[EtoV]

Yeah that article is absolutely awful. "Let's give you everyone's position on infill, but first here's a one sided sob storey about how awful infill is".

I mean, the author calls the multiplexes "apartments", not exactly a secret what the author thinks of infill.

 

[thommyjo]

Cartmell is proposing to establish parking requirements of 0.5-0.75 a unit as part of his infill policy.

Jaffer says 1 per unit.

I think another solution is paid permits for street parking. Cause anything above .5 for 8plexes is impossible and essentially eliminates their possibility to exist.

But 4 garage spots, plus street permits if needed by basement renters makes sense.

The challenge is there are homes, like 2 streets over from me, where it’s a SFH, 2 car garage, 2 driveway spots too. Guy has an RV and 2-3 cars on the street at all times. How is that being regulated?

 

[EtoV]

Cause anything above .5 for 8plexes is impossible and essentially eliminates their possibility to exist.

Which is probably completely intentional to be honest.

You get to essentially ban density, while denying you're doing so, and saying things like "I support density everywhere, as long as its done right"

 

[policyenthusiast]

Cartmell is proposing to establish parking requirements of 0.5-0.75 a unit as part of his infill policy.

Jaffer says 1 per unit.

The current average parking spots per unit (in new builds) with open option is already above 0.5.

 

[kcantor]

The current average parking spots per unit (in new builds) with open option is already above 0.5.

It doesn’t help that the average is above 0.5 when you’re living next to those that have none.

 

[policyenthusiast]

It doesn’t help that the average is above 0.5 when you’re living next to those that have none.

That's what I'm saying. Mandating 0.5 wouldn't make a difference.

 

[ededed]

The people moving into these infills are aware of the parking situation already.
Every single neighbor next to these infills have existing alleyways and garages to park in.
What exactly is the issue?

 

[thommyjo]

The people moving into these infills are aware of the parking situation already.
Every single neighbor next to these infills have existing alleyways and garages to park in.
What exactly is the issue?

If I’m to be charitable and nuanced, I think the challenge is less about permanent car storage for existing residents. They aren’t entitled to it. But it’s moreso the risk of guests not being able to park in the future.

And for many neighborhoods it’s like, go park a block away, you’ll be fine.

But in certain areas it will start to become very challenging. If you have elderly parents/grandparents wanting to come visit the grandkids, a 2 block walk in January is definitely a nuisance. Especially when you can’t control if neighbours shovel. And when you may have bought before all these changes, the pace of change is dramatic. Lots of people might not choose to buy somewhere the street is always 100% full (like parts of Strathcona), but now that’s their reality. Or if you want to have 5-10 cars worth of people over, that might mean people parking multiple blocks away.

Again, that’s being charitable. No one is entitled to visitor parking. But I’d make the argument that in non urban parts of our city where transit isn’t great, there’s a social health component to ensuring people can visit each other easily.

I have 0 empathy for resident parking. But I think more empathy for the idea of visitors.

It’s also easier to tell a resident to build a garage, driveway, etc for their personal vehicles if they need them. But we don’t want people suddenly feeling like they have to pave over their yards to have 1-2 parking spots for guests (this is a real thing in Toronto…).

Paid street permits feels most equitable. If you paid to build a garage, the basement suite infill renter should have to pay to park their car too.

 

[kcantor]

That's what I'm saying. Mandating 0.5 wouldn't make a difference.

???
Mandating 0.5 would make a big difference when the current average you're noting includes projects with none.

It's also worth noting that it's not just the provision of a minimum number of parking stalls that would make a difference,, it's the fact those stalls have to provided in addition to garbage and comopostable bin storage and recycling bin access requirements (i.e. you can't park in the 30 degree pickup approach. In combination, these would all provide a much deeper rear yard setback from the lane, the loss of which is a big part of the current objections to buildable form.

 

[David A]

I feel in this debate common sense sometimes goes out the window. There are areas located near to amenities and services and/or with good transit service that probably don't need much if any parking.

There are other areas that do need some parking, but perhaps not a lot, so the 0.5 seems to make some sense. Current residents do not want cars from new residents semi-permanently in front of their houses making it very difficult for their visitors and deliveries.

 

[Gronk!]

Neighbours using restrictive covenants to try to limit infill development

One way that’s gaining traction sees homeowners band together to establish a restrictive covenant on their properties. Such an agreement can be signed by two or more property owners to restrict redevelopment on their land, from how a new building looks to how big it can be.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[BrettB]

I'm having a hard time understanding why property owners are trying their own hands. I suppose over time the properties that are surrounded by these covenants (though not those on the edges) become more and more exclusive over time. But it seems to me all you need is one owner in the centre not to sign on and the whole scheme falls apart.

 

[kcantor]

I feel in this debate common sense sometimes goes out the window. There are areas located near to amenities and services and/or with good transit service that probably don't need much if any parking.

There are other areas that do need some parking, but perhaps not a lot, so the 0.5 seems to make some sense. Current residents do not want cars from new residents semi-permanently in front of their houses making it very difficult for their visitors and deliveries.

Then perhaps those areas that might be deemed as not needing much if any parking should be zoned differently instead of trading every lot anywhere in the city the same way?

 

[Markyeg]

It seems bonkers that somebody would put a restrictive covenant on their own property.

Maybe I’m just selfish, but if I was selling my property and a builder was offering a higher purchase price so they could build two skinnies or a four-plex vs someone just buying the property as is I would take it the higher bid and let them rebuild on my lot.

 

[David A]

It seems bonkers that somebody would put a restrictive covenant on their own property.

Maybe I’m just selfish, but if I was selling my property and a builder was offering a higher purchase price so they could build two skinnies or a four-plex vs someone just buying the property as is I would take it the higher bid and let them rebuild on my lot.

It probably stems from a strong sense of community that those who do not live in these areas do not understand or appreciate.

Unfortunately, when rules are abandoned or loosened some of the people who rush in to build don't always create quality products that fit in with the area as well as they should. This leads to the sort of push back we are seeing, which will probably be resolved in the upcoming civic election by electing a council that takes a bit different approach than the current one on this issue.