to the same scheme of green glass and minimal use of concrete. I understand the need to develop a style that can be identified with the city, like Toronto is doing with it's "Toronto style" developments (i.e. Opera House, Ritz-Carlton, Toronto General hospital, etc., big glass box), but there seems to be no mixture of architectural features that can be used to identify one architect from another.

Take a look at Minto, ROCP, 18 Yorkville, Skyline Cosmopolitan, 1 King West, 1 St. Thomas, the Met, the other Yorkville developments, Spire, etc. They all look like they're built by different architects because they each have features and styles that the others don't share.

my Suprise, Suprise comment is because a Vancouver company is behind that massive project in Missisauga...goes along with City Place, and probably many other Toronto area towers. Well at least you guys look to the best for urban designers to develop in your town.

My surprise surprise is that Concord is developing a min-Vancouver in Toronto, which is a bad development in my opinion. Either really ugly or very repetitive. Cityplace is just a large gated community without the physcial gate.

Cityplace sucks, especially the latest phase. There are far better developments in Toronto, my favorite of which is 18 Yorkville. Emulating the urban design of Vancouver is alright, but I hope Mississauga will not end up having the repetitive building designs as well.

I was reading an article on City Place, and apparently their using cheaper building materials and the overall product is a lot lesser in quality than that of Concord Pacific. Thats probably a reason why it doesn't look so good.

The glass is Vancouvers style, to take advantage of the views. Personally I think glass looks great, and many people ive talked to like it over concrete as well. There are plenty of buildings around that balance the two though, and many new ones going up that are not all glass. If you don't like glass, then what would look better?

"my Suprise, Suprise comment is because a Vancouver company is behind that massive project in Missisauga...goes along with City Place, and probably many other Toronto area towers. Well at least you guys look to the best for urban designers to develop in your town."


Oh I see....you feel like one of the big boys cause you get to play in ole TO and get to piss in the tall weeds with the big dogs eh???? LOL!!

Whatever....the developments in Toronto are huge...and dominated by Toronto developers. Of course the market is going to attract some out-of-town companies wanting to get in on the act. If you think because a Vancouver developer is building some condos in Mississauga is reason to stroke your ego...go for it.

And I would not call Cityplace a Vancouver based project at all...Concord Pacific Group Inc. is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and Grand Adex Developments, owned privately by the Hui family, is Hong Kong money.

The only completed condo building in Toronto that I can think of is the Bellagio...hardly the epitome of urban design....the Pinnacle Centre doesn't seem any better...some boring buildings with windows 15 feet from the Gardiner...and hasn't been selling like other projects.






KGB

I was reading an article on City Place, and apparently their using cheaper building materials and the overall product is a lot lesser in quality than that of Concord Pacific. Thats probably a reason why it doesn't look so good.

Thats not why I don't like it. Its only residential nature for such are large swath of land close to downtown is my beef.

In 1983, the Borough of Etobicoke starts calling itself a "city" (although it's status as part of Toronto does not change at all).



It had good company ;)

Ah...Mr winky face returns.....and says nothing as usual.

What is your major malfunction on this particular subject anyway?





KGB

lol @ KGB. Unless you have a rock soild argument marathon, I don't reconmend you debate with KGB. He knows his stuff and will eat you alive. Believe me, I know this first hand. :lol:

My surprise surprise is that Concord is developing a min-Vancouver in Toronto, which is a bad development in my opinion. Either really ugly or very repetitive. Cityplace is just a large gated community without the physcial gate.

I fully agree Roch. Cityplace east was a missed opportunity to do something great; All we got was medicore infill when it could have been so much more. But there is no point to dwell on the past, and instead let's hope lessons were learnt.

lol @ KGB. Unless you have a rock soild argument marathon, I don't reconmend you debate with KGB. He knows his stuff and will eat you alive. Believe me, I know this first hand. :lol:

Actually, I would normally not bother but to interject here, if anybody on this forum knows his stuff on this particular subject, it's Marathon.

Actually, I would normally not bother but to interject here, if anybody on this forum knows his stuff on this particular subject, it's Marathon.

Shhh! :)

Marathon can smell a thread about manipulating city boundaries a mile away. It's very impressive.

Toronto will never incorporate Mississauga. It's a different municipality. What might happen is Mississauga will incorporate whatever's left of the Municipality of Peel.

Back to the immediate subject, I have mixed feelings for Mississauga. It's inspiring to see it grow up (pardon the pun). When driving west on the QEW past Kipling... behold! What is that? When did that skyline get there? It's quite dense and wide... all thats needed is something taller to stand out.

However, you still can't just 'make a city'. Mississauga will be our Dubai. You can throw up as many towers as you like, if the urban form is still dictated by car oriented urban planning, pedestrian experience is delegated to walking to your car across a parking lot, and retail is bound by corporate owned malls and plazas, it's still suburbia. You can't just create the chaos that is necessary for city life. Mississauga will, in our lifetimes, remain the bastion of suburbia. Just with lots of towers.

whatever's left of the Municipality of Peel.



Is that the fine print on the "Welcome to Brampton" signs? :)

It makes sence that the province would never allow Missy alamgamation with Toronto. Such and almagamation would increase the strength of the Mayor/City of Toronto.

Is that the fine print on the "Welcome to Brampton" signs? :)

pretty much.

Mississauga could be like Hamilton, or much worse, Sudbury. You'll see a sign that says 'Welcome to Hamilton'. Then you'll see a sign with 'City Centre: 32km'. It's like that on Hwy. 8. Goofy I tells ya!

pretty much.

Mississauga could be like Hamilton, or much worse, Sudbury. You'll see a sign that says 'Welcome to Hamilton'. Then you'll see a sign with 'City Centre: 32km'. It's like that on Hwy. 8. Goofy I tells ya!

Indeed. I would imagine there is a lot of driving left between the moment you enter the City of Kawartha Lakes and when you finally reach the urban area of Lindsay. Quite silly.

However, you still can't just 'make a city'. Mississauga will be our Dubai. You can throw up as many towers as you like, if the urban form is still dictated by car oriented urban planning, pedestrian experience is delegated to walking to your car across a parking lot, and retail is bound by corporate owned malls and plazas, it's still suburbia. You can't just create the chaos that is necessary for city life. Mississauga will, in our lifetimes, remain the bastion of suburbia. Just with lots of towers.

Umm... most of the new developments in Mississauga are quite pedestrian-oriented. What is being built in MCC is alot different from what was built in the other areas of Mississauga, and it's not like there aren't alot of high-rises in other parts of the city either.

That's what Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc etc. thought.:D


:cheers:

"That's what Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc etc. thought "


Why would they have thought that? ...those boroughs were created for the sole purpose of being part of Toronto in the first place. If you are talking about them losing the two-tiered municipal structure in 1998...they would have known that was coming eventually as well....the whole point of the two-tiered system way back when was to avoid the pitfalls of overnight annexation...the advantages of that had pretty much played itself out by that point...the cost advantage of a one tier system had already outweighed the advantages of the two-tiered system....71% of all municipal services were already amalgamated by the top tier by that point.





KGB

Yet they still toyed with the populace with that silly referendum asking them whether they wanted something that unbeknownst to them had already happened 44 years prior.

Silly Canadians and their politics ;)

If you are talking about them losing the two-tiered municipal structure in 1998...they would have known that was coming eventually as well....

Nearly 90% of the voters must not have gotten the memo :)

anybody have any recent pics of the mississauga "skyline" i wouldnt mind seeing what it looks like

or is it more of a proposed skyline then an actually built one?

Just go back through some of the threads. Doady, for example, has posted quite a few.

Umm... most of the new developments in Mississauga are quite pedestrian-oriented. What is being built in MCC is alot different from what was built in the other areas of Mississauga, and it's not like there aren't alot of high-rises in other parts of the city either.

It appears most of them will be pedestrian oriented...but I think it will take longer than most people think for people to adapt to that kind of lifestyle. Driving even the most ridiculously short distances is actually quite common. Just because the option to walk is available, it doesn't mean that's what people will want or choose to do.

"Just because the option to walk is available, it doesn't mean that's what people will want or choose to do."

Yea...I would be curious to know how many people who live within a short distance to Square One still drive there?







"something that unbeknownst to them had already happened 44 years prior."


Unlike you, I think everybody knew what it meant. You aren't making any sense...they were commenting on whether they wanted the two-tiered municipal structure changed to a single one...which had been the same since 1953. One-tier municipal structure did not happen 44 years prior, so why are you implying I said it did????






KGB

they were commenting on whether they wanted the two-tiered municipal structure changed to a single one

Exactly! And they overwhelmingly said no. Which runs contrary to your earlier comment that it was what was eventually intended all along. Apparently most didn't agree ;)

One-tier municipal structure did not happen 44 years prior, so why are you implying I said it did????

Exactly again! That's what I've said all along. The one-tiered City of Toronto was born in 1998! Before that, the "City of Toronto" under the two-tiered system had about 700,000 residents...one of six equivalent entities in Metro Toronto.

"Exactly! And they overwhelmingly said no. Which runs contrary to your earlier comment that it was what was eventually intended all along. Apparently most didn't agree"


Doesn't imply that at all...it only said most people didn't want it to happen when it did. If anybody where to look at the situation that predicated the unique municipal structure in the first place...it's intended purpose, and the way it had been manipulated constantly since it's inception...there is only one natural conclusion to the process. It "may" have happened a bit prematurely, as the government that changed it was more interested in fiscal savings, than city-building. But most of the work had been done...waiting another 20 years (or keeping it forever) would have been of a lot less use than it's early years.








"Exactly again! That's what I've said all along. The one-tiered City of Toronto was born in 1998! Before that, the "City of Toronto" under the two-tiered system had about 700,000 residents."


You obviously have a brain-fart on this subject...I don't think you are ever going to get it...in fact, i don't think you want to...it's just an excuse to be sarcastic.

Toronto has worked on a two-tiered system since 1953 (being altered all along of course...it's wasn't a static process). The province wanted to switch it to a one-tier system in 1998...the residents of Toronto (all of it...not the "old" Toronto) didn't want to give it up. The only people all that concerned about it, were the politicians and city employees which would lose jobs...otherwise, it meant little to the average citizen.

You see, the referendum was on city government structure...you seem to think it had something to do with separate cities being annexed....which is wrong.






KGB

It appears most of them will be pedestrian oriented...but I think it will take longer than most people think for people to adapt to that kind of lifestyle. Driving even the most ridiculously short distances is actually quite common. Just because the option to walk is available, it doesn't mean that's what people will want or choose to do.

I agree, it will take along time. A change in people's lifestyle doesn't happen overnight, but at least it starts now.

I think all this development is huge step for Mississauga to become less dependant on cars, both by encouraging walking and allowing better transit service due to increased density. Already, this fall, Mississauga Transit will increase bus service on Hurontario St to 6 minute frequency. What's next? LRT? This is a route that doesn't even connect to Toronto.

"Exactly! And they overwhelmingly said no. Which runs contrary to your earlier comment that it was what was eventually intended all along. Apparently most didn't agree"


Doesn't imply that at all...it only said most people didn't want it to happen when it did. If anybody where to look at the situation that predicated the unique municipal structure in the first place...it's intended purpose, and the way it had been manipulated constantly since it's inception...there is only one natural conclusion to the process. It "may" have happened a bit prematurely, as the government that changed it was more interested in fiscal savings, than city-building. But most of the work had been done...waiting another 20 years (or keeping it forever) would have been of a lot less use than it's early years.








"Exactly again! That's what I've said all along. The one-tiered City of Toronto was born in 1998! Before that, the "City of Toronto" under the two-tiered system had about 700,000 residents."


You obviously have a brain-fart on this subject...I don't think you are ever going to get it...in fact, i don't think you want to...it's just an excuse to be sarcastic.

Toronto has worked on a two-tiered system since 1953 (being altered all along of course...it's wasn't a static process). The province wanted to switch it to a one-tier system in 1998...the residents of Toronto (all of it...not the "old" Toronto) didn't want to give it up. The only people all that concerned about it, were the politicians and city employees which would lose jobs...otherwise, it meant little to the average citizen.

You see, the referendum was on city government structure...you seem to think it had something to do with separate cities being annexed....which is wrong.


I can always tell whether you're going to give a reasonable response by whether you open with an insult or not. On the first point, you started right in with your explanation, and it was rather satisfactory. On the second point though, you insulted me first which promptly told me (correctly again) that the argument following would be more of the same that you've offered before. Are you denying that what was defined as the City of Toronto prior to 1 January 1998 had a population of just under 700,000?

anybody have any recent pics of the mississauga "skyline" i wouldnt mind seeing what it looks like

some old pics
Here (http://www.pbase.com/doady/image/42471473.jpg)

And a panorama (http://www.pbase.com/doady/image/42471489.jpg). Warning! it is 1MB file size.

"On the second point though, you insulted me first which promptly told me (correctly again) that the argument following would be more of the same that you've offered before."


Well, your never-ending little smart-assed sarcastic one-liners are insulting as well. And to top it off, you always add those snarky little winky faces, implying i need sarcasm pointed out.

At least I have tried to explain the situation to you on many occaisions in an earnest and honest fashion...far more patience on my part than you deserve.








"Are you denying that what was defined as the City of Toronto prior to 1 January 1998 had a population of just under 700,000? "


You are still confused about the roles of the lower-tier entities of Toronto, because of their "city" designations. It's natural to make this mistake, but it has been explained enough times to you by this point, that one would think you would get it by now.

Since the "old" city of Toronto was the only "city" at the time ( 1953 ) to become part of the "new" Toronto, it kept that designation as opposed to being changed to the "borough" of Toronto (even though borough designations did not happen until 10 years later).

City or borough...it doesn't matter...they were all equal entities in Toronto's municipal structure.





KGB

Well, your never-ending little smart-assed sarcastic one-liners are insulting as well. And to top it off, you always add those snarky little winky faces, implying i need sarcasm pointed out.

At least I have tried to explain the situation to you on many occaisions in an earnest and honest fashion...far more patience on my part than you deserve.

Your interpretation of winky faces doesn't necessarily match their intent. They are friendly smileys at another board I frequent. Looselog can attest to that...I invited him over there.

And yes, you've tried to convince me of your bent on the situation on many occasions...but it doesn't jibe with anything else I've read on the subject, so I continue to reject it. Perhaps that's what's getting to you.


You are still confused about the roles of the lower-tier entities of Toronto, because of their "city" designations. It's natural to make this mistake, but it has been explained enough times to you by this point, that one would think you would get it by now.

Since the "old" city of Toronto was the only "city" at the time ( 1953 ) to become part of the "new" Toronto, it kept that designation as opposed to being changed to the "borough" of Toronto (even though borough designations did not happen until 10 years later).

City or borough...it doesn't matter...they were all equal entities in Toronto's municipal structure.

I'm noy buying that I'm confused on the issue. That other Torontonians on this very forum seem to share my take on the matter (I see you've tried to "correct" them as well) notwithstanding, as I said above...everything I've read on the matter runs counter to what you've consistently tried to sell me.

Your last sentence is correct though...the six municipalities shared equal standing until 1998(although this, again, runs counter to your previous assertions that they were boroughs (posing as cities after a time) subjugate to Toronto from 1953). Perhaps the real reason the City was amalgamated before the residents were in favor of it was due to the fact that North York and Scarborough were rapidly approaching the City of Toronto in population, and it wanted to avoid the embarrassment of becoming the first major world city to have suburbs that were actually larger than itself :)

"Your interpretation of winky faces doesn't necessarily match their intent."

When they follow smart-assed, sarcastic sentences, it really doesn't leave much to interpret. Not that emoticons are of much use to me...I'm a tad more interested in what you actually type. Ever see me use an emoticon?








"I'm noy buying that I'm confused on the issue."

Considering what you have invested in your position...I'm not realistically expecting you to. But you are indeed confused...and it's do to one key problem...your inability to understand the second-tier structure.







"That other Torontonians on this very forum seem to share my take on the matter (I see you've tried to "correct" them as well) notwithstanding"


If it didn't factor...you wouldn't have mentioned it. Truth by referendum...hmmm...don't even think you would buy that.








"everything I've read on the matter runs counter to what you've consistently tried to sell me."


It has more to do with understanding what you are reading. I don't find it unusual that you would take that position...it's actually a fairly complicated and difficult concept to understand, and I see where it would be VERY easy to interpret it wrongly....because it uses terms which generally have a different meaning. The "new" city of Toronto used terms like "city" and "metro" which do not translate into the "normal" exact usages of the terms. And this is where most people would get confused.






"Your last sentence is correct though...the six municipalities shared equal standing until 1998(although this, again, runs counter to your previous assertions that they were boroughs (posing as cities after a time) subjugate to Toronto from 1953). "


It doesn't run counter to what I said...you keep confusing Toronto the whole city...and Toronto, a part of the city. And yes...all 13 or 6 constiuents of Toronto were always subject to the first tier (the whole Toronto).









"Perhaps the real reason the City was amalgamated before the residents were in favor of it was due to the fact that North York and Scarborough were rapidly approaching the City of Toronto in population, and it wanted to avoid the embarrassment of becoming the first major world city to have suburbs that were actually larger than itself"


I'm hoping that is just a joke....the use of smiley face instead of the winky face it throwing me.

Just in case you were serious...do you think Manhattan cares that some of it's boroughs has a higher population?

I have a question for you....what do you think is the significance of a borough calling itself a city is/was?







KGB

When they follow smart-assed, sarcastic sentences, it really doesn't leave much to interpret. Not that emoticons are of much use to me...I'm a tad more interested in what you actually type. Ever see me use an emoticon?

Come to think of it, no. Clearly your personality needs no visual aids...


Considering what you have invested in your position...I'm not realistically expecting you to. But you are indeed confused...and it's do to one key problem...your inability to understand the second-tier structure.

Yes...you keep declaring me confused. I've seen people who are hopelessly losing an argument ceremoniously declare themselves the victor nonetheless. Doesn't make it so :)


If it didn't factor...you wouldn't have mentioned it. Truth by referendum...hmmm...don't even think you would buy that.

Now that's an interesting comment. What it tells me is that I respect the intellect of my peers here considerably more than you do.


It has more to do with understanding what you are reading. I don't find it unusual that you would take that position...it's actually a fairly complicated and difficult concept to understand, and I see where it would be VERY easy to interpret it wrongly....because it uses terms which generally have a different meaning. The "new" city of Toronto used terms like "city" and "metro" which do not translate into the "normal" exact usages of the terms. And this is where most people would get confused.

It doesn't run counter to what I said...you keep confusing Toronto the whole city...and Toronto, a part of the city. And yes...all 13 or 6 constiuents of Toronto were always subject to the first tier (the whole Toronto).

Again with the confused bit. If every time I point out a conflict in your argument, you're going to come back with a sheepish "You just don't get it" argument, then your wasting both of our collective times. Suffice it to say, one of the entities that was subjugate to Metro Toronto was the old City of Toronto. The unicity created in 1998 could just as easily have taken the name York for all it mattered. After all, more people lived in a city/borough with York in its name than with Toronto in its name...that would have been nostalgic :)


I'm hoping that is just a joke....the use of smiley face instead of the winky face it throwing me.

Just in case you were serious...do you think Manhattan cares that some of it's boroughs has a higher population?

And you just finished saying that you didn't need emoticons to guide you through my posts. :)

I have a question for you....what do you think is the significance of a borough calling itself a city is/was?

What was the significance of the 1997 referendum?

"Clearly your personality needs no visual aids..."

Then you must know I could only percieve this as a compliment....you play'n with me?








"I've seen people who are hopelessly losing an argument ceremoniously declare themselves the victor nonetheless. Doesn't make it so"


I don't look at it that way at all...it's a shame you do. Tell me...what possible reason do you think I have the position I do on this subject? Am I just stupid...or do I have some sort of alterior motive or something? There's no prize at the end of this...there's nothing to win.

Which reminds me...i know why i bother to talk about this subject...it's something that I've felt is interesting for a very long time...and have studied it somewhat indepth for a long time...because I have an interest in city planning, and it's local....why do you seem to take it to heart so seriously?







"What it tells me is that I respect the intellect of my peers here considerably more than you do."


If I didn't respect the intellect of my fellow forumers, I simply wouldn't waste my time on the subject. I'm not going to support an idea i definetly don't agree with just to be "nice". You can't respect a person's intellect by pretending to agree with them when you don't....that would register as patronizing to me...and there few worse ways to treat people as far as I'm concerned.








"Again with the confused bit. "

Well sorry, but it's the most accurate way to describe it. Obviously, if you are going to see this as a black and white issue of "cities" and "metros", then you must be confused. I'm not knocking you for it...it IS confusing....people only have their everyday knowledge when it comes to words like "city" and "metro", and cannot relate to it in any other way...it's perfectly understandable...but this is not a case of black and white at all.

Here's what macleans had to say about it in 1997...."Local government in Toronto simply makes no sense. "almost nobody outside government, the media, and the land development business understands how it works" Therefore, according to Patricia Peterson, director of Urban Studies at the University of Toronto, "People don't know what's going on, people get confused and angry and afraid, because it's complicated" (Maclean's 1997c: 42).





"The unicity created in 1998 could just as easily have taken the name York for all it mattered. "


You see...I wasn't even refering to the municipal structure post 1998....I was talking about previous to that. What Toronto is now is easy to understand...it's now just a simple one-tired municipal structure....very easy to comprehend...post 1998 is not even part of my discussion...I don't think anybody has any confusion about that.








"What was the significance of the 1997 referendum? "

Is this something you need to determine before answering the question??

On one level, it had no significance, as municipal structure is determined at the provincial level...not the municipal level, so this isn't even an issue applicable to a referendum. The "informal" referendum against Bill 103, was a political football called Citizens for Local Democracy, spearheaded by John Sewell.

Why did 76% of the people of this "referendum" prefer to keep the old two-tiered system? Easy...people generally fear change...and they knew there was more to it than simplifying government structure...and they were right...downloading followed. After all, this was a Conservative government behind it.

But generally speaking, while the two-tiered system does cost more money, people enjoy the benefits of the more local lower tier. Same reason people prefer small classrooms to big ones. The restructuring of Toronto was very complicated, and had many effects on many things....good for some people...bad for others...meaningless to most.

But one thing is certain...as a constantly changing process, the staus quo in Toronto's two-tiered system had to be overhauled. At that point, given all the changes that had taken place over the previous 43 years, simply turning it into a single-tier municipality wasn't really all that radical.







KGB

Then you must know I could only percieve this as a compliment....you play'n with me?

Perpetually. :)


I don't look at it that way at all...it's a shame you do. Tell me...what possible reason do you think I have the position I do on this subject? Am I just stupid...or do I have some sort of alterior motive or something? There's no prize at the end of this...there's nothing to win.

Which reminds me...i know why i bother to talk about this subject...it's something that I've felt is interesting for a very long time...and have studied it somewhat indepth for a long time...because I have an interest in city planning, and it's local....why do you seem to take it to heart so seriously?


If I didn't respect the intellect of my fellow forumers, I simply wouldn't waste my time on the subject. I'm not going to support an idea i definetly don't agree with just to be "nice". You can't respect a person's intellect by pretending to agree with them when you don't....that would register as patronizing to me...and there few worse ways to treat people as far as I'm concerned.

Well sorry, but it's the most accurate way to describe it. Obviously, if you are going to see this as a black and white issue of "cities" and "metros", then you must be confused. I'm not knocking you for it...it IS confusing....people only have their everyday knowledge when it comes to words like "city" and "metro", and cannot relate to it in any other way...it's perfectly understandable...but this is not a case of black and white at all.

Here's what macleans had to say about it in 1997...."Local government in Toronto simply makes no sense. "almost nobody outside government, the media, and the land development business understands how it works" Therefore, according to Patricia Peterson, director of Urban Studies at the University of Toronto, "People don't know what's going on, people get confused and angry and afraid, because it's complicated" (Maclean's 1997c: 42).

You see...I wasn't even refering to the municipal structure post 1998....I was talking about previous to that. What Toronto is now is easy to understand...it's now just a simple one-tired municipal structure....very easy to comprehend...post 1998 is not even part of my discussion...I don't think anybody has any confusion about that.



True enough. The interesting aspect here is that you're making like nobody understands it but yourself and that you are uniquely positioned to educate the rest of us. You aren't the only one that has studied the situation, and obviously it isn't black and white. But our approaches are different. Yes, it was a nebulous hazy matter for many years, but it still needed to be able to be made statistically comparable to other entities both within and without. Despite the gray areas, my field of work requires ultimately requires classification that is more or less black and white. An since, as you said yourself, prior to 1998, (old) Toronto and the 6 surrounding 6 boroughs/cities were equalivalent in tier within Metro Toronto, and Metro Toronto was equivalent in tier to regional municipalities and counties, each of the 6 were classified as cities at that tier, and Metro Toronto was classified among RMs and counties by virtually all statistical departments, including StatCan. And since that is the approach I come at the situation (and since StatCan is the source provider for Canadian data used in my field and others), then the noteworthy change that took place in 1998 was the expansion/amalgamation of the Metro into the City, whether you want to call it that or not. The City of Toronto, as defined on 31 December 1997 and the City of Toronto as defined on 1 Januarry 1998 were vastly different in that regard.

The situation in Australia is similar. The entities commonly known as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, etc. are actually "Statistical Divisions", which are county-like entities that are the largest tiered divisions below the State level, and have (Hobart excepted) populations measured in the millions. Sydney when defined this way covers an area the size of Connecticut. The city equivalents, or "councils" of the Australian state capitals are much smaller. Sydney and Melbourne proper have about 100,000 people each, and Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart proper have under 50,000.

There are other examples of multi-tiered city structures, like Paris, Brussels, Lima, Santiago, etc., but I digress :)


Is this something you need to determine before answering the question??

On one level, it had no significance, as municipal structure is determined at the provincial level...not the municipal level, so this isn't even an issue applicable to a referendum. The "informal" referendum against Bill 103, was a political football called Citizens for Local Democracy, spearheaded by John Sewell.

Why did 76% of the people of this "referendum" prefer to keep the old two-tiered system? Easy...people generally fear change...and they knew there was more to it than simplifying government structure...and they were right...downloading followed. After all, this was a Conservative government behind it.

But generally speaking, while the two-tiered system does cost more money, people enjoy the benefits of the more local lower tier. Same reason people prefer small classrooms to big ones. The restructuring of Toronto was very complicated, and had many effects on many things....good for some people...bad for others...meaningless to most.

But one thing is certain...as a constantly changing process, the staus quo in Toronto's two-tiered system had to be overhauled. At that point, given all the changes that had taken place over the previous 43 years, simply turning it into a single-tier municipality wasn't really all that radical.



A satisfactory response, but you overindulged my question. I was asking something much more simple. Why, if the city was going to do the same thing if the measure passed or failed, was the waste of time and expense of a referendum even undertaken? Why was it not simply a council measure?

"An since, as you said yourself, prior to 1998, (old) Toronto and the 6 surrounding 6 boroughs/cities were equalivalent in tier within Metro Toronto"


I said the lower tiers were equal in the extent of their limited local governance powers within the confines of the upper tier jurisdiction. And there were 6 components of the city...not 7.





"and Metro Toronto was equivalent in tier to regional municipalities and counties"

Absolutely not. Definetely nothing even close at the time (it was the only municipal structure of it's kind in NA, and one of only a few similar ones in the world). It had/has absolutely nothing to do with "county" deliniations, and while some "regional" deliniations today have borrowed a few of the structural elements of the Toronto example, they are not the same thing. Peel Region for example, is not the same thing, as it would have been amalgamated by the province if it was.












"each of the 6 were classified as cities at that tier, and Metro Toronto was classified among RMs and counties by virtually all statistical departments, including StatCan. And since that is the approach I come at the situation (and since StatCan is the source provider for Canadian data used in my field and others)"


Actually, boroughs did not exist anywhere else in the country (and calling themselves cities did not make them the equivilent of actual city municipalities either...they were still in the same position as when they were boroughs)...there was no equivilent, so Statcan could go either way on the matter.

Statcan is also not the authority on actual political deliniations...provinces are...Statcan just carves the geography up to suit itself. Statcan never implied that North York and Mississauga were the same thing as municipal deliniations at all....it simply doesn't have a special deliniation for a borough, and decided to just throw boroughs in with "regualr" municipalities.









"The situation in Australia is similar."


It's about as far away from the Australian experience as you could get.

While this differs from state to state, they essentially do not have municipal levels at all....they have really only "metros", and are mostly state controlled....as in municipal services are provided by the state, not a municipal body.

Sydney is just one large sprawling metro...it has local councils, but they do not have any power.

Compare this to the GTA, which is made up of autonomous municipalities. Previous to 1998, one of the municipalities of the GTA (Toronto), had it's municipal government broken down into two parts.

No similarity whatsoever.

The closest similarity that I can think of that people here could relate to, is New York City. While they do not have the same municipal government structure as Toronto did, it is made up of boroughs, which provide an idea of one city with decernable components.








"Why, if the city was going to do the same thing if the measure passed or failed, was the waste of time and expense of a referendum even undertaken? Why was it not simply a council measure? "


First of all, the "city" wasn't going to do anything. Cities are completely autonomous municipal entities, but the general structure under which it opperates is determined by the province.

The "referendum" was just a protest organized by citizens...calling it a referendum is really incorrect, as the term implies some sort of official vote on an issue, which this was not. Toronto is a highly municipaly active place on issues...people protest anything and everything...and in general, it works quite well...it's one of the unsung qualities that have always made Toronto "the city that works"...local and vocal voices that the city listens to...in this case, the province wasn't going to change it's mind.

Still don't see how this relates to my question?








KGB

I said the lower tiers were equal in the extent of their limited local governance powers within the confines of the upper tier jurisdiction. And there were 6 components of the city...not 7.

Who ever said 7?

Interestingly though...from the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_history/index.htm)'s own website is this paragraph.

Although the recent amalgamation of seven former municipalities resulted with one Toronto, we still hold on to the past of each of our communities. Our communities have their roots, their stories and their pictures. Whether we are travelling along Yonge Street that stretches from Lake Ontario through North York and beyond the Greater Toronto Area, or we are visiting the Old and New City Halls in Toronto's downtown core, history shows us how we made it here.

I assume they mean Old Toronto, East York, York, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and old Metro Toronto :)

Absolutely not. Definetely nothing even close at the time (it was the only municipal structure of it's kind in NA, and one of only a few similar ones in the world). It had/has absolutely nothing to do with "county" deliniations, and while some "regional" deliniations today have borrowed a few of the structural elements of the Toronto example, they are not the same thing. Peel Region for example, is not the same thing, as it would have been amalgamated by the province if it was.

Which is why I said "in tier". No mention of function whatsoever. In Missouri there are 115 counties and one independent city. There is no county government in Saint Louis, but it is a county equivalent because it isn't subordinate to any county-level government. Likewise, the new City of Toronto (and Metro Toronto before it) are county equivalents in-tier since its separation from York County in 1953.

Actually, boroughs did not exist anywhere else in the country (and calling themselves cities did not make them the equivilent of actual city municipalities either...they were still in the same position as when they were boroughs)...there was no equivilent, so Statcan could go either way on the matter.

Statcan is also not the authority on actual political deliniations...provinces are...Statcan just carves the geography up to suit itself. Statcan never implied that North York and Mississauga were the same thing as municipal deliniations at all....it simply doesn't have a special deliniation for a borough, and decided to just throw boroughs in with "regualr" municipalities.

North York et al. had every bit as legit a claim on the city moniker as old Toronto did...again, equivalent members in metro Toronto and all that. You keep trying to sell this...so cite a source and I'll look at it. I've never found one to back this particular claim of yours.


It's about as far away from the Australian experience as you could get.

While this differs from state to state, they essentially do not have municipal levels at all....they have really only "metros", and are mostly state controlled....as in municipal services are provided by the state, not a municipal body.

Sydney is just one large sprawling metro...it has local councils, but they do not have any power.

Again, sources?

These councils have various administrative powers, involving revenue collection, ecomonic development and land use, among others, and they elect mayors. Some of the LGAs are cities, some are shires, etc. I'll elaborate further when you post sources backing your claims so I can get a more specific handle on what you're claiming here...

Regarding the comparison to New York City...North York etc. elected mayors. Brooklyn etc. do not, and haven't for a century. In fact, it was North York mayor Mel Lastman that acquired the mantle of the new unified Toronto. How can a noncity have had a mayor? And shouldn't the mayor of old Toronto, Barbara Hall, have automatically assumed that title if the municipal structure was already as you claim?

First of all, the "city" wasn't going to do anything. Cities are completely autonomous municipal entities, but the general structure under which it opperates is determined by the province.

The "referendum" was just a protest organized by citizens...calling it a referendum is really incorrect, as the term implies some sort of official vote on an issue, which this was not. Toronto is a highly municipaly active place on issues...people protest anything and everything...and in general, it works quite well...it's one of the unsung qualities that have always made Toronto "the city that works"...local and vocal voices that the city listens to...in this case, the province wasn't going to change it's mind.

Still don't see how this relates to my question?


Democracy being dismissed as little more than a nuisance is a fascinating take on the matter. Also a chilling statement on how the more centralized a government is, the more the voice of the people is lost in the maelstrom.

"I assume they mean Old Toronto, East York, York, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and old Metro Toronto"


Yes...the six lower tiers plus one upper tier of the municipal structure make seven. I was of course refering to physical places you mentioned... (old Toronto and it's six surrounding boroughs).








"Which is why I said "in tier". No mention of function whatsoever."


Well, function is important here...not simple terms or titles, as they differ in function and are very misleading.








"In Missouri there are 115 counties and one independent city. There is no county government in Saint Louis, but it is a county equivalent because it isn't subordinate to any county-level government. Likewise, the new City of Toronto (and Metro Toronto before it) are county equivalents in-tier since its separation from York County in 1953."


Pretty useless information as far as this conversation is concerned...counties can be comprised of anything...rural areas, comprised of numerous cities, towns, villages, etc...or even be part of a city...Manhattan is a county.











"North York et al. had every bit as legit a claim on the city moniker as old Toronto did"


Depends which "old Toronto" you are refering to. If it's the pre-1953 Toronto, then no, North York was just a township then. If you are refering to 1953-1998 "old" Toronto, then yes, it was the same as Toronto...but neither of them (or any of the six components of Toronto) could claim to be "legit" cities as would other actual separate cities....because they were not independent, autonomous cities at all.









"Regarding the comparison to New York City...North York etc. elected mayors. Brooklyn etc. do not"


Of course they don't...because NYC operates with a one-tier municipal structure...not a two-tiered one.







"How can a noncity have had a mayor? "

Easy...they are non-mayors of non-cities. LOL Seriously...it was a "shared" mayoralty system....that's one of the key elements of a two-tiered municipal structure. The lower tier "mayors" were not responsible for the same things as an actual mayor of an actual independent city. The upper tier "mayor", who was called the Chairman also did not perform the duties of an actual mayor either.

But combined, together they performed the duties of an actual mayor of an actual city.









"And shouldn't the mayor of old Toronto, Barbara Hall, have automatically assumed that title if the municipal structure was already as you claim? "


Not at all...and according to what I have been explaining to you, that would make no sense. Barbara Hall was a lower tier mayor...why would any lower tier mayor (or upper tier one) have any automatic claim to be mayor of a one tier municipal government?






"Democracy being dismissed as little more than a nuisance is a fascinating take on the matter."


The democratic process involves electing a government to govern...not everything they do is a result of democratic referendum with popular vote being the deciding factor. This is pretty basic dontch'a think? Or are you just trying to be mellow dramatic now?






KGB

"Which is why I said "in tier". No mention of function whatsoever."

Well, function is important here...not simple terms or titles, as they differ in function and are very misleading.

Not to the point I had made at that moment.

Pretty useless information as far as this conversation is concerned...counties can be comprised of anything...rural areas, comprised of numerous cities, towns, villages, etc...or even be part of a city...Manhattan is a county.

Again...not to the specific point I was addressing at the time...namely, your misunderstanding of the term "in-tier"

Depends which "old Toronto" you are refering to. If it's the pre-1953 Toronto, then no, North York was just a township then. If you are refering to 1953-1998 "old" Toronto, then yes, it was the same as Toronto...but neither of them (or any of the six components of Toronto) could claim to be "legit" cities as would other actual separate cities....because they were not independent, autonomous cities at all.

The only Toronto this whole debate has been about is the 1953-1998 Toronto. And I still await a source backing your claim that they weren't cities in every regard, despite the nebulous city-county thing that resided just above them.

Of course they don't...because NYC operates with a one-tier municipal structure...not a two-tiered one.

So now you're saying Toronto is nothing like New York City. Or at least more like Australia, since you've dropped that rebuttal.

Easy...they are non-mayors of non-cities. LOL Seriously...it was a "shared" mayoralty system....that's one of the key elements of a two-tiered municipal structure. The lower tier "mayors" were not responsible for the same things as an actual mayor of an actual independent city. The upper tier "mayor", who was called the Chairman also did not perform the duties of an actual mayor either.

But combined, together they performed the duties of an actual mayor of an actual city.

Nonmayors of noncities? Please, find me a source that says this (maybe Mel Lastman?)...you aren't describing it very well. Suffice it to say, the duties of mayors (or governors for that matter) aren't uniform from city to city or state to state, so saying that the lower tier mayors weren't responsible for the same things as an actual city is quite meaningless.

Not at all...and according to what I have been explaining to you, that would make no sense. Barbara Hall was a lower tier mayor...why would any lower tier mayor (or upper tier one) have any automatic claim to be mayor of a one tier municipal government?

So then there really were seven entities that amalgamated in 1998 rather than six. Most of your latest argument assumes this, but you have yet to acknowledge that any amalgamation happened in 1998 at all, despite even the city's website speaking of just that.

The democratic process involves electing a government to govern...not everything they do is a result of democratic referendum with popular vote being the deciding factor. This is pretty basic dontch'a think? Or are you just trying to be mellow dramatic now?

Well "mellow dramatic" would be a contradiction. Melodramatic...perhaps :)

All I wanted to know is why the time and expense of a referendum was conducted. Even if it was a "protest", it still had to be funded by the government. Why?

"not to the specific point I was addressing at the time...namely, your misunderstanding of the term "in-tier" "


Are you implying there's something about the municipal structure of Toronto that I am mis-understanding...past or present? Please. I have always understood where you are coming from...but have been trying to explain to you why and how your interpretation of terms are what is causing YOUR mis-understanding of the situation.








"The only Toronto this whole debate has been about is the 1953-1998 Toronto."

Well, part of understanding the process between 1953 and 1998, you have to know the difference between pre-1953 Toronto and post 1998 Toronto. "Old" Toronto to me, refers to the origional, completely independent municipality previous to 1953.

So you see...it's your interpretations of terms which are your worst enemy in trying to comprehend what I'm trying to explain to you.









"And I still await a source backing your claim that they weren't cities in every regard, despite the nebulous city-county thing that resided just above them."


I can't believe you are still having a problem with this...I mean, if you can't figure out the difference between a lower-tier local government and an independent municipality, then I really don't know what to say. Maybe you should listen a little more, rather than cling to this brain-warp you have because you think "city" just means "city". IT DOESN'T!!!

The six lower tiers and the one upper tier of Toronto combined = the equivilent of one single municipal structure (in Ontario anyway)....AKA a single-tier city.









"So now you're saying Toronto is nothing like New York City."

Didn't say anything of the sort...I said NYC is comprised of boroughs, like Toronto was, but does not have a two-tiered municipal structure within it. This hardly makes it "nothing" like NYC. Toronto comprised of it's boroughs and NYC comprised of it's boroughs both functioned as independent municipalities the same.








"Or at least more like Australia, since you've dropped that rebuttal."


Not at all....the Sydney model is ridiculous to compare as a similarity to Toronto's municipality structure. I mean, if you are going to argue that, then you are obviously more confused than I had imagined.








"Nonmayors of noncities? Please, find me a source that says this (maybe Mel Lastman?)...you aren't describing it very well."


Well, that was just a little humour aimed at your sarcastic "noncity" remark fer christ's sake.







"Suffice it to say, the duties of mayors (or governors for that matter) aren't uniform from city to city or state to state, so saying that the lower tier mayors weren't responsible for the same things as an actual city is quite meaningless."


Well, it's consistant within the context of what it means in Ontario, it is very meaningful. Like I said...the combined lower and upper tier structures combined to form the same municipal structure found in a single-tier city.









"So then there really were seven entities that amalgamated in 1998 rather than six. you have yet to acknowledge that any amalgamation happened in 1998 at all"


That's absolutely false. Depends on what you want to call an "entity". What was specifically amalgamated in 1998, was the municipal structure in Toronto. Amalgamate is just a catch-all word. There were no amalgamation of independent cities to form one city...generally refered to as "annexation".









"Well "mellow dramatic" would be a contradiction. Melodramatic...perhaps"


I can always tell when people get desperate...they start pointing out spelling errors.








"All I wanted to know is why the time and expense of a referendum was conducted. Even if it was a "protest", it still had to be funded by the government. Why? "


What's so facinating about the public protesting government actions? Happens all the time...it's pretty normal...at least around here.

Like I said...it was a citizen protest. People can spend all the time and money they want to I guess...it's their issue. The city councilors got involved of course (not all in favour mind you), because it's their constituents and that's their job as local councilors, and it was their jobs on the line.




But back to the issue at hand....

To fully understand the situation, you have to also understand the history of this process, and what it's point was.

The real "old" Toronto was only 22 sq kms in size. Because it could not contain the population growth in the late 19th and early 20th century, it simply went on an annexation spree with it's surrounding towns. So, between 1883 and 1914, it made 47 separate annexations, bringing the size of the city to 80 sq kms.....in exchange for the usual big city services...water, sewage, etc. Nothing unusual there.

But by 1915, because of Toronto's rapidly growing job opportunities, the towns outside of Toronto were experiencing rapid growth. Because of Toronto's crowded, limited housing and higher costs, people lived in these outlying towns and worked in Toronto. Yea...sound familiar? This was possible, do to the extensive streetcar services available before the car became popular.

The 12 surrounding towns which would later become part of what is now Toronto, had reached a population of 1/2 million by the late 40's.

This had caused a problem for both Toronto and these 12 towns. The city had no more room for housing, and the 12 towns in question were in dire need of expanded housing construction, but could not build them because of a lack of access to city services. No housing meant no more funds to build roads, schools, sidewalks, libraries...or anything...both the city and the 12 towns in question were stalled.

So...high time for more annexation...right? You would think so...it would simply make sense. Toronto was certainly not interested in anything else, as it didn't want these 12 independent municipalites aquiring all the necessary services independent of Toronto, as it would steal away valuable manufacturing industry jobs, and seriously hinder the city's fiscal situation.

And the 12 towns really didn't have much chance of aquiring basic access to lake Ontario for things like water and treatment plants, sewage, etc. They were also independently pretty small, and not really capable of initiating big city services independently anyway.

It was a big problem. Toronto, like in the past, simply offered the usual outright annexation, in exchange for the usual public works infastructure. But unlike the past, the 12 towns it offered were resistant to outright annexation. They wanted to preserve some of the specific local services of their community, and not lose it to becoming just another part of a "big city".

That's understandable, but didn't help the rather bad situation they were stuck with. They tried for a while to fix these problems by getting into "bilateral agreements" with the other surrounding towns involved, but that really didn't work.

Everything was just a big mess.

So...in steps the provincial government in 1953, and proposed a comprimise, that would allow the city to expand to include the 12 towns, and using the wealth of Toronto, build the necessary infastructure, while preserving some of the different local services and "community feel" each individual town had grown accustomed to, and didn't want to give up.

It did this by proposing a unique two-tiered sytem of municipal government, as opposed to doing nothing (which couldn't go on) and the usual outright annexation (which it could have imposed). But this new system seemed even better, and they were going to try it out.

The idea was gradual amalgamation, as opposed to the abrupt, overnight amalgamation. This would please everyone involved and still achieve the goals of single-tier, total annexation.

In the begining, it was comprised of the 13 formerly separate municipalities, with the upper tier comprised of elected councilors from each. Basic services were shifted to the upper tier, with certain local services remaining under the contol of the 13 lower tiers.

As time went on, the services kept shifting to the upper tier. In 1967, the 13 components were reduced to 6, and were renamed boroughs. 4 of the boroughs changing their titles to "city" in the 80's had absolutely no impact on this process. It was just a publicity stunt started by Mel lastman, and followed by 3 others...I guess East York didn't see any point in playing that game.

By the time 1998 rolled around, this gradual and ongoing amalgamation of services had shifted to the upper tier to the point that the vast majority of city services were now handled by the upper tier. The remaining civic government structure was now full of redundent and expensive duplication of smaller local services.

The infastructure building that happened since 1953 had achieved it's goal of "filling in" the spaces between the 12 former small towns with residential, industrial and retail developments, while retaining the unique community feel of those areas.

Given the fiscal crisis of the day, the provincial government decided the benifits of the two-tiered system had pretty much played itself out, and the cost savings of moving to a one-tier system just made sense to end it then.

And here we are.






KGB

Are you implying there's something about the municipal structure of Toronto that I am mis-understanding...past or present? Please. I have always understood where you are coming from...but have been trying to explain to you why and how your interpretation of terms are what is causing YOUR mis-understanding of the situation.

None of this addresses what I was saying. Here, I'll give another example that you might like better because it doesn't involve any of the United States.

The European Union, has created a NUTS classification of different tiers of geography. Depending upon their size and importance, the various existing administrative divisions in the various European countries are categorized ay a certain NUTS level. For example, in Austria, the states are classes as NUTS 2 level entities. Kärnten is one of Austria's states, and is a NUTS 2 area. Now, to introduce parity between the various EU member states, Austria was artificially divided into NUTS 1 levels, which were groups of its states, and NUTS 3 areas, which are divisions of its states. So, Kärnten was grouped with neighboring Steiermark to form the NUTS 1 area Südösterreich. And Kärnten was subdivided into the NUTS 3 divisions of Oberkärnten, Unterkärnten, and Klagenfurt-Villach. Now these artificial constructs are nonfunctional, but allows for intra-EU comaprison. Hence Südösterreich, the artifical Austrian NUTS 1 construct, is equivalent "in tier" to the German Länder, which are NUTS 1 level areas, but not in function, because the German Länder are governments. Depending upon their size, the various nations in the EU's administrative divisions are NUTS 1 level areas (Germany), NUTS 2 (Netherlands, Belgium, Austria), NUTS 3 (Sweden, Hungary), or even NUTS 4 (Luxembourg). The regions at the same NUTS level are equal "in tier", regardless of whether they are actually functional as governments in their respective countries or not.

Well, part of understanding the process between 1953 and 1998, you have to know the difference between pre-1953 Toronto and post 1998 Toronto. "Old" Toronto to me, refers to the origional, completely independent municipality previous to 1953.

So you see...it's your interpretations of terms which are your worst enemy in trying to comprehend what I'm trying to explain to you.

Old Toronto is only ever used in any document I've read post amalgamation to refer to preamamgamation Toronto. Your usage of it in a different fashion is no reflection on my understanding of the issue. If the situation is as ambiguous as you claim, why endeavor to make it even more so?


I can't believe you are still having a problem with this...I mean, if you can't figure out the difference between a lower-tier local government and an independent municipality, then I really don't know what to say. Maybe you should listen a little more, rather than cling to this brain-warp you have because you think "city" just means "city". IT DOESN'T!!!

The six lower tiers and the one upper tier of Toronto combined = the equivilent of one single municipal structure (in Ontario anyway)....AKA a single-tier city.

Then why are you having so much trouble offering a source to substantiate your claim? I mean, if it's so obvious, the potential sources should be falling from the trees.

Didn't say anything of the sort...I said NYC is comprised of boroughs, like Toronto was, but does not have a two-tiered municipal structure within it. This hardly makes it "nothing" like NYC. Toronto comprised of it's boroughs and NYC comprised of it's boroughs both functioned as independent municipalities the same.

No...Metro Toronto had cities with their own mayors. New York City has boroughs who shared one mayor. At least you acknowledge that the boroughs are more than constructs created by StatCan, so we do have progress here :)

Not at all....the Sydney model is ridiculous to compare as a similarity to Toronto's municipality structure. I mean, if you are going to argue that, then you are obviously more confused than I had imagined.

You make a statement with no backup, except another insult. Why is it not comparable to Australia? A very similar thing happened there when South Sydney was amalgamated into Sydney (again, against the will of the local population), by an edict from higher up. And, like Toronto, the amalgamation could just as easily have been named South Sydney as Sydney, since South Sydney was the larger of the two in population, and because there is still a North Sydney across the harbor. Here again, the chilling effect of a centralized government that diluted the local will of the people. Sounds pretty similar to me :)

Well, that was just a little humour aimed at your sarcastic "noncity" remark fer christ's sake.

Nothing sarcastic about it. What exactly was Mel Lastman doing from 1972-1998. If I asked him, would he say North York wasn't a city under his tenure? The reason Barbara Hall lost the bid for 1998 mayor of the new Toronto was because, unlike in 1994, where she stood for election as mayor of a Toronto with 650,000 people, she now had to stand in a Toronto with 2.5 million, and although she won in old Toronto, East York and York, Mel Lastman won in North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough, and the latter was the larger demographic.

Well, it's consistant within the context of what it means in Ontario, it is very meaningful. Like I said...the combined lower and upper tier structures combined to form the same municipal structure found in a single-tier city.

There are various parts of the US in which a city provides some of the municipal services and the county provides others. They are also upper tier and lower tier in nature. Metro Toronto isn't as unlike a county structure as you make it out to be. By your own admission, it supercedes it's component cities, and is subjugate to Ontario.

That's absolutely false. Depends on what you want to call an "entity". What was specifically amalgamated in 1998, was the municipal structure in Toronto. Amalgamate is just a catch-all word. There were no amalgamation of independent cities to form one city...generally refered to as "annexation".

That's precisely what the City's own website said occurred. Tell me why you know better than they do?

"Well "mellow dramatic" would be a contradiction. Melodramatic...perhaps"

I can always tell when people get desperate...they start pointing out spelling errors.

You pounced on my typo of "old Toronto and its six surrounding municipalities"...why shouldn't I return the favor? ;)

But I'll admit to being desperate. Desperate for you to post a source backing up your claims...

What's so facinating about the public protesting government actions? Happens all the time...it's pretty normal...at least around here.

Like I said...it was a citizen protest. People can spend all the time and money they want to I guess...it's their issue. The city councilors got involved of course (not all in favour mind you), because it's their constituents and that's their job as local councilors, and it was their jobs on the line.

"People can spend all the time and money they want to I guess"?!?!?

That's baffling, since cost cutting was a major motivation of introducing the new structure in the first place.




But back to the issue at hand....

To fully understand the situation, you have to also understand the history of this process, and what it's point was.

The real "old" Toronto was only 22 sq kms in size. Because it could not contain the population growth in the late 19th and early 20th century, it simply went on an annexation spree with it's surrounding towns. So, between 1883 and 1914, it made 47 separate annexations, bringing the size of the city to 80 sq kms.....in exchange for the usual big city services...water, sewage, etc. Nothing unusual there.

But by 1915, because of Toronto's rapidly growing job opportunities, the towns outside of Toronto were experiencing rapid growth. Because of Toronto's crowded, limited housing and higher costs, people lived in these outlying towns and worked in Toronto. Yea...sound familiar? This was possible, do to the extensive streetcar services available before the car became popular.

The 12 surrounding towns which would later become part of what is now Toronto, had reached a population of 1/2 million by the late 40's.
This had caused a problem for both Toronto and these 12 towns. The city had no more room for housing, and the 12 towns in question were in dire need of expanded housing construction, but could not build them because of a lack of access to city services. No housing meant no more funds to build roads, schools, sidewalks, libraries...or anything...both the city and the 12 towns in question were stalled.

So...high time for more annexation...right? You would think so...it would simply make sense. Toronto was certainly not interested in anything else, as it didn't want these 12 independent municipalites aquiring all the necessary services independent of Toronto, as it would steal away valuable manufacturing industry jobs, and seriously hinder the city's fiscal situation.

And the 12 towns really didn't have much chance of aquiring basic access to lake Ontario for things like water and treatment plants, sewage, etc. They were also independently pretty small, and not really capable of initiating big city services independently anyway.

It was a big problem. Toronto, like in the past, simply offered the usual outright annexation, in exchange for the usual public works infastructure. But unlike the past, the 12 towns it offered were resistant to outright annexation. They wanted to preserve some of the specific local services of their community, and lose it to becoming just another part of a "big city".

That's understandable, but didn't help the rather bad situation they were stuck with. They tried for a while to fix these problems by getting into "bilateral agreements" with the other surrounding towns involved, but that really didn't work.

Everything was just a big mess.

So...in steps the provincial government in 1953, and proposed a comprimise, that would allow the city to expand to include the 12 towns, and using the wealth of Toronto, build the necessary infastructure, while preserving some of the different local services and "community feel" each individual town had grown accustomed to, and didn't want to give up.

It did this by proposing a unique two-tiered sytem of municipal government, as opposed to doing nothing (which couldn't go on) and the usual outright annexation (which it could have imposed). But this new system seemed even better, and they were going to try it out.

The idea was gradual amalgamation, as opposed to the abrupt, overnight amalgamation. This would please everyone involved and still achieve the goals of single-tier, total annexation.

In the begining, it was comprised of the 13 formerly separate municipalities, with the upper tier comprised of elected councilors from each. Basic services were shifted to the upper tier, with certain local services remaining under the contol of the 13 lower tiers.

As time went on, the services kept shifting to the upper tier. In 1967, the 13 components were reduced to 6, and were renamed boroughs. 4 of the boroughs changing their titles to "city" in the 80's had absolutely no impact on this process. It was just a publicity stunt started by Mel lastman, and followed by 3 others...I guess East York didn't see any point in playing that game.

By the time 1998 rolled around, this gradual and ongoing amalgamation of services had shifted to the upper tier to the point that the vast majority of city services were now handled by the upper tier. The remaining civic government structure was now full of redundent and expensive duplication of smaller local services.

The infastructure building that happened since 1953 had achieved it's goal of "filling in" the spaces between the 12 former small towns with residential, industrial and retail developments, while retaining the unique community feel of those areas.

Given the fiscal crisis of the day, the provincial government decided the benifits of the two-tiered system had pretty much played itself out, and the cost savings of moving to a one-tier system just made sense to end it then.

And here we are.


A good telling, but nothing here that I didn't already know or suspect. What it boils down to is that Toronto couldn't get its way by negotiating with its peers, and so called in Ontario to run roughshod over them. See my previous comments on centralized government :)

Hmmm...maybe my joke about Toronto being jealous of its suburbs someday exceeding it wasn't a joke after all :sleepy:

"The European Union, has created a NUTS classification"

Funny...that's kinda what I had already classified you as.

You are just going to further confuse yourself by not concentrating on how the Toronto municipal system worked and worrying about european systems.








"Old Toronto is only ever used in any document I've read post amalgamation to refer to preamamgamation Toronto. "


That would imply the term was never used until 1998...and that there was no difference between "old" Toronto pre 1953 and "old" Toronto 1953-1998. Both of which would be incorrect.








"Then why are you having so much trouble offering a source to substantiate your claim? I mean, if it's so obvious, the potential sources should be falling from the trees."


More like not being able to see the forest for the trees. You're the one who claims to be so educated by reading so-called "documents". Do you really need me to provide you with the responsibilities of a lower-tier Toronto municipal structure...an upper-tier Toronto structure...and a regular one-tier municipal structure?







"No...Metro Toronto had cities with their own mayors. New York City has boroughs who shared one mayor."


No...Toronto was a municipality made up of boroughs that had a two-tiered municipal government, and NYC was a municipality made up of boroughs that had a single-tiered municipal government, so of course it only has one mayor. You keep going with this simple idea that a "mayor" inplies it must be a separate city. Toronto didn't have one mayor providing all the duties of a single-tiered mayor...it had several mini-mayors with limited duties, which combined, provided the same duties as a single mayor in a single tiered municipal government.

If NYC, for whatever reason, decided to switch it's municipal government structure to a two-tiered system, using it's current boroughs, would you consider it to be a bunch of separate, independent cities all of a sudden? Of course not...it would still be the same city...it would just have a different system by which it governed itself.








"At least you acknowledge that the boroughs are more than constructs created by StatCan, so we do have progress here"


No, I don't think we do. It just makes the idea that you simply don't listen all the more obvious. I have NEVER said or implied any such thing...the excact opposite actually. Statcan does not have any control over political boundaries at all...the only deliniations it creates are the ones that are only useful to them...census tracts and CMA's. Statcan is an agency of the federal government that just counts things...actual political boundaries are exclusively created by provinces.








"Why is it not comparable to Australia? "

Oh I dunno...because it's so wacky different???

Holy shit

Sydney is a combination city-metro, with local councils that have absolutely no municipal service delivery as Ontario municipalities do. In fact, even the city-metro doesn't work as a municipality like Ontario, as it is not an autonomous municipal entity, as the state controls and delivers so much of the services.

There's nothing similar. All this tells me is you know nothing about Sydney or toronto.







"What exactly was Mel Lastman doing from 1972-1998."

Selling a lot of appliances?








"If I asked him, would he say North York wasn't a city under his tenure? "

Noooooooooobody knows what Mel might say...and that was generally the problem.








"The reason Barbara Hall lost the bid for 1998 mayor of the new Toronto was because, unlike in 1994, where she stood for election as mayor of a Toronto with 650,000 people, she now had to stand in a Toronto with 2.5 million, and although she won in old Toronto, East York and York, Mel Lastman won in North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough, and the latter was the larger demographic."


So, to summerize, you are saying Barbara Hall lost the mayoral race, because she got less votes than the winner. Wow...your insights just get more mind-boggling the more I listen. Believe it or not, I'm actually aware of who was running...and who won. I was here. Hell, I think I even voted. I even knew the details of those who ran.






"There are various parts of the US in which a city provides some of the municipal services and the county provides others."


That's fantastic...not that this has anything to do with the Toronto model mind you. The two-tiered municipal structure in Toronto had nothing in common with any counties. Especially when you consider how heavily weighted the upper tier was...it accounted for 73% of the municipal budget...the combined lower tiers accounted for only 23%. Add to this that counties that provide county-wide services, do so because of the nature of the population within it...small towns, townships, villages and rural areas...obviosly too small to provide these services independently. Geographical size, population, employment and economy, and density is also an issue.












"By your own admission, it supercedes it's component cities, and is subjugate to Ontario."


Quit putting words in my mouth, and start trying to comprehend what I'm saying (I know by this point that's not likely). The upper tier did not "supercede" the lower tiers at all. And ALL municipalities are subjugate to the province. They are creations of the province, but operate independently and at their discretion within the structure given them by the province. In the event of a dispute within a municipality, the OMB will act as arbitrator.







"That's precisely what the City's own website said occurred. Tell me why you know better than they do? "


I only know better than you do do. I know what they are talking about...you obviously don't...that's the big difference.








"You pounced on my typo of "old Toronto and its six surrounding municipalities"...why shouldn't I return the favor? "


Because you didn't make a typo...you actually argued the point. You did this because you don't know the difference between geographical areas, and administration structure.









"That's baffling, since cost cutting was a major motivation of introducing the new structure in the first place."


Excatly how much tax dollars do you think was spent on this? Stop talking about this ridiculous issue...it's completely stupid, and has nothing to do with the issue.

Since you seem to be so concerned with some sort of draconian, non-democratic processes happening up here in canukistan, here's another poll for you....

From the city's website...

" 87% of residents polled in October 2000 believed that amalgamation was the right decision for Toronto. Sixty-six percent believed that amalgamation provides better government than the previous two-tiered system."

Back when amalgamation was announced, people didn't really know what to expect...they reacted out of fear of change. Once it happened, they realized it really didn't change much.

The city itself was concerned about amalgamation for a number of reasons...quite a few people were going to lose their job..an understandable motive. But more importantly, it was the short time frame the province gave for the change. It was a very complicated undertaking to make happen withing the timeframe given. It was even more complicated than just amalgamating existing municipal structure...it was coupled with downloading as well. Plus it was also in the process of implimenting many other things like a new property reassessment system.

But you know all that right, cause you are so knowledgable about the complexities of Toronto's municipal structure for some reason??? yea he he










"What it boils down to is that Toronto couldn't get its way by negotiating with its peers, and so called in Ontario to run roughshod over them."

Well, obviously you didn't read it...or as usual, don't understand it. Why would you say something so silly? Toronto didn't call in anybody. Nobody ran roughshod over anybody. Actually, I'll give the province kudos for experimenting with it's experimental municipal structure on Toronto...it's an important reason Toronto grew into the healthy all-round city it did.

I no longer even believe you are being honest in your feelings on the subject. Don't know if I'd call you an outright liar, but deceitful sounds more like it. And I have very little respect for your type.








KGB

I no longer even believe you are being honest in your feelings on the subject. Don't know if I'd call you an outright liar, but deceitful sounds more like it. And I have very little respect for your type.


Alright let's cut to the chase again. I've only ever made two assertions here:

Assertion 1: The city of Toronto (and Metro Toronto before it) is a county equivalent in tier.

To defeat this, simply present a level of government that includes Toronto that is higher up in level than the new City of Toronto / old Metro Toronto, and lower in level than the Province of Ontario.

Assertion 2: The cities in preemalgamated Toronto were cities in every bit as much regard and standing as any other city in Ontario...until 1998.

Since cities in Ontario are defined by the Province of Ontario, generally by Act, this can be defeated simply by presenting text in the Act that created, say Etobicoke, that specificly indicated that its city status was somehow inferior to a city outside of Toronto, say, Saint Catherines.

Now we've brought other trivialities into the debate, but these are the only two core assertions I've made, and you haven't said anything that disproves either of them. Here's your chance. Bonus points if you can do it without using the word confused. :)

And as for deceitful arguments...since everything you've said contradicts everything else I've ever read on the subject, I can only assume your entire line of reasoning is meant to be just that...though what your motivation for same is I can't begin to fathom...

And I have very little respect for your type.

Because I won't take just your word on anything, and you refuse to provide anything more? I'll get over it...

"Assertion 1: The city of Toronto (and Metro Toronto before it) is a county equivalent in tier.

To defeat this, simply present a level of government that includes Toronto that is higher up in level than the new City of Toronto / old Metro Toronto, and lower in level than the Province of Ontario."



That isn't necessary, because your idea that the highest tier of government to the province are equivalents...they aren't.

There are four government administration entities which are the highest administration level to the province, and they are all different. From lowest to highest...

Districts...only found in northern Ontario. They are only territorial boundaries that do not serve any municipal government purpose, and are comprised mostly of unincorporated lands (mostly Crown land). Any services are provided either by the local municipality or directly by the provincial government. These are the most sparsely populated areas, and accounts for their very large geographical size, and have the least amount of municipal services. There are 10 Districts in Ontario.

Counties...Only found in southern ontario. Have more responsibilites than Districts, but fewer than Regions. The upper tier county government structure has limited responsibilities...the lower tier municipalities in the county (villages, towns, townships, cities) provide the majority of municipal services to it's residents. Counties may be as large as regions in population, but lower in population density (but higher than Districts). Counties may include major cities (London, Kingston and Windsor), but these cities have generally not evolved into urban agglomerations as in Regions. Municipal services in Counties will be sporatic, but generally higher than Districts and lower than Regions or single tier municipalities. There are 22 Counties in Ontario.

Regions...only found in southern Ontario. The upper tier Regional government will generally provide more municipal services than a County, but the main difference is that they are more urbanized than a County. There are 8 regions in Ontario.

Single tier Municipalities...completely independent, and does not require the aid of an upper tier to provide any municipal services. High level of municipal services, and consistant in the entire area, and are primarily entirely urban in nature. Single tier municipalities are formed from former Counties or Regions, or part of them. There are 11 single tier municipalities in Ontario.

As you can see...these are not equivalents at all, but rather a progression, creating different entities from each other.



So, the $64,000 question is...where does Toronto fit in?

As of 1998, it's obviously a single tier municipality.

Previous to 1953, "old" Toronto was also a single tier municipality, and the 12 villages, towns and townships that amalgamated with "old" Toronto in 1953, were lower tiers within a county.

So what was it between 1953 and 1998 ?

I think we can rule out a District equiailent without much arguement yea?

Was it the equivalent of a county? Couldn't be, as it was a progression, and you wouldn't take an independent single tier municipality, and 12 lower tier municipalities from one county and form another county equivalent...that would be regressing. You don't take one county, and separate it into two counties...would make no sense. The only other possibility that could have happened here, is that the 12 lower tier municipalities that was to join with Toronto, would have instead been removed from York County, and formed it's own independent single tier municipality, leaving two single tier municipalities and the balance of York county as three independent entities...but the needs of the components involved is what required what actually happened.

Was it a Region equivalent? Well, Regions didn't exist at the time, so no. And since it did not really resemble a Region equivilent as they exist now, and didn't comprise the constituent components to create one, then basically no again. Plus it would also be another regression. At the very begining, when "Metro" first got started, and consisted of 13 components, and Metro not providing the same level of government it did later, you could say it "sorta" had Regional equivalency...but definetely not later in Metro's life.

Was it a Single tier Municipal equivalent? Well, process of illimination would suggest it is. But the truth is, Metro was unique, and never fit any of them excactly, and changed the way it opporated over it's life, but this would be by far the closest equivalent. The main reason being that single tier municipalities do not regress into lower forms of municipal governments (Districts, Counties or Regions), or become part of one.

The best way to describe Metro, would be that it was a single tier municipality, that within it, created a unique sub-tier level, for the purposes of gradually illiminating the effects of annexation on the 12 previously non-single tier municipalities, as well as "old" Toronto, as it was already an independent single tier municipality previously.








"Assertion 2: The cities in preemalgamated Toronto were cities in every bit as much regard and standing as any other city in Ontario...until 1998."


See above, then tell me if you still need this explained.






KGB

Ontario is divided into 49 upper tier divisions (50 if you count Haldimand and Norfolk separately). Some are districts (like Nipissing and Cochrane), some are counties (like Middlesex and Essex), some are amalgamated counties (like Leeds & Grenville and Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry), some are regional municipalities (like Niagara and Peel), one is a district municipality (Muskoka) and three are cities (Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa). Essentially Chatham-Kent, (Kawartha Lakes-)Victoria, and Sudbury are cities as well, as they have merged with their upper tier municpalities, but their sizes are ridiculously enormous for cities. Anyways, as you pointed out, they have variable functions, but each is a county equivalent in that together, the 49 entities comprise the whole of Ontario. If the semantics are what's bothering you, we can compromise and change the terminology from county equivalent to upper-tier municipality, meaning that they are the largest subprovincial entities, and collectively tesselate the whole of the province.

None of what you posted remotely addresses Assertion 2.

"Ontario is divided into 49 upper tier divisions Anyways, as you pointed out, they have variable functions, but each is a county equivalent in that together, the 49 entities comprise the whole of Ontario. "

Well, no it isn't...it's comprised of very different kinds of governments...that differ in the services they deliver, and how they deliver them. Your assertion that they are all the same is absolutely incorrect.

And I really don't need you inaccurate summary anyway...i already gave it, so I don't need you to educate me by basically reiterating what I had already said.









"If the semantics are what's bothering you, we can compromise and change the terminology from county equivalent to upper-tier municipality, meaning that they are the largest subprovincial entities, and collectively tesselate the whole of the province."


Sorry, but as much as I appreciate the gesture, I can't go along with this compromise of yours. For one, an upper tier exists because there would have to be a lower tier, and in a single tier municipality, they don't exist. And no, they aren't the same thing...it's not a matter of semantics...if they were all the same thing, then there would be no need to differentiate between them, and change them from one to another sometimes. There's a reason why they are different entities.

An upper tier county government is not the same thing as either a District government, an upper tier Regional government, or a single tier municipal government....or the upper tier of the former "Metro"









"None of what you posted remotely addresses Assertion 2."


Sure it does...the answer was in there. A lower tier government of the former "metro" was different from the lower tier municipality of a county or a region ( St Cath being a lower tier municipality of a county before 1970, and lower tier municipality of a region after 1970 ). Neither were single tier independent cities, but their roles are essentially reversed. Being a lower tier in Metro gave you less autonomy, as the upper tier of Metro had way more control over the running of the municipality than an upper tier county or region.

Compare it to a single tier municipality, and the difference is huge. If you didn't know any better (and apparently you don't...but don't worry, you are in large company)...you would assume the "mayor" of the Borough or "city" of North York, being such a huge city, would be a bigger job than the mayor of London, at half it's size. And certainly the mayor of little Brantford, at under 100,000. But this would be incorrect, as the "mayor" of North York was only responsible for 23% of the entire municipal services...because the upper tier of Metro handled 73%. Meanwhile, the mayor of London or Brantford is responsible for 100% of all city services...everything....police, transit, roads, schools, utilities, etc....there is no upper tier to handle any of it.











KGB

And I really don't need you inaccurate summary anyway...i already gave it, so I don't need you to educate me by basically reiterating what I had already said.

That whole post (really this whole thread) is full of stuff I already knew. It didn't stop you :)


Sorry, but as much as I appreciate the gesture, I can't go along with this compromise of yours. For one, an upper tier exists because there would have to be a lower tier, and in a single tier municipality, they don't exist.

No, if there is no lower tier, then tiers can be coterminal. The District of Columbia, Saint Louis, Carson City, Baltimore, Norfolk, Richmond, and Toronto are city equivalents and county equivalents. Wien, Praha, Bratislava, Budapest, Sofija, and Kobnhavn are city equivalents and state equivalents. The whole of Luxembourg is a NUTS 0 area and a NUTS 1 area and a NUTS 2 area and a NUTS 3 area, etc.

Tier is irrelevant to function. You can't seem to separate the two. The Prairie provinces have no upper tier governments. StatCan divided them into census divisions that have absolutely no function. They were expressly created essentially for the purpose of being county equivalents, for statistical purposes, since Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have no government structures at the county level. They are functionless, but yet still are county equivalents statistically, by design. If you are unwilling to accept it that's fine (and obvious), but it doesn't change anything.

Sure it does...the answer was in there. A lower tier government of the former "metro" was different from the lower tier municipality of a county or a region ( St Cath being a lower tier municipality of a county before 1970, and lower tier municipality of a region after 1970 ). Neither were single tier independent cities, but their roles are essentially reversed. Being a lower tier in Metro gave you less autonomy, as the upper tier of Metro had way more control over the running of the municipality than an upper tier county or region.

Compare it to a single tier municipality, and the difference is huge. If you didn't know any better (and apparently you don't...but don't worry, you are in large company)...you would assume the "mayor" of the Borough or "city" of North York, being such a huge city, would be a bigger job than the mayor of London, at half it's size. And certainly the mayor of little Brantford, at under 100,000. But this would be incorrect, as the "mayor" of North York was only responsible for 23% of the entire municipal services...because the upper tier of Metro handled 73%. Meanwhile, the mayor of London or Brantford is responsible for 100% of all city services...everything....police, transit, roads, schools, utilities, etc....there is no upper tier to handle any of it.


Size, level of function, and all this other stuff is irrelevent to the legitimacy of a city that is created by provincial act, so any more mention from you about "kinds of governments" as argument is irrelevent to what I'm asserting. The governor of Texas has much less power than most other states, but Texas is every bit as much a state as any other. Again, as long as you cling to function (which is irrelevent to tier equivalency, especially artifically created ones entirely lacking in function like the European Union uses), you aren't going to get it.

Anyways, you know what's required to defeat this assertion. Text that says that Etobicoke somehow had less legal claim to the title of city than Saint Catherines has.

KGB and Marathon... two forumers I respect, duking it out over Ontario municipal structure... it's like watching my parents fight. Please stop, please...


:cry:





watch out for superllama!
:llama: :llama: :llama: :llama: :llama: :llama:

"Tier is irrelevant to function. You can't seem to separate the two."


Sure I could, but then the level of vagueness would be pretty useless. If we were to opperate at that level, there would be no need to differentiate between any of them...the province would just divide the place up into the same delinations if that were the case. You are trying to relegate function to an irrelavent level, when it isn't.






"StatCan divided them into census divisions that have absolutely no function. They were expressly created essentially for the purpose of being county equivalents, for statistical purposes, since Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have no government structures at the county level. They are functionless, but yet still are county equivalents statistically, by design. If you are unwilling to accept it that's fine (and obvious), but it doesn't change anything."


I'm begining to realize you keep using the term "county" as it is some kind of universally important term...I think I attribute this to your being American, where it has more importance. County is an outdated, historical deliniation that has less importance here...that's why Ontario has been illiminating them, and replacing them with more appropriate deliniations.

Statcan is not looking for "counties" at all, where they don't exist. You are only going to confuse yourself even more by trying to tie in Statcan actions. Statcan does not care about the differences...it has a much more simple function...census divisions do not follow equal criteria in terms of legal, administrative borders.








"Again, as long as you cling to function (which is irrelevent to tier equivalency, especially artifically created ones entirely lacking in function like the European Union uses), you aren't going to get it."


And if you keep throwing around terminology with specific meanings, and applying them innapropriately, I'm not interested in getting it...I would rather be accurate.








"so any more mention from you about "kinds of governments" as argument is irrelevent to what I'm asserting. "

Of course the "kinds" of government matters...one implies independence, the other doesn't. The problem here, is that I want to talk about the difference between apples and oranges...and you just want to call them all fuit.






"Anyways, you know what's required to defeat this assertion. "

Your head, and a bag of nickels?








KGB

The problem here, is that I want to talk about the difference between apples and oranges...and you just want to call them all fruit.

That's not the problem, that's the whole point! An attempt at uniformity in a world of chaotic administrative divisions! You finally got this one!

:banana: :pepper: :cucumber: <-- all equal in tier! :banana2:



Your head, and a bag of nickels?

But not this one. Why can't (or won't) you provide something specific indicating that the components of preamalgamated Toronto were somehow inferior in the legality of their city status to other cities? It seems to be a simple request. Just something that says what you say. That's all.

"That's not the problem, that's the whole point! An attempt at uniformity in a world of chaotic administrative divisions! You finally got this one! "

I didn't "finally" get it....your level of uniformity just never interested me...because it's too uniform. The problem with trying to boil everything down to some common denominater, is that it no longer has any meaning. Why don't you pop into the "multicultural" thread and just inform everybody they are wasting their time discussing it...they are all "in tier", because everybody is just a homo spaiens.

And I don't think the liquid nature of Ontario municipal structure is chaotic at all. In fact, it's the one thing I will give the province credit for being quite astute at.

I'm changing my mind about you...I used to think you were a bit dense, and arguementative for the sake of it...now I'm thinking you are just boring.








"Why can't (or won't) you provide something specific indicating that the components of preamalgamated Toronto were somehow inferior in the legality of their city status to other cities? "

What's the point...you want to bring everything down to such a vague, lowest common denominator, that under those conditions, all villages, towns, townships, boroughs or cities are excactly the same thing, as long as they are lower tier municipal structures.

The only fly in your ointment on that one, would be comparing to a city like Brantford or London, where there is no upper tier between them and the province, where in the case of Etobicoke or North York, there is.

But like I said, that's so vague and boring, as not even worth a discussion. If you find the topic too specific for you, just don't talk about it....don't try and convince me being specific is pointless.





KGB

I'm changing my mind about you...I used to think you were a bit dense, and arguementative for the sake of it...now I'm thinking you are just boring.

This only serves to make me feel better. Interesting that I have done nothing but dispute your explanations and assertions (which is what debate is), while you have mostly just made accusations (alternately of confusion and deceit...which would seem to contradict each other), insults (boring being only the latest of them), and dismissals or outright dodges, rather than actually trying to engage the topic. Do you even know what debate means?

I'm sure this will only prompt yet another tangental attack from you, but that's okay...they make a weekday go faster :)


What's the point...you want to bring everything down to such a vague, lowest common denominator, that under those conditions, all villages, towns, townships, boroughs or cities are excactly the same thing, as long as they are lower tier municipal structures.

When all that is desired is a comparison, tiers are all you need. If I want to compare the crime rate in a rural eastern Montana county and the Alberta area of equal tier directly to its north, then all I need is equivalent data for the Alberta Census Division (say, #1). Alberta Division #1 isn't a county per se, but it's equivalent in tier to an American county. Whether AB#1 has a government or not is irrelevent to simply comparing these two statistics, so if that's all I want...who cares about structural details?

Asking "what's the point?" is a pretty meek reply to a legit debate question, but that's no surprise...

The only fly in your ointment on that one, would be comparing to a city like Brantford or London, where there is no upper tier between them and the province, where in the case of Etobicoke or North York, there is.

But like I said, that's so vague and boring, as not even worth a discussion. If you find the topic too specific for you, just don't talk about it....don't try and convince me being specific is pointless.



Brant County is between Brantford and Ontario, and Middlesex is between London and Ontario. Between Toronto and Ontario is nothing...anymore.

At any rate, now you're mixing my assertions. Statistical uniformity was the point of the first. This one has nothing to do with statistical comparision...it's a legal terminology issue. Besides, Ontario essentially controls all of its municipalities, despite local will. The amalgamation of 1998 proved that. Anyways, I can only assume that you declaring it "not worth discussion" is code for "I can't offer proof against your assertion". Just say so.

"This only serves to make me feel better."

Well, I guess it is better to be boring than dense I guess....it's easier to be less boring.







"I'm sure this will only prompt yet another tangental attack from you, but that's okay...they make a weekday go faster"


Yes, I'm already fully aware of your motivations...that's why you follow me around threads, making little smart-assed comments to prod an arguement. Trying to pretend interest in debate, or a particular yake on topics is your motive didn't pass the BS detector a long time ago.







"Asking "what's the point?" is a pretty meek reply to a legit debate question, but that's no surprise..."

How could that be....as we have agreed, the difference between you and me, is our level specificity on the topic. Since your level is far too general to be of any use as a topic to me, then it is quite appropriately pointless. Since your intention is to simply have an arguement with me, then any excuse serves as a point.








"Brant County is between Brantford and Ontario, and Middlesex is between London and Ontario. Between Toronto and Ontario is nothing...anymore."


Brant County has the word "county" in it, but is no longer a county...it's a single tier municipality. Brantford is also a single tier municipality...the two are completely separate.

London is also a single tier municipality that is independent of Middlesex County. The oddball detail of this one, is the the seat of government for Middlesex County....is in London.

And this happened before Toronto illiminated it's teo-tier municipal structure.

I know where you went wrong too....not listening to me...and paying too much attention to Statcan...it doesn't use the same criteria when determining how it creates it's census divisions.

Statcan is the federal "counting shit" department....it has nothing to do with provincial municipal structure.






KGB

Well, since

[1] You seem unwilling or unable to provide anything to back up your dismissal of my assertions, and

[2] Because you seem threatened, or at least paranoid, of my participation in this thread, and

[3] Because I've become convinced that you only lprefer people to post in your threads that are impressed by you (which certainly excludes me), and

[4] Most of all, the double talk and posturing in this thread has become absurd...

I'll leave you to your thread and let it attempt to get on track about Mississauga again.

And even though you called me many things, boring among them, I must say you certainly are not boring. You thoroughly entertained me and my three shitcounting colleagues today while we waited for our algorithms to run.

Take care :)

"You seem unwilling or unable to provide anything to back up your dismissal of my assertions"


That's because you ignore when are proven wrong...see last post.








"Because you seem threatened, or at least paranoid, of my participation in this thread, and Because I've become convinced that you only lprefer people to post in your threads that are impressed by you (which certainly excludes me) "


If that were true, I certainly wouldn't have engaged you so thoroughly. And as I'm sure anyone who's remotely familiar with my posting here over the years will attest, I like a good debate/arguement, and will get into one with anyone...friend or foe, with no hesitation or sense of loyalty. So, if I were the type to avoid anyone who doesn't agree with me, and favour those who do...then I have a strange way of doing it. And let's face it...all along, you've been driven by just enough deluded self confidence, that you actually believed you could knock the wind out of me.








"Most of all, the double talk and posturing in this thread has become absurd..."


Yea...but look on the bright side...we may have finally weaned you off that nasty "winky face" habit! (we'll have to work on the smiley face).







"You thoroughly entertained me and my three shitcounting colleagues today while we waited for our algorithms to run."

Ok...we are now quickly exiting the boring catagory and hovering around pathetic territory. What you do with your "buddies" during algorithm-waiting time is a bit too much information for me. Let's hope that was just "code" for something.






KGB

wow KGB and marathon...you guys post a lot of information...damn...what a bickering battle



anyways back to the topic:

mississauga is trying to separate from peel but it's becoming more difficult everyday for hazel with this situation....the only way to get rid of brampton is to amalgamate it with mississauga...i hope mississauga separates from peel but i don't think it's gonna happen...so many ppl oppose it..but i am all for it...mississauga has already become very urban-like but it's so difficult to recognize...most of the retail in mississauga comes from shopping malls...there is not enough quiant community businesses...which is why i like port credit's atmosphere...you get the sleek and sophisticated urban enviroment but at the same time you get that small-town friendliness...the roads are very wide in mississauga...which proves that wide roads do not reduce traffic...mississauga is in a transitional state right now...its a very urban city with still a very suburban feel because their downtown core is still developing....there are tall high-rises in everypart off mississauga...port credit's apartment buildings are massive for old ones....clarkson has a few tall ones also...the reality is there is plenty of land in mississauga.....there is plenty of land available between clarkson and port credit on lakshore boulevard...alos there is lots of land from mavis and burnhamthorpe until about hurontario and eglinton..mississauga wasn't exactly planning well for urban growth but at least you can say that they left a lot of land available at city centrre for the future...and who knows wioth all of this growth you never know what low-to- medium density areas will be rezoned for better projects in the next 30 years....mississauga is growing like crazy and many ppl have ideas but i think someone radical will happen that everyone will not expect

"you get the sleek and sophisticated urban enviroment but at the same time you get that small-town friendliness..."


Well, i think we are tossing around terms like "sleek and sophisticated" a little too liberally here. I don't think there's going to be any sophistication in Mississauga...the best we can hope for is some decent downtown density...and maybe a skyline worth taking a tiny peek at (maybe).

They can duke it out with NYCC for 2nd best non-downtown Toronto area if they want.






KGB

Yes back to the topic! :) This thread will be closed if the argueing continues.

wow KGB and marathon...you guys post a lot of information...damn...what a bickering battle



anyways back to the topic:

mississauga is trying to separate from peel but it's becoming more difficult everyday for hazel with this situation....the only way to get rid of brampton is to amalgamate it with mississauga...i hope mississauga separates from peel but i don't think it's gonna happen...so many ppl oppose it..but i am all for it...mississauga has already become very urban-like but it's so difficult to recognize...most of the retail in mississauga comes from shopping malls...there is not enough quiant community businesses...which is why i like port credit's atmosphere...you get the sleek and sophisticated urban enviroment but at the same time you get that small-town friendliness...the roads are very wide in mississauga...which proves that wide roads do not reduce traffic...mississauga is in a transitional state right now...its a very urban city with still a very suburban feel because their downtown core is still developing....there are tall high-rises in everypart off mississauga...port credit's apartment buildings are massive for old ones....clarkson has a few tall ones also...the reality is there is plenty of land in mississauga.....there is plenty of land available between clarkson and port credit on lakshore boulevard...alos there is lots of land from mavis and burnhamthorpe until about hurontario and eglinton..mississauga wasn't exactly planning well for urban growth but at least you can say that they left a lot of land available at city centrre for the future...and who knows wioth all of this growth you never know what low-to- medium density areas will be rezoned for better projects in the next 30 years....mississauga is growing like crazy and many ppl have ideas but i think someone radical will happen that everyone will not expect

In regards to the wide streets. You think they should reduce some of the landes to four to give it a more urban feel. I particularly don't like the wide space between the road and the houses (presumably for more road expansion). Only thing that gets me is that if they decided to use these strips for densification, just how do you go abouts using it without tearing down the neigbbouring homes. Too thin to build up on their own, two thick for any useful purpose the way it is.

In regards to the wide streets. You think they should reduce some of the landes to four to give it a more urban feel. I particularly don't like the wide space between the road and the houses (presumably for more road expansion). Only thing that gets me is that if they decided to use these strips for densification, just how do you go abouts using it without tearing down the neigbbouring homes. Too thin to build up on their own, two thick for any useful purpose the way it is.

i know...nothing can be done with the roads...they look more like highways...duke of york boulevard is my favorite road in mississauga....they need to build more around that....sq.1 already has too much parking space

At least square one parking lot is easy. Stacked parking ought to do the trick.
As for the wide streets, it could always be used for some form of mass transit. For example designated bus lanes could be used in the centre lanes by pushing the street out closer to the homes. If NIMBY's don't fight it.

For parking issues, stacked parking can fix the problem as partybits says, but Mississauga needs to improve public transit too. Mississauga transit will change alot in the next few years and it will be interesting see what effect it has.

For transit, expand Go train service from Square One. and have a connection from Kipling along and up Hurontario. Maybe a BRT system with designated lanes since there's so much available room on both sides of the street?
That in itself will not fix the traffic woes, but if you find every major street that has the space to accomodate 2 designated lanes, you could have a large scale BRT system. I guess it's just incorporating the VIVA York BRT system to Mississauga

"you get the sleek and sophisticated urban enviroment but at the same time you get that small-town friendliness..."


Well, i think we are tossing around terms like "sleek and sophisticated" a little too liberally here. I don't think there's going to be any sophistication in Mississauga...the best we can hope for is some decent downtown density...and maybe a skyline worth taking a tiny peek at (maybe).

They can duke it out with NYCC for 2nd best non-downtown Toronto area if they want.






KGB

i was talking about port credit and ONLY port credit...maybe a small part of clarkson

i haven't seen any mississauga pix here so im posting some here... :)
http://img16.echo.cx/img16/3457/s530000354454566pm.th.jpg (http://img16.echo.cx/my.php?image=s530000354454566pm.jpg)


http://img16.echo.cx/img16/15/s530000345545454541ew.th.jpg (http://img16.echo.cx/my.php?image=s530000345545454541ew.jpg)

http://img16.echo.cx/img16/2500/s5300002544545545410zx.th.jpg (http://img16.echo.cx/my.php?image=s5300002544545545410zx.jpg)

http://img16.echo.cx/img16/2795/s530000425455454457ga.th.jpg (http://img16.echo.cx/my.php?image=s530000425455454457ga.jpg)

very nice shots.....:D that first shot would have been so amazing if there were no bars in the way

Holy shit, Foreword, that night shot would be so awesome if those bars weren't in the way.

foreword...i assume you took those shots a bit northeast form hurontario....what building is that in...i want to go there and get a nice shot of it all

•for the first pic, i know the bars mess it up but... i took it from the balcony and that was the best i could without moving it at night cuz i didnt have a tripod so it was pretty hard..


by the way, the night skyline was taken from Rathburn rd.

day shots:

http://img282.echo.cx/img282/193/s53000011245544552lt.th.jpg (http://img282.echo.cx/my.php?image=s53000011245544552lt.jpg)

http://img282.echo.cx/img282/4808/s530000112455445119uf.th.jpg (http://img282.echo.cx/my.php?image=s530000112455445119uf.jpg)

http://img282.echo.cx/img282/7457/s5300003455454545430vr.th.jpg (http://img282.echo.cx/my.php?image=s5300003455454545430vr.jpg)

http://img282.echo.cx/img282/7891/s5300003455454545445ow.th.jpg (http://img282.echo.cx/my.php?image=s5300003455454545445ow.jpg)

http://img282.echo.cx/img282/5265/s5.th.3000034545455E+28.jpg (http://img282.echo.cx/my.php?image=s5.3000034545455E+28.jpg)

That has got to be the best skyline view of Mississauga I've seen. Most pics don't do justice as they can only show a part of the skyline. But here we go a panaramic view. Good job foreword!

Strange how you see all the sprawl right in front of the skylines. A city of contrasts.

thanks for your comments! i never knew my photos were this good, i always thought they were too sucky to put here but anyway:D oh yea and they weren't taken as "panoramic" just normal shots with my camera...

thanks for your comments! i never knew my photos were this good, i always thought they were too sucky to put here but anyway:D oh yea and they weren't taken as "panoramic" just normal shots with my camera...

i think that a lot of people from mississauga were waiting for a shot like this. I didn't think a view like this was possible yet in mississauga. That first shot was the most beautiful shot of mississauga... I'm talking about the whole pic...u can see the parks...and the roads....it looks very beautiful

Yeah, I just assumed that a full "panoramic like" shot of downtown did'nt exist yet. Thanks for proving it wrong

I am very excited about mississauga's future

The best view of MCC is flying over it landing at Pearson. From the sky it actually looks like theres more buildings than yonge/Sheppard.

I would like to see that, a comparison of North York Central & Mississauga's. I'm guessing North York has more, but boy it's got to be close!
Lol, lets create a city vs city on that one

wow KGB and marathon...you guys post a lot of information...damn...what a bickering battle


Yeah...this thread made me LMAO

They're both quite intelligent but also extremely stubborn, like two sides of the same coin.

They should probably meet up and have a duel...back-to-back at twenty paces LOL :)

like two sides of the same coin.

Well, that would explain why we never see eye to eye...

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/7607/panaromamississaugaskyline05vq.th.jpg (http://img232.echo.cx/my.php?image=panaromamississaugaskyline05vq.jpg)

ps: i didn't have the panaroma maker prog. so i tried to use something else but anyway, the sky was really beautiful so i wanted to show it.... :nocrook:

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/7607/panaromamississaugaskyline05vq.th.jpg (http://img232.echo.cx/my.php?image=panaromamississaugaskyline05vq.jpg)

ps: i didn't have the panaroma maker prog. so i tried to use something else but anyway, the sky was really beautiful so i wanted to show it.... :nocrook:

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!! very nice...but i wish there was a good place to get a shot of everything///i'm not even gonna take anymore pics until citygate is done or the capital

Looks like heaven opening up for Mississauga. Nice pic!

finally a great miss. skyline shot

http://img78.echo.cx/img78/2052/misspano5rx.jpg

Looks like you have an overlap ghosting effect going on there. But the sky is beautiful. Very nice view you got there. Missy is going to look fantabulous in the coming years.

the best shot of mississauga would be if someone stood on top of playdium and took a nice pano...and the skyline looks great if ur waiting at sq.1 the bus terminal

the best shot of mississauga would be if someone stood on top of playdium and took a nice pano...and the skyline looks great if ur waiting at sq.1 the bus terminal


yea i was thinkin of taking a photo of the skyline from the bus terminal today but i didnt have my camera with me :bash: