|
$40k is nothing over the life of a building and an extra year of development is also worth it to build it imo. People deserve to live in a functional building and have equitable access to a middle class lifestyle. That includes taking kids to enrichment and sports after school and on the weekends. Is it possible without a vehicle sure but the time cost of using public transit to accomplish it will result in less kids participating. Building a more flexible high density building to fit different lifestyles is what is needed to get people to consider apartment living vs sfh.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Minimum parking requirements are there for a reason, because without them people will still drive and own cars, and then park them wherever the gently caress they can and make a mess of poo poo. Lawns, roads, adjacent businesses, whatever. Sure there are places in Toronto where it's ridiculous, but the province is bigger than one city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
I’m p sure Femto meant $40k per parking spot
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Thats how I understood it. $40k a spot is fine amortized over the life of the structure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
The taller the building the deeper the foundation must go - even if you don't use it for parking. So the whining by developers is pretty absurd for the large buildings. But buildings have more options - parking on floor 2-5 easily works as an example, but then developers can't maximize the profit of those floors as condos. Of course, some of this is based on location - ground conditions play a lot into how deep you can/can't/must go. Generally developers just don't like having things like (building/zoning) rules cut into what they have to do to maximize profit. IMHO, If they aren't selling the parking, also means that the majority of the units are probably being sold to cheap investor types (lovely landlords) rather than owner/occupiers who generally demand a spot with a unit even if they don't own a car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
RBC posted:Sure there are places in Toronto where it's ridiculous, but the province is bigger than one city. Does most of the province have major density problems? I don’t care about space used for parking in Elliott Lake, since it’s not likely to affect people’s ability to (afford to) live where there are jobs and services they need. The idea of province-wide parking minimums itself seems a little off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
Visitor parking is also a necessity for anyone who is remotely social. I lived in a building that had 1 spot per unit and it was a huge PITA. Everyone in the building wished there was more parking. For new builds we can learn from the past what doesn’t work. I now live sfh and enjoy it so much more. I still want apartment dwellers to have it better than the absolute minimum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
I want apartment dwellers to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Sure ample parking would be nice, but let's face it the reality is: Intolerably little housing with no parking versus basically no housing at all with therefore no parking with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
parking is not the reason housing prices are high, the reason is land costs, which are the single biggest factor in housing construction pricing, and guess why land is so expensive its not because of parking spots its not because of stairwells its because over half our population is involved in a gigantic speculative ponzi scheme and dumping all of their life savings, and their families life savings, into it
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
If you don’t want to live in a building with no parking, then don’t live there. The lower prices as a result of the apartments will inevitably come at a disappointment to the developer because guess what many people do in fact need to drive places that aren’t easily reached by transit every so often, so not building parking will end up cutting significantly into profits anyway. If this is a building people want to live in nevertheless and it’s still financially possible to build, then I have no issues, build it, the cheaper prices will draw attention away from the buildings with parking lowering the prices and everyone ends up happier. Arguing that nobody needs a car is asinine though, it’s almost parody to suggest that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
McGavin posted:I want apartment dwellers to suffer. Same except drivers
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
RBC posted:parking is not the reason housing prices are high, the reason is land costs, which are the single biggest factor in housing construction pricing, and guess why land is so expensive underground parking also requires stairs, makes u think
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
qhat posted:Arguing that nobody needs a car is asinine though, it’s almost parody to suggest that. There's lots of true believers out there who wholeheartedly feel this is true. Personally I think car brain is inevitable until public transportation and bike infrastructure is so much better than driving that people voluntarily start using it. I also don't see the problem with a building design that minimizes their parking spaces; people aren't being forced at gunpoint to live there, it's just more housing units on the market that serve a different set of needs and the prices will reflect that. More options for people across the preference and price spectrum just frees up units at other condos/apartments that do have amenities for vehicles. E: ↓ I mean, yeah. Ultimately real estate investment is the root cause issue at play, as well as the lugubrious rate of housing building in the last 20-40 years Mederlock fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
Maybe if we eliminate toilets, that will make things more affordable. You can just stomp your turds down the drain. Anything to delay identifying the use of housing as an investment as the underlying issue, and it’s increasing relative scarcity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
Laughing at all this from car free Toronto what an awful way to live. I'm able to afford rent, food, events, and so much more life without a car, can walk or transit all through the GTA and can rent a car or van on occasion if needed. As my parents age, they're looking to move here because they've seen what car dependence did to isolate my grandmother and their friends, and I expect we'll get more awful stories like this as people age too. https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/18/woman-78-accused-of-manslaughter-wrong-way-driving-in-fatal-west-portal-crash/ The lack of imagination to reimagine cities like Amsterdam or Paris have done is really why things are so bad. It's not the end of the world and in fact there is increasing investment to make it easier to not own a car even outside the GTA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
RBC posted:parking is not the reason housing prices are high, the reason is land costs, which are the single biggest factor in housing construction pricing, and guess why land is so expensive Taking a step back the reason housing prices are high is because it costs too much to create a building in general, and that encompasses land costs, parking spot costs, stairwell costs, developer fees, GST, and everything. When costs are too high then it's not worth building a new building, so then it isn't built, and vacancy drops further, causing even more misery for renters. So ok what costs can we actually bring down so that a new apartment development is actually break even or profitable and thus actually gets built? The problem is that yeah you're right the biggest cost here is land value but how exactly do you bring these land value costs down when the price for an absolute unredeemable teardown SFH is now $1.6M and people are perfectly satisfied to drop $2M for something that isn't trash? Those values are now the absolute floor that an apartment developer is looking at. They will have to pay a premium over top that to convince people to move out and not simply continue to live in the SFH. So the easier thing is to cut the costs on the construction side (parking and stairs) and lobby the government to cut the fees and GST (done!). One possible tool in the toolbox would be to levy sky high property taxes so that no one can afford to buy SFHs, but that's certainly political poison that no one is going to engage in. Even a middling 10% tax increase in Toronto was enough to create national news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Just wild car brain to force everyone to pay for a parking spot they may not need. If you need a car and the commensurate parking spot, you have many options. If you don't, it's good public policy to provide the option to not have to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Yeah the aging boomers who have known nothing in life but driving literally everywhere since they were in highschool scare the poo poo out of me. My own parents are getting to be less attentive drivers and they have no understanding there might be a best before date on their ability to keep it up. As such they have only taken steps towards INCREASING their dependence on cars, such as "downsizing" to a new development that's entirely unwalkable with piss poor transit service. They just keep getting older older while their cars keep getting bigger and bigger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
We need to focus on the real problems - where to park all our cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
Minimum parking requirements are a plague. They especially cause problem for low to medium rise buildings where the cost of digging out underground parking is less able to be absorbed into a huge development but where surface parking would consume too much developable land. Minimum parking can make some parcels very challenging to develop from an economics stand point. Just get rid of them and let developers sort it out. If the units can sell without parking, that’s great. If the developer figures that they can’t sell in a given location without some amount of parking then they’ll do it. Don’t force them to though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:There's lots of true believers out there who wholeheartedly feel this is true. Those true believers are helping nobody when they respond to "some people do indeed need cars" with nothing but gaslighting. It is absolutely true that I can get pretty much anywhere in Toronto on the TTC, and I love that. It's also true that anything involving more than one transfer takes inordinately long and is basically never as fast as promised. Is it a surprise, then, that I end up driving when it takes an hour less than the TTC, or if it involves buying more groceries than I can carry in two hands? It's not true that public transit provides adequate mobility pretty much anywhere else on the continent that isn't a large city with a subway system. Our cities, towns, and infrastructure do not look like those of western Europe, and that fact cannot be handwaved away. And this nails the reason for everything being so drat expensive: RBC posted:over half our population is involved in a gigantic speculative ponzi scheme and dumping all of their life savings, and their families life savings, into it The dearth of viable investments available in Canada, plus investors who are so bad at math that they don't understand that housing simply cannot grow faster than anything and everything else, forever and ever, has put us into this pickle. There's no unfucking this without making speculators take losses on bad investments. The sooner, the better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 05:43
|
|
|
You also have a back you can put groceries on, literally your best body part for carrying things for most humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 05:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You also have a back you can put groceries on, literally your best body part for carrying things for most humans. I used to do this, I'd load up a backpack and large carrying bags with groceries and trek home from the grocery store. And I have to say it was pretty miserable, even for a healthy young person. It's just so much easier to use a car and not have to worry about the weight of what I'm buying, and driving for 5 minutes vs a 30 minute walk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
I have two supermarkets within a 5 minute walk, and a third about 15 minutes away, therefore I do not need to ever carry a heavy load an annoying distance. It’s more work to get in the car and drive, that’s what a walkable lifestyle is about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Canada Housing/Debt: It was the parking spaces all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I have two supermarkets within a 5 minute walk, and a third about 15 minutes away, therefore I do not need to ever carry a heavy load an annoying distance. It’s more work to get in the car and drive, that’s what a walkable lifestyle is about. Oh, I walked to the supermarket just today to pick up a couple of things, but I need to drive if I want to go to Costco or Walmart and save money instead of giving it to Galen Weston. I enjoy walkability where it exists, but it doesn't exist everywhere for everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I don’t care about space used for parking in Elliott Lake, I don't disagree with you but lol at referencing Elliott Lake as an example of parking structures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I don't disagree with you but lol at referencing Elliott Lake as an example of parking structures. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
RBC posted:parking is not the reason housing prices are high, the reason is land costs, which are the single biggest factor in housing construction pricing, and guess why land is so expensive hmm strange i believe that more housing supply will fix this also by removing stairwells and parking spots, this will reduce the cost of construction, to which the noble and proud real estate developer will pass on the savings to the highest bidder edit: on a far less facetious note, we really should let developers determine their parking space amounts - they know the market best, and they really do want to try and sell units Hubbert fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
Lunitica posted:Also North America is different in terms of scale and population and infrastructure outside of major population centers. You will not get train service to whistler like you do to zermatt Ah there it is, right on cue. I think it's worth making clear that when people talk about this sort of thing, it's on the scale of individual big cities. Some of the 10,000 person towns could do it too but that's not really a priority. This is the kind of attitude that is pervasive, that because something isn't being done that it means it can't be done. Just repeating "we don't do that here" is not an argument. Like I said before, you start with solid policy over time to end up with big changes. Lunitica posted:$40k is nothing over the life of a building and an extra year of development is also worth it to build it imo. So you observe that public transit is slow and unreliable and your solution is that everyone must have access to a parking space, vehicle, and all the infrastructure that entails instead of improving public transit? Do you not think it is insane that you are drawing an equivalence between "equitable access to a middle class lifestyle" and "own a car with private parking"? It is ridiculous that our society requires that and we should fix it, not double-down on it even harder. Lunitica posted:Visitor parking is also a necessity for anyone who is remotely social. I lived in a building that had 1 spot per unit and it was a huge PITA. Everyone in the building wished there was more parking. Yet another example where the solution is staring you right in the face, better transit options, not "more car plz". When I lived in Vancouver our wider group of friends and acquaintances was 40+ people, very few of whom owned a car. Of the ones that did, they rarely drove them. We regularly had gatherings where no one had troubles showing up because of how excellent the Skytrain network is with a pretty good bus network to fill in the gaps. Some people need to own vehicles which is fine. What we need to work towards is cities where it is not NECESSARY to own a vehicle. Where we don't mandate parking minimums and continually widen roads and destroy streets because one more lane will fix the traffic. All I want is for problem solving and decision making to start somewhere else than "maybe...more car stuff?" by default.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
Underground parking costs a lot, even if you need to dig out a foundation anyway. There's a big difference between a functional foundation and a big hollow area with all the infrastructure needed for ingress and egress of cars and people. An 2012 analysis by a real estate and construction consultancy found that the average cost per underground spot among major US metro areas was $33,000. I doubt it's gotten cheaper since then. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345050861_The_High_Cost_of_Parking_Requirements Lunitica posted:Thats how I understood it. $40k a spot is fine amortized over the life of the structure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
Some local developers have been listing around 60-100k per spot now. Costs are way way up, and it depends on the site too. It also depends on the depth. So like the nearly at-grade "underground" parking you're putting into your sloped-lot might end up being 50k a spot, but the level below might be 75k, and the level below that 90k and so on. It also really depends on how much blasting you have to do and a million other factors. Also underground parking is an upkeep nightmare, very expensive. Leaks, cracks, you name it. It's a huge problem for stratas realizing just how expensive it really is when they suddenly need to drop 2 million to fix some cracking foundation wall and water issue on level P3. There's a massive market for low or no parking buildings. Don't force people to pay like an extra 80k on their unit if they don't need it. In places where parking minimums are eliminated, parking still gets built because builders know their customers and what they're willing to pay for. It's actually funny this thread reminds me of a lot of the boomers who come out to some public hearings for projects with low parking. You'll have a line of like 50 people waiting to speak to council, person after person saying how they don't have a car and would love to live here, how they could actually afford to buy a unit in this building due to not being forced to pay for the parking they don't need, how their family is already entirely bike based and love the project's bike room, how they already only drive a few times a month and use a car-share subscription and having 3 car share parking spots in the building will be great. Folks with disabilities excited about saving some money since they medically can't drive. Dozens of people like that getting up and speaking in support, then some random rear end boomer who's never exited outside of their tiny little suburban cultural bubble gets up to the podium and speaks with absolute authority that "There's absolutely no one that would benefit from a building with low parking, everyone needs a car, everyone drives, and this is just going to clog up the public street parking that I emotionally feel I own" Oh also when you don't force underground parking, quite often the building doesn't need to dig down at all. There's like a big 20ish story apartment tower going up in Victoria right now with no parking. There's no basement at all, the ground/lobby floor is the lowest. The whole thing is on piles. If you don't absolutely need a basement it's a huge huge savings to avoid it. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
Also don't forget that the pending "green" switch to electric cars is going to make parking spots even more expensive as electric cars are ~1000 lbs heavier and need charging stations to be useful. There are several big towers going up in Toronto now with hundreds of bike parking/storage units and maybe a few dozen or so car parking spots. The best part is this will keep adding pressure to improve active transport infrastructure and dismantle car supremacy. There's nothing like hundreds of car-free voters moving into your riding/ward to give carbrained policy a kick in the rear end. The argument that Canada is too unique of a snowflake to be able to move away from car dependency is abject nonsense. The vast majority of the population lives in urban and suburban areas where good transit can and should be built fairly affordably compared to the cost of maintaining or even expanding road infrastructure (e.g. the idiotic highway 413 in Ontario, Winnipeg apparently building so many roads they'll have no budrt for anything but maintenance in a few decades).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
I think the big cities should make permanent street parking passes cost $50+ a month. This is still well below the $100+ one would pay for a permanent reserved space in a covered lot. This would drive people to actually use their garages for cars instead of hoarding uses. The streets would be freed up for better uses. Then the city can take their 1/3rd of land reserved for roads, now less utilized, and slim down a few less used side blocks to build publicly owned housing. City of Vancouver had a thought about Thin Streets back in 2013 back when the housing crisis really started getting going, but it never went anywhere due to what else, NIMBYs. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-residents-reject-thin-streets-plan-1.1349417 https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2020/07/10/thin-streets-from-asphalt-to-affordable-housing/
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:This would drive people to actually use their garages for cars instead of hoarding uses. The streets would be freed up for better uses. This continues to blow my mind in a country with this much snow. My in-laws have NEVER parked their car in their two-car garage because it's too full of very neatly-tetrised detritus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This continues to blow my mind in a country with this much snow. My in-laws have NEVER parked their car in their two-car garage because it's too full of very neatly-tetrised detritus. I always thought we were bad about having too much stuff because we have clutter in our 800 sq foot house, but as we house hunt I'm actually astonished by how much poo poo people have. Like almost every house has a large storage room in the basement, on top of the mechanical room and laundry room being full of storage, on top of under the stairs being full of at the rage, on top of the garage being full of storage. And then literally not one but TWO backyard sheds again completely full. Plus an attic completely full of storage. The inspector for a place I recently looked at even noted that the attic of the garage was so full that the structure was unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
COPE 27 posted:I always thought we were bad about having too much stuff because we have clutter in our 800 sq foot house, but as we house hunt I'm actually astonished by how much poo poo people have. Like almost every house has a large storage room in the basement, on top of the mechanical room and laundry room being full of storage, on top of under the stairs being full of at the rage, on top of the garage being full of storage. And then literally not one but TWO backyard sheds again completely full. Plus an attic completely full of storage. The inspector for a place I recently looked at even noted that the attic of the garage was so full that the structure was unsafe. Lol yeah seeing inside strangers' houses while househunting was eye-opening. We looked at a place where literally the entire basement was filled with boxes of poo poo, including literally touching the furnace. Extremely yikes. As somebody who has moved like 12 times in my life, I can't even imagine what could be in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 20:06
|
|
|
COPE 27 posted:I always thought we were bad about having too much stuff because we have clutter in our 800 sq foot house, but as we house hunt I'm actually astonished by how much poo poo people have. Like almost every house has a large storage room in the basement, on top of the mechanical room and laundry room being full of storage, on top of under the stairs being full of at the rage, on top of the garage being full of storage. And then literally not one but TWO backyard sheds again completely full. Plus an attic completely full of storage. The inspector for a place I recently looked at even noted that the attic of the garage was so full that the structure was unsafe. Boomers are nuts. I watch auctions, and in the estate sales each boomer has 12 full sets of dishes, 2 pianos, 8 armoires, 3280 decorative plates, 6 TV stands for CRT TVs, and a 40 foot shipping container of random porcelain nick-nacks. And so, so many un-opened small appliances from the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
My family has young kids and hobbies that necessarily involve clutter (miniature and board gaming, all sorts of outdoorsy stuff, sewing, musical instruments) but we're still one of the few people on our street that actually use their garage for cars. At our last place I'm pretty sure we were the only ones. I've never owned a house and move every 3 years on average though which mostly helps cut down on stupid clutter, I guess. Mostly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 23:33
|
|
