picard102
Senior Member
It's a fairytale to think that no one should own a car. Of course they need parking.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
It's a fairytale to think that no one should own a car. Of course they need parking.
ttk77
Senior Member
KWT is just doing her job, looking out for the present and future residents of her ward and trying to address their concerns. These are all questions that need to be asked, even if the answer in the end is to mutually agree that they don't need to be addressed.
dowlingm
Senior Member
So CF writes a bigger S37 cheque and that's that?
wolfewood
Active Member
Ramako, I'm not sure that Bixi will come into play here: that makes more sense to me where a project is being built along the edge of the current coverage. Developers like to be able to say that they've contributed to something close by where they're building. Setting aside some units for affordable rent will very likely play a good part of the negotiations though.
In regards to outdoor amenity space I wonder if the current top floor of the Yonge Parkade could support a park deck being built above it. I asked about residents being able to rent spots in the Yonge Parkade. Cadillac neither ruled it out nor confirmed it would be possible. In the end, I don't think parking is make or break here either.
With the heritage façade defining the sidewalk width now, the only way to get more sidewalk space would be to rebuild Yonge with fewer lanes, a project that should be explored on a grander scale of course. Because of the streetcars, getting more space on Queen won't happen unless that street is closed to other traffic, again something that will only happen in light of a much larger study.
Another thing mentioned at the meeting that is, to my mind, a complete red herring, is pressure that this building would put on the Yonge subway. Puh-lease. Anyone getting on the subway here is more likely to head in the opposite direction of the bulk of the traffic at any given time. Anyone working downtown will simply walk between the home and office. 'Nuff said.
Like others are saying, not at all. Everywhere that this building is outside of zoning (or precedents set by OMB decisions) is on the table for negotiations. It happens all the time.
42
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Khristopher - I meant attractive to potential rental development proponents.
khris
Senior Member
The building does not need parking. To be arguing that it should include parking makes no sense. It's connected to the subway directly. It will have a space for a bike for each unit. There are lots of buildings with parking that people can choose from.
There are City requirements for number of parking spaces per unit. If a developer wants to build less than what is required, then it's a point upon which the City can either build a case for rejection of the application, or upon which negotiation for mitigating benefits can occur.
I may happen to agree with you that this building should not be required to have the standard amount of parking, and KWT may agree too, who knows, but it's not her job to give the developer everything they want without extracting some benefits for the city (that's for you and me) first. Anyway, if you do just say 'yes' to everything a developer wants, then you set a precedent for granting the same permissions to other developers. The negotiations are all part of the process.
42
picard102
Senior Member
It doesn't not need it either. What is the city going to lose by making them have some parking?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
How would you even integrate parking here? It's not like there is a spot to stick a garage entrance. I really have no qualms about this development. Take the section 37 funds and rebuild Yonge street or make improvements to Queen station, and move on.
picard102
Senior Member
They own several access points into the surrounding building, and have a few large parking lots as well at their disposal.
I have added four high-res detail shots to the dataBase file if you want to get a better look at the components of the building's exterior as proposed at the moment.
42
42
rdaner
Senior Member
There are several precedents now for residential buildings in the core that do not have parking. I wonder if the developer would have cause to go to the OMB if forced (most likely by bureaucrats and/or interest groups that live outside the central area) to have provisions for something that is needlessly driving (couldn't resist) up costs.
I know that one other building without parking has been approved (and is under construction): Residences of the RCMI. I believe that City Council only approved it as an experiment, but I don't know how the success of the experiment will be measured, nor when. Anyone know?
There have been other buildings proposed to have zero parking. Have any others been approved?
42
There have been other buildings proposed to have zero parking. Have any others been approved?
42
verticalvillage
Active Member
Models of 2 Queen West that I saw in the Ziedler office during doors open 2013. Such a shame were a left with a box, and not with on of these awesome designs.
Any planner who thinks a 60 storey apartment building in the middle of the downtown core within a minute's walk of a huge subway system NEEDS PARKING has sunk far below my contempt.
Toronto deserves more than these small-minded exposers of official mediocrity.
Any planner who thinks a 60 storey apartment building in the middle of the downtown core within a minute's walk of a huge subway system NEEDS PARKING has sunk far below my contempt.
Toronto deserves more than these small-minded exposers of official mediocrity.
