Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Parking in Waterloo Region
Quote:Mr. Starkman’s N3 condo project in East Village consists of 167 units between 461 and 620 square feet, priced from $199,000 to $299,000. Knightsbridge was able to hit this price point by negotiating removal of the municipal parking requirement for residential developments.

From the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e25183959/
Reply


It makes you wonder just how affordable things could be in our cores. With two surface parking spots, a Kaufman 2 bedroom unit is listed at $299K. How low would it be in a purpose-built building without any land or construction dedicated to parking?
Reply
(06-30-2015, 10:50 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It makes you wonder just how affordable things could be in our cores. With two surface parking spots, a Kaufman 2 bedroom unit is listed at $299K. How low would it be in a purpose-built building without any land or construction dedicated to parking?

Units are starting at $229K at City Centre Condos, for 510 sqft (10% bigger than the smaller N3 units), including parking.  $200K should be easily achievable without parking.
Reply
I wouldn't buy a condo if it didn't have a parking space. We had a 1-bedroom unit at Kaufman with 1 spot and I wish I had 2. There were only 14 visitor spots and they were always full.
Reply
(06-30-2015, 10:24 PM)Canard Wrote: I wouldn't buy a condo if it didn't have a parking space.  We had a 1-bedroom unit at Kaufman with 1 spot and I wish I had 2.  There were only 14 visitor spots and they were always full.

... but having the option of parking-less units for car-less people is still a good thing, even if you and I don't want to buy those units.
Reply
(06-30-2015, 10:48 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-30-2015, 10:24 PM)Canard Wrote: I wouldn't buy a condo if it didn't have a parking space.  We had a 1-bedroom unit at Kaufman with 1 spot and I wish I had 2.  There were only 14 visitor spots and they were always full.

... but having the option of parking-less units for car-less people is still a good thing, even if you and I don't want to buy those units.

In a K-W context, I'd be concerned about the impact on re-sale. 
Reply
Y'all are welcome to have your concerns or preferences for parking. Why should that prevent someone from buying a unit without a parking spot if that's what they want? Why should it prevent a building built for people with that same preference, should a developer believe there is sufficient demand?
Reply


(07-01-2015, 12:40 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Y'all are welcome to have your concerns or preferences for parking. Why should that prevent someone from buying a unit without a parking spot if that's what they want?...

I'd be more concerned with the impact that a building with little or no parking would have on the neighbourhood. For example the visitor's parking area (assuming there was one) would likely have to be strictly regulated/policed. Likewise for street parking in the immediate neighbourhood.

I get that there may be an increasing number of people who have no interest in owning a car, hence no need to have a parking space with their condo and hence would rather save ~$30,000 on the cost of their unit. Perhaps some day this demographic will become more common and there will be no downside in having a no-parking-space condo. But I don't think we're there (yet!)

Hence as a practical matter, even if I didn't need a parking space I'd still get one and rent it out. That way my options are covered regardless of how the universe unfolds. Granted there's a risk that if no-parking-space life becomes very common I may be unable to rent my space or to get much for it. But in that case I suppose such parking spaces could be repurposed, e.g. caged with chain link and used for storage.
Reply
(07-01-2015, 12:40 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Y'all are welcome to have your concerns or preferences for parking. Why should that prevent someone from buying a unit without a parking spot if that's what they want? Why should it prevent a building built for people with that same preference, should a developer believe there is sufficient demand?

Nothing should prevent someone from buying a domicile without parking. But I, personally, would not buy something without at least 2 parking spots, preferably more. I had a townhouse with one parking spot and the amount of illegal parking in and around the complex was just ridic. None of my acquaintances who have investment properties feel likewise.

I don't believe there is much of a demand for parking-less units in current KW, barring certain student and core downtown/uptown areas. The reality of the matter is that KW's population density and public transit infrastructure just isn't at that point, yet. Who knows, perhaps LRT will help alleviate this.
Reply
(07-01-2015, 07:18 AM)ookpik Wrote:
(07-01-2015, 12:40 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Y'all are welcome to have your concerns or preferences for parking. Why should that prevent someone from buying a unit without a parking spot if that's what they want?...

I'd be more concerned with the impact that a building with little or no parking would have on the neighbourhood. For example the visitor's parking area (assuming there was one) would likely have to be strictly regulated/policed. Likewise for street parking in the immediate neighbourhood.

Yes, I agree.  I believe that this is one of the problems the Madison/Revel people had at a project in Kitchener.  They received reduced parking for a building that ultimately became a rental building.  When all the tenants moved in, the street was filled up and there were serious neighborhood parking problems.

I agree that nobody should be able to stop you from BUYING a unit without parking.  But certainly the city should be able to stop you from BUILDING a unit without parking.  This is why the city staffs planners and urban designers, because they (hopefully) know what works well and what will just cause problems.
Reply
I recently had occasion to view a unit at The Red. It is handy to transit. In fact, if you were careless on your balcony, you could spill your morning coffee on the ION.

The real estate agent pointed out (literally, in the manner of "Behold!") the strategy adopted by residents who did not want to buy a parking spot, but who wanted one (or more). The back yard of a vintage house on Mary Street had been paved over, and 7 or 8 parking spots had been neatly delineated. The residents of The Red were renting them, with easy access to their residences through a gate giving onto The Red's lane.

I speculate that the neighbours of the opportunistic Mary Street parking lot are disappointed that they are no longer viewing from their deck a garden, but a parking lot. However, they are NIMBYs, who are by definition disentitled to maintain any acquired or purchased expectation. So I suppose they in turn could forego gardening in favour of becoming vehicular landlords, and so on down the block, which would thereupon be truly busted.

Somebody always pays.
Reply
(07-01-2015, 09:19 AM)eizenstriet Wrote: The back yard of a vintage house on Mary Street had been paved over, and 7 or 8 parking spots had been neatly delineated. The residents of The Red were renting them, with easy access to their residences through a gate giving onto The Red's lane. 

What happens when the owners of the vintage house decide to sell it and the new owners decide they don't want to be "vehicular landlords"? Presumably those renting these spots, or rather their vehicles, will be out on the street.


Quote:Somebody always pays.

Yup.
Reply
(06-30-2015, 10:55 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(06-30-2015, 10:48 PM)tomh009 Wrote: ... but having the option of parking-less units for car-less people is still a good thing, even if you and I don't want to buy those units.

In a K-W context, I'd be concerned about the impact on re-sale. 

That would be my concern.  If it's me buying a unit, a parking spot is a must have whether I'd use it or not.  To have a unit without a parking spot would be a bad investment.
Reply


(07-01-2015, 07:18 AM)ookpik Wrote: I'd be more concerned with the impact that a building with little or no parking would have on the neighbourhood. For example the visitor's parking area (assuming there was one) would likely have to be strictly regulated/policed. Likewise for street parking in the immediate neighbourhood.

You cannot get by owning a vehicle without a place to store it, period. You certainly can't store it on the street. Having some paid visitor parking is a pretty reasonable way to go to accommodate temporary demand. Requiring that every unit come with its own full parking spots is not reasonable - it is not a way of addressing visitor parking, it is a way of encouraging and subsidizing car ownership.

(07-01-2015, 08:04 AM)REnerd Wrote: I agree that nobody should be able to stop you from BUYING a unit without parking.  But certainly the city should be able to stop you from BUILDING a unit without parking.  This is why the city staffs planners and urban designers, because they (hopefully) know what works well and what will just cause problems.

This is indeed what they do, and it causes a different kind of problem: expensive units, high commercial rents, and a low price of parking that compels more people to drive - leading to more cars clogging our streets, polluting the air, and injuring pedestrians and cyclists (and drivers/passengers too).
Reply
(07-01-2015, 07:33 PM)mpd618 Wrote:
(07-01-2015, 07:18 AM)ookpik Wrote: I'd be more concerned with the impact that a building with little or no parking would have on the neighbourhood. For example the visitor's parking area (assuming there was one) would likely have to be strictly regulated/policed. Likewise for street parking in the immediate neighbourhood.

You cannot get by owning a vehicle without a place to store it, period. You certainly can't store it on the street. Having some paid visitor parking is a pretty reasonable way to go to accommodate temporary demand. Requiring that every unit come with its own full parking spots is not reasonable - it is not a way of addressing visitor parking, it is a way of encouraging and subsidizing car ownership.


(07-01-2015, 08:04 AM)REnerd Wrote: I agree that nobody should be able to stop you from BUYING a unit without parking.  But certainly the city should be able to stop you from BUILDING a unit without parking.  This is why the city staffs planners and urban designers, because they (hopefully) know what works well and what will just cause problems.

This is indeed what they do, and it causes a different kind of problem: expensive units, high commercial rents, and a low price of parking that compels more people to drive - leading to more cars clogging our streets, polluting the air, and injuring pedestrians and cyclists (and drivers/passengers too).

I agree, basically.  Visitor parking, during the day, is permitted on city streets.  It's not permitted overnight, even in residential neighbourhoods.  And it's already policed, at least in theory.  Resident street parking is a non-starter in K-W today, and will continue to be so until and unless a resident street parking permit system is implemented.

Now, I think that providing parking spots for residents doesn't actually subsidize ownership or compel people to drive -- but it can certainly encourage that behaviour.

So I would support construction of (some) units without parking spots, whether owned or rental.  It would give an option for people who don't need or want a car, and also reduce the prices, making at least some of the units more affordable.  Or make the purchase of a parking spot optional, possibly leaving more surplus spots and allowing some other people to buy a second spot.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links