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:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Q Condos (20 Queen St N) | 34 fl | Proposed
(09-25-2021, 11:06 AM)Lebronj23 Wrote: https://outline.com/4MELLB

It's always nice to add a few words of explanation, especially since the link doesn't tell anything about the content. It makes it easier for people to decide whether to click or not.
Reply


The article talks about this building being the first to not include any parking on site (or in the building). It does point out the availability of other public parking nearby.

Left unsaid is that I believe the developer actually has an agreement with the City to use the Duke St garage. Also unsaid is that the public parking is subsidizing these units which would normally have included parking which would have meant a higher sale price per unit.
Reply
(09-25-2021, 11:58 PM)nms Wrote: The article talks about this building being the first to not include any parking on site (or in the building).  It does point out the availability of other public parking nearby.

Left unsaid is that I believe the developer actually has an agreement with the City to use the Duke St garage.  Also unsaid is that the public parking is subsidizing these units which would normally have included parking which would have meant a higher sale price per unit.
Well, it is only "subsidizing" those units whose purchasers require extra storage for their personal property. It is not subsidizing those units whose residents don't own cars and walk or use bicycles or public transit. The government subsidizes car ownership by using public money to build excessively wide roads, cheap or free storage for cars and generally making things unpleasant for those who do not drive.
Reply
(09-25-2021, 11:58 PM)nms Wrote: The article talks about this building being the first to not include any parking on site (or in the building).  It does point out the availability of other public parking nearby.

Left unsaid is that I believe the developer actually has an agreement with the City to use the Duke St garage.  Also unsaid is that the public parking is subsidizing these units which would normally have included parking which would have meant a higher sale price per unit.

Could be one way to look at it. That said, those garages (D&O, Hotel Benton and city hall) sit mostly empty after working hours, when the owners/tenants are going most likely use the spots. Pre-covid, apparently parking was a money maker for the city, so technically not subsidized by the taxpayer. Last I heard, parking is $170/month plus taxes, so if the tenants need 100 spaces spread over the 3 facilities, it works out to $17,000/month and $204,000/year.
Reply
(09-26-2021, 05:58 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(09-25-2021, 11:58 PM)nms Wrote: The article talks about this building being the first to not include any parking on site (or in the building).  It does point out the availability of other public parking nearby.

Left unsaid is that I believe the developer actually has an agreement with the City to use the Duke St garage.  Also unsaid is that the public parking is subsidizing these units which would normally have included parking which would have meant a higher sale price per unit.

Could be one way to look at it. That said, those garages (D&O, Hotel Benton and city hall) sit mostly empty after working hours, when the owners/tenants are going most likely use the spots. Pre-covid, apparently parking was a money maker for the city, so technically not subsidized by the taxpayer. Last I heard, parking is $170/month plus taxes, so if the tenants need 100 spaces spread over the 3 facilities, it works out to $17,000/month and $204,000/year.

Yes. I don't believe there is any intent on the part of the city to provide free parking if that's what is meant by the subsidy above.
Reply
(09-27-2021, 12:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes. I don't believe there is any intent on the part of the city to provide free parking if that's what is meant by the subsidy above.

I believe the City of Kitchener net loses money on downtown parking, at least when including capital costs, but that probably hides some differences between the garages. The market, library and Charles/Benton garages are all very far from capacity, even before Covid, and are definitely money losers. Duke/Ontario had a waiting list for monthly passes though, so it may be profitable to operate.

I don't think Q Condos will cause an increase in subsidy though, and if the city manages overselling correctly (I don't know how much they do now) they can probably reduce the subsidy given the complementary times of day.
Reply
And the Ontario St garage isn't full even during the day now (nor was it before the pandemic) so they can certainly sell parking access to condo residents.

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/parking/mont...rmits.aspx

Of the garages, the city hall is the only one with no monthly spaces available.
Reply


(09-27-2021, 02:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: And the Ontario St garage isn't full even during the day now (nor was it before the pandemic) so they can certainly sell parking access to condo residents.

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/parking/mont...rmits.aspx

Of the garages, the city hall is the only one with no monthly spaces available.

Likely due to the amount of staff that require spots.

I thought I heard somewhere that parking was an actual money maker for the city -- though unsure of the context when it comes to the garages and unsure how it was related to capital costs. Enterprise division would have that information.
Reply
Isn't parking one of the three Enterprises that are run as for-profit entities of the city? (Kitchener Utilities is one, I think KW Hydro is the other)

Coke
Reply
(10-04-2021, 02:53 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: Isn't parking one of the three Enterprises that are run as for-profit entities of the city?  (Kitchener Utilities is one, I think KW Hydro is the other)

Coke

Yes, but my understanding the parking enterprise is only responsible for operational costs, not capital. Easy to make money charging for access to a "free" garage. New garage construction comes from the general city capital budget.

Actually, even on operational costs, from The Record
Quote:Despite all of these factors, the parking enterprise is making a net profit for the city, Readman points out - it was $409,000 in the black in 2017.

Subsidies for city parking lots
Each year, the city transfers $1.2 million from its economic development reserve funds to the city's parking enterprise. Most of that covers lost parking income to provide free parking on downtown streets and at the market.
Really easy to make a $0.4 million profit when you're receiving a $1.2 million subsidy.
Reply
(10-04-2021, 03:21 PM)taylortbb Wrote:
(10-04-2021, 02:53 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: Isn't parking one of the three Enterprises that are run as for-profit entities of the city?  (Kitchener Utilities is one, I think KW Hydro is the other)

Coke

Yes, but my understanding the parking enterprise is only responsible for operational costs, not capital. Easy to make money charging for access to a "free" garage. New garage construction comes from the general city capital budget.

Actually, even on operational costs, from The Record
Quote:Despite all of these factors, the parking enterprise is making a net profit for the city, Readman points out - it was $409,000 in the black in 2017.

Subsidies for city parking lots
Each year, the city transfers $1.2 million from its economic development reserve funds to the city's parking enterprise. Most of that covers lost parking income to provide free parking on downtown streets and at the market.
Really easy to make a $0.4 million profit when you're receiving a $1.2 million subsidy.

Hang on a second. This sounds like the City paying the parking enterprise to provide free (to the user) parking. In other words, the parking operation is covering its operating expenses. Imagine hypothetically the parking enterprise were a private corporation which owned the parking garages and street parking spaces. They could charge for parking, but they would also (presumably) be happy to accept money in a block grant from the City to make some of the street parking spaces available for free to all comers.

That being said, if the parking enterprise isn’t clearing enough surplus to pay for a hypothetical mortgage on the purchase and construction costs of their properties, then they are being subsidized. A real parking business needs to buy vacant land, build the parking facilities, and then operate the parking operation.
Reply
(10-04-2021, 06:37 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hang on a second. This sounds like the City paying the parking enterprise to provide free (to the user) parking. In other words, the parking operation is covering its operating expenses. Imagine hypothetically the parking enterprise were a private corporation which owned the parking garages and street parking spaces. They could charge for parking, but they would also (presumably) be happy to accept money in a block grant from the City to make some of the street parking spaces available for free to all comers.

It depends what question you're asking. If the question is "do property taxes net subsidize parking in DTK" then I think the transfer for free parking being larger than the profit of the parking enterprise is relevant. You're not wrong a private parking company would be happy to accept the block grant too, but I don't think that really answers the question "is downtown parking profitable for the city" . I'm also skeptical that meters on King St would really bring in $1.3M/year, but I'll admit I have no data on that.

(10-04-2021, 06:37 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: That being said, if the parking enterprise isn’t clearing enough surplus to pay for a hypothetical mortgage on the purchase and construction costs of their properties, then they are being subsidized. A real parking business needs to buy vacant land, build the parking facilities, and then operate the parking operation.

Yes, there's that fact too. New garage construction is on the city's future capital budget, so that's directly from property taxes. I also don't think the city really values the cost of land at market rates. If they had to sell it to the parking enterprise at market rates that would really make it hard for the parking enterprise to be profitable. $18M/acre adds up fast.
Reply
(10-04-2021, 09:07 PM)taylortbb Wrote:
(10-04-2021, 06:37 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hang on a second. This sounds like the City paying the parking enterprise to provide free (to the user) parking. In other words, the parking operation is covering its operating expenses. Imagine hypothetically the parking enterprise were a private corporation which owned the parking garages and street parking spaces. They could charge for parking, but they would also (presumably) be happy to accept money in a block grant from the City to make some of the street parking spaces available for free to all comers.

It depends what question you're asking. If the question is "do property taxes net subsidize parking in DTK" then I think the transfer for free parking being larger than the profit of the parking enterprise is relevant. You're not wrong a private parking company would be happy to accept the block grant too, but I don't think that really answers the question "is downtown parking profitable for the city" . I'm also skeptical that meters on King St would really bring in $1.3M/year, but I'll admit I have no data on that.

OK, yes, I see what you’re getting at. Those free parking spaces are subsidized, even if the parking operation as such isn’t (ignoring that stuff about capital expenses). And of course there is the opportunity cost of not using the parking spaces for something else, whether it’s patios, more sidewalk space, or micro-park space.
Reply


(10-05-2021, 09:53 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: OK, yes, I see what you’re getting at. Those free parking spaces are subsidized, even if the parking operation as such isn’t (ignoring that stuff about capital expenses). And of course there is the opportunity cost of not using the parking spaces for something else, whether it’s patios, more sidewalk space, or micro-park space.

This is not only DTK, of course. Huge amounts of land are paved and maintained every year to provide on-street parking on suburban roads.
Reply
I was emailing the City Councillor to try to get the site plans - she was able to send me a bit of info but not much. There are just a few more minor details that need to be worked out before this is approved. 

Height = 113.76m


[attachment=8059]
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