[casaguy]

Question: Why does this building have so much parking? I think about 5 levels below grade and 5 above. Will some of it be public parking? Thanks.

There are 4 parking levels below and 4 above ground. (Although I don't think there will be room to park too many cars on the ground floor behind the lobby). Keep in mind there are well over 400 units in this building. I don't know of any plans for there to be public pay parking here. I doubt owners would want this. There are always plenty of empty pay parking spots at the Green P across the street.

 

[cdr108]

There are 4 parking levels below and 4 above ground. (Although I don't think there will be room to park too many cars on the ground floor behind the lobby). Keep in mind there are well over 400 units in this building. I don't know of any plans for there to be public pay parking here. I doubt owners would want this. There are always plenty of empty pay parking spots at the Green P across the street.

I wonder if the above ground parking has to do with the Yonge subway running nearby; or maybe a stream/river running underneath the property?

 

[waterscapes-guy]

parking

There are 4 parking levels below and 4 above ground. (Although I don't think there will be room to park too many cars on the ground floor behind the lobby). Keep in mind there are well over 400 units in this building. I don't know of any plans for there to be public pay parking here. I doubt owners would want this. There are always plenty of empty pay parking spots at the Green P across the street.

I seem to remember reading some deal with the Childrens Aid shared parking behind. Are the underground garages supposed to be linked somehow? Ingress from one street and egress from the other? There was supposed to be overnight parking only in those spots but freeing them up during the day for the workers. Does that ring a bell?

 

[ProjectEnd]

From today.

 

[waterscapes-guy]

Photos Feb 18th

Here are a few poor quality shots from my cell phone and in the rain.

 

[jmacmillan]

North: a five-storey parking facility...

The underground garages for the office and residential buildings would be connected at the first level to allow for shared parking between the two buildings.

In response to the comments from the Commissioner, a supplementary parking study was completed in December 2003 by iTrans Consulting to support the position of the applicant that a reduced parking standard should be applied to this development given its proximity to the subway among other considerations. The applicant proposes a total of 454 parking spaces, 180 of which will be owned by the CAST [Childrens Aid Society of Toronto] and 274 of which will be owned by the residential building owner. A unique feature proposed by the applicant is that 80 of the spaces will be used by both buildings. During the day the 80 spaces will be used by the CAST, and during the evening the spaces will be used by the residential building for visitor parking.

This revised submission by the applicant, for a total of 454 parking spaces, with 80 shared between the two buildings was submitted to the Commissioner on January 5, 2004 and is still under review by the Commissioner. A further report submitted directly to City Council will be required to conclude this matter.

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/33_charles_it002.pdf

 

[waterscapes-guy]

parking

North: a five-storey parking facility...

The underground garages for the office and residential buildings would be connected at the first level to allow for shared parking between the two buildings.

In response to the comments from the Commissioner, a supplementary parking study was completed in December 2003 by iTrans Consulting to support the position of the applicant that a reduced parking standard should be applied to this development given its proximity to the subway among other considerations. The applicant proposes a total of 454 parking spaces, 180 of which will be owned by the CAST [Childrens Aid Society of Toronto] and 274 of which will be owned by the residential building owner. A unique feature proposed by the applicant is that 80 of the spaces will be used by both buildings. During the day the 80 spaces will be used by the CAST, and during the evening the spaces will be used by the residential building for visitor parking.

This revised submission by the applicant, for a total of 454 parking spaces, with 80 shared between the two buildings was submitted to the Commissioner on January 5, 2004 and is still under review by the Commissioner. A further report submitted directly to City Council will be required to conclude this matter.

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/33_charles_it002.pdf

That sounds familiar. Thanks for the detailed response.

 

[casaguy]

jmacmillan and waterscapes-guy, you are absolutely correct. I forgot all about this aspect.

I'm looking through the legal documents I received for 33 Charles (from 3-4 years ago) and there is indeed a "Shared Facilities and Easement Agreement" between 33 Charles and CAST.

Some highlights from the legalese:

-P1 levels of both structures will be connected.

-drivers who park in either building can exit/enter to/from either Charles or Isabella

-P1 of CAST has approx 72 parking spaces, 4 of which are available to the condo


Also, looking at the drawings for the ground floor of Casa, there will be only 11 parking spaces along the south wall.

 

[schow]

Parking

If I recall correctly, the water table is pretty high under that site, which they got around by accommodating parking in the podium. That and most residential developers want to minimise the number of parking spaces they need to provide since they don't make any profit off it. I also think a knock-out panel was incorporated into the CAS parking facility in order to share visitor parking with the condo if need be.

 

[dventura]

That's just another load of bullshit developers will tell you that they don't many any money on parking. They have to use that space for something and theyre not gonna sell units below ground or fill it up with amenities. That's something that obviously applied years ago when your parking was included with your unit and then the sales people just obviously got so used to saying it once they started charging you. If they wanted to they could easily charge $5000 more per spot too and probably sell them...$5000x50 spots on a floor = $125K, is that not profit? Well right now 1t 35K per spot that means they're bringing in almost $1 million per floor of space they otherwise wouldn't get anything for and has to be there....so I don't know how they calculate they're not making any money on it.

 

[schow]

While that's certainly a logical bit of reasoning, and I'm sure that someone somewhere is pocketing the profit, I can assure you that the rule of thumb for constructing underground parking was $35,000 per parking space as early as 4 years ago. Its one of the many constraints that the City has been grappling with in terms of promoting lower yielding mid-rise buildings. This might interest you http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrise_workshop3.htm.

That's just another load of bullshit developers will tell you that they don't many any money on parking. They have to use that space for something and theyre not gonna sell units below ground or fill it up with amenities. That's something that obviously applied years ago when your parking was included with your unit and then the sales people just obviously got so used to saying it once they started charging you. If they wanted to they could easily charge $5000 more per spot too and probably sell them...$5000x50 spots on a floor = $125K, is that not profit? Well right now 1t 35K per spot that means they're bringing in almost $1 million per floor of space they otherwise wouldn't get anything for and has to be there....so I don't know how they calculate they're not making any money on it.

 

[dventura]

I don't disagree on them selling the spots at their cost price. But isn't 4 levels of underground a neccessity to support a high rise? So the cost of it should be factored into the overall cost of the building. It's like going to a nice restaurant and having a $2 table cloth charge at the end of your bill and then being told that they're not making a profit on that.

 

[schow]

Yep, you're right. But I have a long and drawn out qualification again. I think this site is a bit more restrictive than typical and the $35,000 rule of thumb would probably be low-balling the cost of parking in this case.

Generally speaking, the minimum number of parking spaces needed to satisfy the City's traffic certification requirements would dictate the number of spaces provided. A transportation study justifying the suitability of the proposed number of parking spaces would have been submitted by the developer for the City's review and approval.

Four 'special' factors would affect parking requirements on this this site: 1) its Downtown so lower parking standards apply as-of-right in the Zoning; 2) its well served by transit so an even lower site-specific Zoning amendment would be considered by the City, if requested; 3) its a point-tower on a small lot so any structured parking plate would be relatively inefficient (and therefore more expensive than the rule of thumb) and 4) the depth of the building is affected by the high-water table which would make additional underground parking levels nearly impossible to approve.

While I'm sure that any developer worth their salt definitely makes a healthy profit, the cost of development in general is increasing. The simple fact of the matter is that the increasing difficulty of land assembly and the highly drawn out regulatory process in Toronto makes development a long and expensive process. In short, developers still need to worry about how affordable their products are in terms of their target market. They didn't absorb the entire cost of parking when it was costed into the unit, and they certainly aren't absorbing the entire cost now that its often unbundled. That said, there's always the matter of anti-competitive practices going on in the larger construction and development industry, so someone is pocketing a fair bit of change.

Sorry for the essay.

I don't disagree on them selling the spots at their cost price. But isn't 4 levels of underground a neccessity to support a high rise? So the cost of it should be factored into the overall cost of the building. It's like going to a nice restaurant and having a $2 table cloth charge at the end of your bill and then being told that they're not making a profit on that.

 

[Mike in TO]

That's just another load of bullshit developers will tell you that they don't many any money on parking. They have to use that space for something and theyre not gonna sell units below ground or fill it up with amenities. That's something that obviously applied years ago when your parking was included with your unit and then the sales people just obviously got so used to saying it once they started charging you. If they wanted to they could easily charge $5000 more per spot too and probably sell them...$5000x50 spots on a floor = $125K, is that not profit? Well right now 1t 35K per spot that means they're bringing in almost $1 million per floor of space they otherwise wouldn't get anything for and has to be there....so I don't know how they calculate they're not making any money on it.

Most new buildings are generally not making profit on parking, which is why many in the development industry are advocating for the elimination or the reduction of mandatory parking requirements. In many buildings the parking facilities are often constructed at a loss and the cost is absorbed into the unit costs which lowers affordability. The cost of excavation and shoring, especially on sites where water is an issue (i.e. waterfront sites or others such as the Murano where the water table is high or there are underground water pathways). Also soil conditions and the permeability of the soil can have a significant impact on cost. The deeper one goes the costs rise exponentially per floor (yet costs per spot are usually the same) - in deeper excavations where bedrock is a factor costs are astronomical - and even if it isn't most developers are taking in some cases a significant loss on what the returns for parking spaces would be. Even at $25,000 a spot - it does not cover the hard and soft costs associated with underground parking, unless it's a shallow excavation in nearly ideal conditions. Downtown excavations in tight sites that go down several floors have the costs spread out and factored into the unit costs as the price per space generally won't cover the parking facilities.

As far as your suggestion that it's a "load of bullshit" that developers tell you that they don't make any money on parking - I gather that you don't actually have any idea whatsoever what the actual costs are (You're math suggested a whooping $1 million per floor of excavation at a fairly high per spot price of $35k - which wouldn't come close to covering the costs in many developments with deep excavation across the city). And they don't have to use the space for "something" - the foundations for most new towers don't actually have to go that deep to support the tower - in most soil conditions a single or couple floors with a solid core and anchoring is all that's needed. However most excavations in the city range from 3 to 5 floors with some such as the Shangri-La pushing 8 floors into the bedrock.

Some decisions to go that deep are a business decision to take a loss on the parking to support the target market for the rest of the buildings parking. In many other cases minimum parking requirements are secured by the municipality through the planning process. In some cases many of these spaces are never sold and those costs are absorbed by the developer and in other cases the municipality will grant a minor variance to reduce unsold parking.... you'd be surprised how many buildings across the city have vastly underused parking facilities - a case of overbuilding due to municipal requirements (or poor planning on the developers part) - which comes at a high cost for the developer - and those costs are passed onto the consumer, which lowers the affordability of housing for the rest of us.

 

[androiduk]

I don't understand the city's position on parking requirements for highrises. It looks like their policies are almost encouraging car ownership. Especially in the core where public transit, Zipcar & Autoshare are readily available, their policy seems like a backward step.