Visitors parking is important for visits from family and friends, who often come in a car full of people. When a car is full, road space is being used relatively efficiently.
 
At the end of the day there's something called demand and supply and no matter what *passive* bylaws are passed they don't effect this. The fact is the developer can sell 1 bedrooms a lot faster and likely a lot easier then two bedroom units, if you stop and think about this, this project has been in sales for quite sometime now (due to various reasons, many not in it's control) if the two bedrooms were going to sell they would have already done so by now ... if the city wants two bedrooms to sell they likely need to enforce price restrictions on those units - mandating there needs to be a certain number of 2 / 3 bedrooms units accomplishes nothing at all.

In terms of bicycle parking the city has new bylaws regarding this, if they're trying to reduce to an amount less then the minimum it shouldn't be allowed! as simple as that - if they minimum amount is too small already it should be increased!

In regards to the minor variance I thought all of this was in relation to the destruction of the L component and hence the new I tower ... or is this more changes on top of that as well?
 
khristopher said:
There's also something called urban planning.
Click to expand...

How so? We can wish / beg and plead with people to live downtown - and quite a few families do by the way - but how exactly can we make it appealing to the masses? Also don't forget Toronto already had more people (and with that families) living around the downtown core then many other cities in North America. Anyway, in terms of attracting people, for quite some time I think a huge segment of the population is going to want the 3+ bedroom house (with two kids) and a yard ... I think this will change but not in the short term. That's not to say there's nothing that can be done, I'm sure there are quite a few others that'd love to live dontown, and are OK living in condo's but the pricing makes it completely impossible.

But again, how does forcing developers to build larger units accomplish anything.

I guess you can argue, if they're forced, and can't sell, that'll naturally bring down the prices of 2+ bedroom units and in a way would accomplish what you desire.
 
mckarisma said:
I agree with you about everything there except the increasing of visitor parking. Personally, I think it is best to not give any encouragement for people to drive more instead of walk/bike/TTC, especially in the downtown next to Union Station.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with that too, but since they are cutting the number of bicycle parking, it's basically a joke.
 
Any chance this variance would get turned down by the City or is this just a foregone conclusion?
 
You must keep in mind that parking must be allotted for residents of L Tower, 5-7 The Esplanade, and public parking for commercial space in the podium of 5-7. Before going after the developer, look at what the city requires. Perhaps they had to decrease visitor parking and bicycle spaces to allow for more residential and commercial? Realistically, none of us know the exact situation the developer and city planners are dealing with. My advice to the critics: have another look at the date and time on the sign and attend the meeting at the city...things may not always be what they seem.
 
What is visitor parking anyways? My building has no visitor parking. If someone wants to drive to my place they have to park on the street or in a pay garage like everybody else. Is there not a giant TPA garage across the street from here?
 
junctionist said:
Visitors parking is important for visits from family and friends, who often come in a car full of people. When a car is full, road space is being used relatively efficiently.
Click to expand...
And that's why it's cheaper to park one car at the Green P than it is to buy 4 transit fares.
 
junctionist said:
I'll still take free visitor's parking. Having visitor's parking means that more Green P lots can be redeveloped one day.
Click to expand...

Depending on depth, soil conditions and the level of the water table each additional parking spot can cost upwards of $30,000 even $40,000. Nothing in life is free, the visitors parking costs are spread among the units and the maintenance and taxation of those spaces is paid by the unit holders through their condo fees once the building is registered.

khristopher said:
There's also something called urban planning.
Click to expand...

Currently the city holds no legal jurisdiction with respect to unit mix and sizes, some councilors (i.e. Adam Vaughan) operate in a grey area whereby unit mix and sizes are negotiated for other trade-offs… but at the end of the day if developers can’t sell three bedroom units it doesn’t matter how many the city requires, the end result is:

  1. developer charges remaining buyers in the smaller units more to cover the shortfall (making the rest of the buyers subsidize the three bedroom units);
  2. Some projects don’t get built because they are not profitable, which further constrains supply

taal said:
I guess you can argue, if they're forced, and can't sell, that'll naturally bring down the prices of 2+ bedroom units and in a way would accomplish what you desire.
Click to expand...

Referring to my previous comment’s in response to Khristopher, if developers are unable to sell units they will either have to subsidize the larger units by increasing the prices on the remaining units or if projects aren’t viable, they don’t proceed, which limits supply and would put upward pressure on prices.

Red Mars said:
Changes should be barred once a building has been largely presold. Now that we have your money were going to give you what we wanted to in the first place. If the buyers cant pull out of the deal without a penalty, its just another scam.
Click to expand...

Buyer can back out of deals if there is a substantial change impacting the purchase and sale agreements – parking for cars & bikes are minor variances and the unit mix depends on market circumstances and absorption rates – unit mixes and designs change all the time and flexibility is required by both developers and consumers for new projects advance from concept, planning, sales & marketing to the actual tending of the contracts. The Artslab issue is unfortunate, but it really has little to do with the condo development (the condo corp & arts space was to operate independently had it been built) – it was to be substantially publically funded and governments failed to pony up the cash. It was my understanding the purchase & sale agreements contained some kind of out clause or noted the artslab was separate from the condo. You’ve suggested some kind of ‘scam’, I’d suggest that circumstances changed drastically once the artslab fell through (circumstances beyond the control of the developer) and that changes had to be made to make to project economically viable and prevent the outright cancellation of the project.
 
Mike in TO said:
Currently the city holds no legal jurisdiction with respect to unit mix and sizes, some councilors (i.e. Adam Vaughan) operate in a grey area whereby unit mix and sizes are negotiated for other trade-offs… but at the end of the day if developers can’t sell three bedroom units it doesn’t matter how many the city requires, the end result is:

  1. developer charges remaining buyers in the smaller units more to cover the shortfall (making the rest of the buyers subsidize the three bedroom units);
  2. Some projects don’t get built because they are not profitable, which further constrains supply
Click to expand...
Is this true of penthouses too? Developers make big penthouses voluntarily, and they're the last units to sell. Are the other buyers subsidizing this?
 
kettal said:
Is this true of penthouses too? Developers make big penthouses voluntarily, and they're the last units to sell. Are the other buyers subsidizing this?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are being facetious or serious (internet forums don't communicate sarcasm well)... The $psf for penthouses are typically much higher then the other units. Penthouses also differ substantially from project to project where some really are the over-the-top penthouses depicted in hollywood films, while other buildings just have slightly larger units. The point being the city doesn't regulate the sizes or the prices and the developer will bring what they can sell to the market - penthouses being a very very small portion of that market (and a portion which obviously isn't being subsidized by the other units).
 
Mike in TO said:
Referring to my previous comment’s in response to Khristopher, if developers are unable to sell units they will either have to subsidize the larger units by increasing the prices on the remaining units or if projects aren’t viable, they don’t proceed, which limits supply and would put upward pressure on prices.
Click to expand...

Question for you then, being familiar with the developer's side, from a business point of view: How can the city achieve what it wants here (which is pretty clear) - or are you simply going to argue it's not possible if the demand isn't there. Again, the driving force behind this is that there are families who want to live in and around the downtown core (2/3+ bedrooms) but just can't afford the high prices. If this isn't true i.e. this hypothetical family doesn't exist and the demand isn't there no matter the price then this is all mute ... but assume it does, can anything be done?
 
^ Well anything is possible but there are always different trade offs and sometimes unintended consequences when trying to balance different public policy objectives. If changes were made to the Planning Act or City of Toronto Act, the city could implement inclusionary zoning policies which would essentially 'force' developers to build family sized units and/or affordable units. The public policy trade off would be that the remaining supply of 'market' units would have higher prices levied in order to subsidize the lower cost and/or larger units (cross subsidization). So certain city objectives would be achieved, but on the other hand the cost of housing for the majority of people would go up. There are other methods the city could achieve larger/lower cost units, but that may come at taxpayers expenses if there is a direct subsidy or if certain taxes, fees and charges were exempted to reduce the sticker price for buyers of larger units (also this would have to be closely monitored so wealthy buyers of penthouses etc don't benefit from a policy directed towards families). A quicker approvals in which more certainty was provided could reduce processing & carrying costs (i.e. as-of-right zoning), but the trade off may be less public participation or municipal control of the planning process - so again there are trade-offs. Tax increment financing could be utilized, but that's a tool generally used for brownfields or infrastructure investment. The city could waive section 37s or focus section 37s on affordable housing, but the trade off is less money for other community benefits that sec 37s fund. Or the city could take on a more direct role in housing investment, but that would once again impact the tax base or other municipal assets.... It's a complex issue with no easy answers, and any solutions are often the result of trade-offs which may impact other municipal (or provincial or federal) objectives.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top