7 ms·

Mississauga has a density of 2467 people per square kilometer. Mississauga neighbourhoods look like this- https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5675623,-79.740886,916

Mississauga has a density of 2467 people per square kilometer. Mississauga neighbourhoods look like this- https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5675623,-79.740886,916m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5675623,-79.740886,916m/data=... That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get. Mississauga had to raise property taxes somewhat -- still extremely competitive -- as a revenue source dried up. But those new neighbourhoods all easily pay for themselves in property taxes. Nonetheless, loads of really silly narrative comes out of Toronto writers, still foreboding this dire scenario that they've been pitching for well over a decade. It's a bit farcical at this point.

jcranmer 5y ago
> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get. You can get a little bit denser by going full street grid--Chicago's single family home districts look to mostly be rocking ~6-9k people/km².
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  I might be the only one but I strongly prefer grid-layout cities to these winding suburb road layouts anyhow. When your city is a grid you can make street names mean something and a person can navigate from place to place easily and have an intuitive idea of how far away something is, both without a cellphone.
  - toofy 5y ago
    you’re definitely not the only one. grids make much more sense. and not only for ease of navigation.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    I think you are the only one. I grew up in Chicago on a perfect grid. Now I live on a street that I picked precisely because you only drive down it if you live there. I don't like the sound of cars driving past. That's a personal preference that seems pretty generalized, even among people without kids. And on a street like that, you don't need speed bumps, because people aren't speeding down the street.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      He's definitely not the only person who prefers cities to suburbs. What? Now, I think almost everyone would prefer if their one street were not integrated into the grid. That would be the ideal. You live in a grid, but with none of the downsides. But failing that, many people opt to live in denser areas rather than the burbs, even if the cost is that folks sometimes drive down their street who are going someplace else..
    - closeparen 5y ago
      But that’s the thing. The street’s utility is exclusively to the houses that are on it. Those houses are very unlikely to be paying enough property tax to cover its existence. This luxury of yours is paid for by other people’s productive activity in the future. Great deal for you! But we the (net) taxpayers ought to think about how many more of these sweetheart deals we offer to cul de sac homeowners in the future, before we bankrupt ourselves. I’m not a libertarian, I think it’s fine for government to tap rich people to provide nice things for everyone, but this particular nice thing (way more roadway than you pay for) has a pretty bad cost:benefit, and its beneficiaries are not exactly the neediest or most deserving of aid.
      - wkearney99 5y ago
        or if not 'tap the rich', better structure the payouts so there isn't such an imbalance. wage stagnation is a BIG problem.
      - halpert 5y ago
        I find it hard to believe that building a road is so expensive. Some random website I found claims the cost of a two-lane undivided road costs $3 million per mile in an urban setting. Looking at the satellite imagery of Mississauga linked elsewhere, the frontage of each house is around 50 ft. So there are about 211 houses per mile. That comes out to $14,000 per house to build the road. The approximate lifespan of an asphalt road is 18 years, leading to a per year cost of ~800 dollars. Of course, this doesn't include maintenance of the road (fixing pot holes, plowing, etc.), but $800 per year seems like a pretty manageable sum of money.
  - mech422 5y ago
    Yeah - Phoenix has a basically 1 mile grid, with lil side streets in-between the major intersections. I hate it, because if you miss a turn, you basically have to go another full mile to hit another 'cross street'.
ricardobeat 5y ago
> about as dense as single family homes can get These traditional north american houses are still not very space efficient at all (large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage). “Suburban” neighborhoods in Europe easily have double or triple the density of this. I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area.
- randallsquared 5y ago
  > I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area. Maybe you meant 2+ units? 'Cause almost all of them have 2+ floors, and many will have livable basements as well.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>(large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage) I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. Perhaps you enjoy apartment living and consider anything not active indoors a waste. If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    You can enjoy active outdoors without wasting space on concrete car desert. It's called "parks".
    - toss1 5y ago
      Lawns and gardens are not concrete (at least not mine). Also,kind of hard to grow your lunch greens in a public park. Not much solitude there either. Nothing says that you need to even need to have concrete/asphalt driveways & parking; gravel drives can be quite nice.
  - magikaram 5y ago
    It's been well documented that the large set back front yards and loads of anti-pedestrian designed neighborhoods and towns have largely been the cause for issues relating to poor public transportation, heat island effects, and less affordable housing. You can have nice gardens, double parking spots & a garage without the same designed towns and neighborhoods. Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. Those designs also enable more pedestrian friendliness vs. the suburban sprawl that is effectively carpeting the U.S. and Canada since the 40's.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get. Roughly the equivalent of pointing to IBM as the most high paying and prestigious tech companies can get. It would be trivial to increase the density there by reducing setback requirements, narrowing the roads, removing minimum parking requirements.

jcranmer 5y ago

> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get. You can get a little bit denser by going full street grid--Chicago's single family home districts look to mostly be rocking ~6-9k people/km².

idiotsecant 5y ago
I might be the only one but I strongly prefer grid-layout cities to these winding suburb road layouts anyhow. When your city is a grid you can make street names mean something and a person can navigate from place to place easily and have an intuitive idea of how far away something is, both without a cellphone.
- toofy 5y ago
  you’re definitely not the only one. grids make much more sense. and not only for ease of navigation.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  I think you are the only one. I grew up in Chicago on a perfect grid. Now I live on a street that I picked precisely because you only drive down it if you live there. I don't like the sound of cars driving past. That's a personal preference that seems pretty generalized, even among people without kids. And on a street like that, you don't need speed bumps, because people aren't speeding down the street.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    He's definitely not the only person who prefers cities to suburbs. What? Now, I think almost everyone would prefer if their one street were not integrated into the grid. That would be the ideal. You live in a grid, but with none of the downsides. But failing that, many people opt to live in denser areas rather than the burbs, even if the cost is that folks sometimes drive down their street who are going someplace else..
  - closeparen 5y ago
    But that’s the thing. The street’s utility is exclusively to the houses that are on it. Those houses are very unlikely to be paying enough property tax to cover its existence. This luxury of yours is paid for by other people’s productive activity in the future. Great deal for you! But we the (net) taxpayers ought to think about how many more of these sweetheart deals we offer to cul de sac homeowners in the future, before we bankrupt ourselves. I’m not a libertarian, I think it’s fine for government to tap rich people to provide nice things for everyone, but this particular nice thing (way more roadway than you pay for) has a pretty bad cost:benefit, and its beneficiaries are not exactly the neediest or most deserving of aid.
    - wkearney99 5y ago
      or if not 'tap the rich', better structure the payouts so there isn't such an imbalance. wage stagnation is a BIG problem.
    - halpert 5y ago
      I find it hard to believe that building a road is so expensive. Some random website I found claims the cost of a two-lane undivided road costs $3 million per mile in an urban setting. Looking at the satellite imagery of Mississauga linked elsewhere, the frontage of each house is around 50 ft. So there are about 211 houses per mile. That comes out to $14,000 per house to build the road. The approximate lifespan of an asphalt road is 18 years, leading to a per year cost of ~800 dollars. Of course, this doesn't include maintenance of the road (fixing pot holes, plowing, etc.), but $800 per year seems like a pretty manageable sum of money.
- mech422 5y ago
  Yeah - Phoenix has a basically 1 mile grid, with lil side streets in-between the major intersections. I hate it, because if you miss a turn, you basically have to go another full mile to hit another 'cross street'.

ricardobeat 5y ago

> about as dense as single family homes can get These traditional north american houses are still not very space efficient at all (large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage). “Suburban” neighborhoods in Europe easily have double or triple the density of this. I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area.

randallsquared 5y ago
> I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area. Maybe you meant 2+ units? 'Cause almost all of them have 2+ floors, and many will have livable basements as well.
toss1 5y ago
>>(large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage) I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. Perhaps you enjoy apartment living and consider anything not active indoors a waste. If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  You can enjoy active outdoors without wasting space on concrete car desert. It's called "parks".
  - toss1 5y ago
    Lawns and gardens are not concrete (at least not mine). Also,kind of hard to grow your lunch greens in a public park. Not much solitude there either. Nothing says that you need to even need to have concrete/asphalt driveways & parking; gravel drives can be quite nice.
- magikaram 5y ago
  It's been well documented that the large set back front yards and loads of anti-pedestrian designed neighborhoods and towns have largely been the cause for issues relating to poor public transportation, heat island effects, and less affordable housing. You can have nice gardens, double parking spots & a garage without the same designed towns and neighborhoods. Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. Those designs also enable more pedestrian friendliness vs. the suburban sprawl that is effectively carpeting the U.S. and Canada since the 40's.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get. Roughly the equivalent of pointing to IBM as the most high paying and prestigious tech companies can get. It would be trivial to increase the density there by reducing setback requirements, narrowing the roads, removing minimum parking requirements.