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

[Markster]

On the other hand, they substantially reduced parking!

0.846 spaces per unit, down from 1.15
0.743 spaces per bed, up from 0.733

When I look at this, where the number of parking spaces per bedroom is nearly constant, it sounds like there was some dealing behind the scenes.

The Northdale area already requires parking on a "per bedroom" basis, which was a reaction to the explosion of 5-bedroom units.
Pointing at Northdale, several developments on King st have also reduced their parking requirement by cutting bedrooms down; turning 2-bedroom units into 1+den. This passes muster at the staff level, presumably because the assumption is that every bedroom in a unit is equally likely to contain an adult with a vehicle (and that 3 of every 4 adults has a car).

So, I imagine it went like this:

Residents: "This building is too tall"
City (to developer): "Cut your building 1 storey, and you get approval"
Dev: "Cut our parking requirement (spaces/unit) so we can cut down the height and not lose our shirts"
City: "Since you're clearly a rental in condo clothing, we'll let you switch to a parking requirement based on spaces per bedroom. Cut your bedrooms down to cut your parking down"
Dev: "Sure!"
Dev (to architect): "Cut one floor, redraw the parking lot one level smaller, and then remove the doors to second bedrooms until you meet the parking requirement!"

[MidTowner]

If it did go like that (and it seems like a good rough guess, given the facts that we know: reduced height, reduced number of units, reduced parking as measured by spots per unit but not spots per bedroom), then it’s not solely the market determining the number of larger units. The parking requirements have a lot to do with it.

Developers should be free to build whatever number of spots the market requires. If they think they can market a four bedroom, 1800 square foot unit to a family who only needs one spot, they should be allowed to build and market that unit. If they think they can market it with no spots, likewise.

Some of the math on costs and unit pricing here makes sense, and I know that smaller units are more profitable. But spaces in a parking garage can be tens of thousands of dollars each, and if developers think they can avoid that cost, and sell units without spots included, that seems good for everyone involved.

[darts]

Developers should be free to build whatever number of spots the market requires. If they think they can market a four bedroom, 1800 square foot unit to a family who only needs one spot, they should be allowed to build and market that unit. If they think they can market it with no spots, likewise.

Is that a great idea? Developers don't have to deal with any of the long term consequences. In Cambridge on Kovac Rd there was a small development done about 20 years ago, houses have space for 2 cars. Now they have cars parked all over, their boulevards. I could only imagine trying to hold a bbq and inviting people over, there wasn't much in terms of on street parking when I was in the neighbourhood.

[dubya]

Developers should be free to build whatever number of spots the market requires. If they think they can market a four bedroom, 1800 square foot unit to a family who only needs one spot, they should be allowed to build and market that unit. If they think they can market it with no spots, likewise.

Is that a great idea? Developers don't have to deal with any of the long term consequences. In Cambridge on Kovac Rd there was a small development done about 20 years ago, houses have space for 2 cars. Now they have cars parked all over, their boulevards. I could only imagine trying to hold a bbq and inviting people over, there wasn't much in terms of on street parking when I was in the neighbourhood.

Firstly, you're comparing apples and oranges; a suburban car dependent neighbourhood to an urban setting with all walk-able amenities on an LRT line. Toronto, downtown has allowed for condos with no parking and less than one spot per unit for years without the consequences you envision. Enforcement, demographics and walk-ability are more than likely going to serve as an offset.

Besides, even the scenario you describe is likely a demographic blip that usually plays out (and I'm guessing based on the age of this neighbourhood this is the case) like this: 
New subdivision fills with young families, two car driveway is adequate, they have children who reach driving age around same time, two car driveways become inadequate as kids acquire own car, some kids go off to post secondary, parking strain is reduced, rest of kids move away with jobs, two car driveways are adequate again, parents retire, two car driveways become excessive, parents die / are replaces with new young couples and the trend repeats. 

Even in this suburban scenario it would be inefficient to build towards predicting an average family will have 2.5 kids, will need 4.5 car driveways/garages in 20 years because you should be designing to meet the needs of that neighbourhood for the majority of its life and not for a peak period. Its what we have done with roads and parking for generations and look at the issues that has created (this debate case in point).

[darts]

Is that a great idea? Developers don't have to deal with any of the long term consequences. In Cambridge on Kovac Rd there was a small development done about 20 years ago, houses have space for 2 cars. Now they have cars parked all over, their boulevards. I could only imagine trying to hold a bbq and inviting people over, there wasn't much in terms of on street parking when I was in the neighbourhood.

Firstly, you're comparing apples and oranges; a suburban car dependent neighbourhood to an urban setting with all walk-able amenities on an LRT line. Toronto, downtown has allowed for condos with no parking and less than one spot per unit for years without the consequences you envision. Enforcement, demographics and walk-ability are more than likely going to serve as an offset.

Besides, even the scenario you describe is likely a demographic blip that usually plays out (and I'm guessing based on the age of this neighbourhood this is the case) like this: 
New subdivision fills with young families, two car driveway is adequate, they have children who reach driving age around same time, two car driveways become inadequate as kids acquire own car, some kids go off to post secondary, parking strain is reduced, rest of kids move away with jobs, two car driveways are adequate again, parents retire, two car driveways become excessive, parents die / are replaces with new young couples and the trend repeats. 

Even in this suburban scenario it would be inefficient to build towards predicting an average family will have 2.5 kids, will need 4.5 car driveways/garages in 20 years because you should be designing to meet the needs of that neighbourhood for the majority of its life and not for a peak period. Its what we have done with roads and parking for generations and look at the issues that has created (this debate case in point).

Toronto has density that it makes sense, I'm not sure KW really has this.
In terms of that particular neighbourhood it isn't something that will necessarily go away since there is not a lot of visitor parking on the street.

[MidTowner]

Uptown has the density to support a lifestyle that doesn't include car ownership, or less than one car per adult. And, for the occasions when people have guests, there is street parking available, and public parking lots available nearby.

It just doesn't make sense to me to require people to pay for their neighbours' parking, let alone parking for their neighbours' visitors.

[mpd618]

If the city actually enforces by-laws for on-street parking, then owning more cars than you have space to store in your building (or through renting parking nearby) becomes untenable. I don't think this is an actual urban problem.

The bigger problem is that "established neighbourhoods" feel that free and abundant on-street parking is non-negotiable, and any short-term parking use that can be attributed to new development becomes an argument against all new development. One approach for this is to establish pay on-street parking but with special permits provided to existing residents.

[embe]

Uptown has the density to support a lifestyle that doesn't include car ownership, or less than one car per adult. And, for the occasions when people have guests, there is street parking available, and public parking lots available nearby.

It just doesn't make sense to me to require people to pay for their neighbours' parking, let alone parking for their neighbours' visitors.

I'm just trying to understand is it a Condo thing where people don't want parking?  Other than walking (which is good), there are a lot of people that rely on a car to go beyond walking distance to their Job, visit family and friends, travel outside of town etc. 

Why not designated parking spots?  No car, you save the monthly parking spot fee. You have two cars? You pay twice the parking fee as the guy that has no cars, and those two spots are up to you

Just not seeing how a LACK of a parking spot at a residence can be considered a plus.

[mpd618]

Why not designated parking spots?  No car, you save the monthly parking spot fee. You have two cars? You pay twice the parking fee as the guy that has no cars, and those two spots are up to you

Because it's less flexible and ultimately requires more parking overall. You buy more parking spaces than you need because you think you might want them. Parking cannot be shared between commercial and residential uses, even though weekday daytime commercial uses can otherwise use capacity left by people having gone to work.

Just not seeing how a LACK of a parking spot at a residence can be considered a plus.

Whether or not that's accurately reflected in condo prices, underground parking costs somewhere between $30-50K per spot to build. It's expensive and unnecessarily drives up the cost of both housing and commercial rent. And of course if we're talking about a broader perspective, more parking spots generates more car traffic for the surrounding area and makes the area less pleasant and safe for everyone.

[ijmorlan]

Developers should be free to build whatever number of spots the market requires. If they think they can market a four bedroom, 1800 square foot unit to a family who only needs one spot, they should be allowed to build and market that unit. If they think they can market it with no spots, likewise.

Is that a great idea? Developers don't have to deal with any of the long term consequences. In Cambridge on Kovac Rd there was a small development done about 20 years ago, houses have space for 2 cars. Now they have cars parked all over, their boulevards. I could only imagine trying to hold a bbq and inviting people over, there wasn't much in terms of on street parking when I was in the neighbourhood.

Let’s talk about bread.

I went to the bakery and they were all out! We should have a government regulation that requires them to bake enough bread! Furthermore, the bread is too expensive. The regulation should require them to bake enough that the price is lower. In fact, while we’re at it, let’s require them to bake so much bread that the price drops to 0!

Seriously though, if we switch the discussion back to only large grocery stores (let’s suppose actual bakeries and small stores were exempt), a “minimum bread production” regulation would probably be less damaging than our parking minima. So large grocery stores would be sources of free bread on their dime. In the context of operating a Zehr’s, that’s probably just a small impact. Whereas parking minima frequently prevent good developments from happening at all.

[curious_look]

 Are there people on this forum, with families or have friends with families, looking for these types of units with 2 and 3 bedrooms and no desire for parking?  

Me! *raises hand*

[jamincan]

Is that a great idea? Developers don't have to deal with any of the long term consequences. In Cambridge on Kovac Rd there was a small development done about 20 years ago, houses have space for 2 cars. Now they have cars parked all over, their boulevards. I could only imagine trying to hold a bbq and inviting people over, there wasn't much in terms of on street parking when I was in the neighbourhood.

Let’s talk about bread.

I went to the bakery and they were all out! We should have a government regulation that requires them to bake enough bread! Furthermore, the bread is too expensive. The regulation should require them to bake enough that the price is lower. In fact, while we’re at it, let’s require them to bake so much bread that the price drops to 0!

Seriously though, if we switch the discussion back to only large grocery stores (let’s suppose actual bakeries and small stores were exempt), a “minimum bread production” regulation would probably be less damaging than our parking minima. So large grocery stores would be sources of free bread on their dime. In the context of operating a Zehr’s, that’s probably just a small impact. Whereas parking minima frequently prevent good developments from happening at all.

The problem with this analogy is that if the parking supply isn't provided appropriately by the developer, public space ends up being used to supply the development with parking instead. If a grocery store doesn't make enough bread, it's not like we see illegal bread making operations spill over onto public space.

[MidTowner]

On the topic of bread, I think it was 1980s Romania that found that the solution to your problem is demand-side management. If you sell Monday's bread on Tuesday, and Tuesday's bread on Wednesday, demand falls and you don't need to increase supply. If demand doesn't fall enough, store the bread even longer, until demand falls to meet supply.

If we really had a problem with supply of street parking (which we don't in KW), we could require that people have a place to store a car prior to buying one, as they do in Japan.

[tomh009]

The bigger problem is that "established neighbourhoods" feel that free and abundant on-street parking is non-negotiable, and any short-term parking use that can be attributed to new development becomes an argument against all new development. One approach for this is to establish pay on-street parking but with special permits provided to existing residents.

An on-street parking permit, similar to Toronto.  But I don't see why it should be free, regardless of whether you live in a house or a condo.  $50/month sounds very reasonable to me.

[tomh009]

I'm just trying to understand is it a Condo thing where people don't want parking?  Other than walking (which is good), there are a lot of people that rely on a car to go beyond walking distance to their Job, visit family and friends, travel outside of town etc. 

Why not designated parking spots?  No car, you save the monthly parking spot fee. You have two cars? You pay twice the parking fee as the guy that has no cars, and those two spots are up to you

In a condo building, which is owned by its residents, typically each unit has an exclusive-use right to its parking spot (if it has one).  Charging monthly fees to owners who use spots is much more challenging to administer in a condo corporation as it's not set up to charge variable fees to owners.  This is much easier in a rental building, though.