Circa 1877 (née Brick Brewery) | 20 fl | Complete

[MidTowner]

I can't disagree that there will be a transition period until the market figures things out, but the current situation is very bad: we're using land inefficiently, and increasing costs to the people who can least afford them by burying the costs of parking in residential and other costs. I can see why you might say there's a catch 22, but I can't see it: if parking minimums were eliminated, developers would be free to build fewer parking spaces, or offer parking spaces separately from units. But plenty would opt not to do that until the market adapted. Developers won't suddenly opt to build zero parking spaces if it means they can't sell their units. They will instead offer the parking spaces their customers actually demand and are willing to pay for.

Maybe this should be moved to 'Parking,' but I'm really curious about Northdale. I haven't read about serious complaints about parking. What is actually going on with parents visiting their kids? That they can't park their for no cost to them as close to their destination as they would be able to at a suburban shopping mall? This has been mentioned here before, but parking meters are an obvious solution and of benefit to both the parents (since the parking will be available, since market rates are charged) and the City.

[ijmorlan]

Developers won't suddenly opt to build zero parking spaces if it means they can't sell their units. They will instead offer the parking spaces their customers actually demand and are willing to pay for.

Exactly. In most areas, we assume that business owners know how to operate their businesses. But suddenly, when it comes to figuring out how much parking to build, they are little babies who need to be told when to wipe their noses.

Imagine if we required that every grocery store bake a certain number of loaves of bread every day per square foot of store. Imagine further if we set that number so high that they couldn’t give away all the loaves for free.

That’s what we’re doing right now for parking. For some reason, I doubt I could find anybody who wouldn’t find the Loaf Rule to be absurd, but parking minima are still in existence.

I think a clue may be found, however, even in the proposals for change: in many cases, we see proposals to replace minima with maxima. So in other words, the idea of just not having a rule doesn’t even occur. This suggests the real problem is an authoritarian strain in the planning profession and more widely in people interested in municipal governance. I’m not one of those people who thinks that almost all regulation is bad, but the arguments those people make are valid in many cases and need to be considered carefully in each case where regulation is proposed to be created or continued.

[darts]

Basically, there's a Catch-22 situation.  Staff can't budge on parking requirements until there's an open market; there's no open market because there's too much mandatory parking to make it economically viable.

There is an open market just no centralized place to buy or sell spots. Driving up the cost of parking won't make life any better for people either though in order to create a market.

[tomh009]

The thing about looking at projects like Arrow Lofts is that they're expensive luxury condos - those kinds of purchasers are more likely to want to store their cars even if they don't plan to use them much. But our parking requirements force every development to build to that level, and that starts to matter a whole lot more if your condos could be in the $200-250K range (or rental equivalent). For more affordable housing in the city, it matters a great deal if people can save money by forgoing parking. The city's parking requirements say that whatever your choice of transportation, you cannot save money by not paying for a parking spot.

This.  Sometimes more parking is needed, sometimes less.  The problem is that the city's rules mandate a parking minimum regardless of the builder or the buyer demographics.

As someone else said, let the builders make the business decision about how much parking to provide.  Or at least drop the requirement way down, to 0.5 or less.

[darts]

The thing about looking at projects like Arrow Lofts is that they're expensive luxury condos - those kinds of purchasers are more likely to want to store their cars even if they don't plan to use them much. But our parking requirements force every development to build to that level, and that starts to matter a whole lot more if your condos could be in the $200-250K range (or rental equivalent). For more affordable housing in the city, it matters a great deal if people can save money by forgoing parking. The city's parking requirements say that whatever your choice of transportation, you cannot save money by not paying for a parking spot.

This.  Sometimes more parking is needed, sometimes less.  The problem is that the city's rules mandate a parking minimum regardless of the builder or the buyer demographics.

As someone else said, let the builders make the business decision about how much parking to provide.  Or at least drop the requirement way down, to 0.5 or less.

I wouldn't trust builders to make the best decision for the community and not what would make them the most money. 

Ten-twenty years form now the people living their may really need the parking if they don't work nearby or have kids in hockey.

[MidTowner]

I wouldn't trust builders to make the best decision for the community and not what would make them the most money. 

Ten-twenty years form now the people living their may really need the parking if they don't work nearby or have kids in hockey.

If they really need the parking, they'll pay for it. If they really need it but aren't willing to pay for it, they'll move someplace where it's a price they are willing to pay, won't they?

[darts]

I wouldn't trust builders to make the best decision for the community and not what would make them the most money. 

Ten-twenty years form now the people living their may really need the parking if they don't work nearby or have kids in hockey.

If they really need the parking, they'll pay for it. If they really need it but aren't willing to pay for it, they'll move someplace where it's a price they are willing to pay, won't they?

Developers would build the least amount of parking they could get away with, wouldn't this lead to parking shortages and cause people to move to new developments outside of town. which would cause one spouse to drive into town if they work in downtown kitchener causing more congestion into downtown. It looks like it would encourage sprawl.

[MidTowner]

They'd probably build no more parking than people are willing to pay for. It would be pointless to market units without parking if no one would buy them. If lack of parking would prevent a unit from being sold, the developer will build parking for that unit.

[darts]

They'd probably build no more parking than people are willing to pay for. It would be pointless to market units without parking if no one would buy them. If lack of parking would prevent a unit from being sold, the developer will build parking for that unit.

Right now they could get away with selling units with no parking ten years, I'm more concerned that in 10 years there will be an oversupply of housing without any parking attached as people for one reason or another need parking which would lead to people fleeing to new housing units in the surrounding area and over inflating housing prices in town, kind of what toronto is experiencing.

I know carshares may help relieve some of the stress but most demand would be in and around rush hours making it difficult for car shares to affordably be able to expand with the demand. 

I know the intent is to lower condo prices but they aren't priced as cost + profit, more what they can market it as. The discount might be $20k currently but if it became the norm that units would be sold without parking I can see the discount moving towards $5-8k and the cost to purchase a spot still $20k so the developer will make more, people living in the units would end up paying more.

[ijmorlan]

If they really need the parking, they'll pay for it. If they really need it but aren't willing to pay for it, they'll move someplace where it's a price they are willing to pay, won't they?

Developers would build the least amount of parking they could get away with, wouldn't this lead to parking shortages and cause people to move to new developments outside of town. which would cause one spouse to drive into town if they work in downtown kitchener causing more congestion into downtown. It looks like it would encourage sprawl.

No. It would increase the price of parking, which would tend to lead to the construction of parking. This is basic ECON 101. I mean, I don’t want to completely dismiss concerns, but subject to some assumptions about externalities, consumer information, and public goods, individual market participants will do a better job of determining how much of a good to supply than any sort of central planning office. Parking is an awfully expensive good to be forcing people to bundle with residential accommodation. It’s not at all like requiring that proper smoke alarms be installed.

[REnerd]

They'd probably build no more parking than people are willing to pay for. It would be pointless to market units without parking if no one would buy them. If lack of parking would prevent a unit from being sold, the developer will build parking for that unit.

IMO you are missing two things:

1) There is a perception that people can deal with parking on their own.  This results in people parking in public parking locations and jamming up streets in the immediate neighbourhood.  There is a very good example of this when Madison/Revel built a bachelor suite without parking (they were so small that they were exempt from parking) and caused the neighbourhood to be very upset with the amount of parking displaced onto the street.  If I understand this particular case made City of Kitchener rethink their parking requirements for small units.

2) Developers largely sell to investors who are not necessarily thinking about their own situation, but that of the future tenant.  They will be more inclined to buy without parking if such an option is granted.  Partly due to pricing discounts; partly because if the city permits it, there must be a demand?

The city definitely needs to set the rules of engagement with regards to parking.  The hand of the developer will not always make the best decisions.

[ijmorlan]

The city definitely needs to set the rules of engagement with regards to parking.  The hand of the developer will not always make the best decisions.

And planners are proven most of the time to make terrible decisions with respect to parking and road capacity. A few developer decisions that might be somewhat questionable are by comparison a very minor problem.

[mpd618]

I wouldn't trust builders to make the best decision for the community and not what would make them the most money. 

Ten-twenty years form now the people living their may really need the parking if they don't work nearby or have kids in hockey.

1) And it's good for the community to force them to create so much parking that it is given away for free, which incentivizes people to drive and cause traffic and carnage in our cities?

2) Build more parking so it's available in twenty years, really? People don't live that long in one place, and there's a variety of buildings available - some with more parking and some with less. There also, you know, the possibility of paying to park on another property or in another building's parking structure.

But more than that: Google, Apple, Uber, Lyft, etc. are spending billions of dollars so that your car is replaced by a shared driverless fleet. It may be ten years or it may be thirty years, but the long term parking needs are far lower than the present ones. So if you really want to be forward thinking, you wouldn't be forcing people to pay for parking they may or may not need right now.

[MidTowner]

IMO you are missing two things:

1) There is a perception that people can deal with parking on their own.  This results in people parking in public parking locations and jamming up streets in the immediate neighbourhood.  There is a very good example of this when Madison/Revel built a bachelor suite without parking (they were so small that they were exempt from parking) and caused the neighbourhood to be very upset with the amount of parking displaced onto the street.  If I understand this particular case made City of Kitchener rethink their parking requirements for small units.

2) Developers largely sell to investors who are not necessarily thinking about their own situation, but that of the future tenant.  They will be more inclined to buy without parking if such an option is granted.  Partly due to pricing discounts; partly because if the city permits it, there must be a demand?

The city definitely needs to set the rules of engagement with regards to parking.  The hand of the developer will not always make the best decisions.

Speaking to your first point, in that case residents of a new development parked in free-of-charge public spaces, and the neighbours were upset- why? Because they felt entitled to that public space themselves. The solution there is to just price the street parking. If it's over-subscribed, it's too cheap. If neighbours are complaining that they can no longer find ("free") street parking because a new building has gone up, charge for that street parking and you'll find that some people clean out their garages and remove their cars from the street, or some people factor in the price of parking into their calculus and get rid of their cars. The solution isn't to compel developers to build more spaces to continue the illusion that parking is free.

[rangersfan]

I think this discussion should be moved to the parking in Waterloo Region thread.