parking has been an issue from the start of the project. Im surprised they still havent figured it out.... especially with all the delays in getting this tower off the ground
 
For the city claiming to want to go green, why would they make parking a requirement? You would think it would be the opposite. What's the reasoning behind that? And why force condos to have amenity space, if people don't want it?
 
I think its more from the developer side. They don't think that they can sell units with out parking, specially the two bedrooms ones. the city will be happy with no parking at all.
 
It's good to have some controls as Toronto is such an amazing city that developers can successfully do whatever they want regardless of what the market demands.

That depands though if you see a 350 unit studio building with no parking as setting a bad precedent.
 
It'd be nice if city policies on stuff like parking and amenities requirements were more flexible, but an extreme case of no parking will not nudge them in this direction.
 
In the next 5 years, you are going to see some projects downtown only offering 0 parking, just like NY.
 
In the next 5 years, you are going to see some projects downtown only offering 0 parking, just like NY.
Click to expand...

Urban NYC was built during a different era and still suffers greatly from the lack of sufficient parking/storage. I just don't see any residential project with more than 20 units getting built without parking in Toronto.

The minimum requirements are outdated but it's not as if the city isn't open to allowing less for a price and/or study.
 
Last edited:
Bob said:
I think its more from the developer side. They don't think that they can sell units with out parking, specially the two bedrooms ones. the city will be happy with no parking at all.
Click to expand...

I worked for a developer. If it was up to the developers, many more would build without meeting parking requirements. The city is the only thing holding them back.
 
this is some less than promising update: :(

out of curiosity I called The L Tower sales office to inquire on where things stood and spoke with the sales person (Tony French ... LOL he had a British accent :p) ...

after the boot's toe was chopped, L Tower released a series of new suites on the lowest 12 floors of the building couple months ago, however as it stands today they have been "holding off sales" until the builder makes an announcement re: construction start timing in a 'couple weeks' ... i think that is as un-eventful as one can get ~

when inquiring about existing purchaser's reaction to L Tower loosing its 'boot' design, Tony gives me a different story this time ... rather than telling me purchasers did not mind the change and very few people wanted to cancel their deal (that's what I was told last time), Tony tells me that the exterior redesign of The L Tower did not qualify as a 'material change' because the suite interiors are the same :mad:

I frankly disagree because there will now be more suites in the building, and the building exterior has SUBSTANTIALLY been changed ... I'm pretty sure that at Beyond the Sea, when Empire added the 3rd tower (Star Tower), purchasers in Towers 1+2 were given an option to cancel because IT WAS a material change in the unit composition of the complex ... how is that any different than The L Tower ??
 
Thanks for doing that research Solaris, though the results don't really make us jump for joy. I'd say that the loss of 'The Boot' constitutes a material change - would the loss of half a foot constitute a change in your life? I think however, that because they can write the 'change' off to the loss of the arts component, they merely have to replace it in some way for everything to still be valid.
 
The curved top makes no sense to me with the loss of the curved bottom. If they're going go angular at the base, they should go angular at the roof-line.

It's as though Libeskind just wanted to be done with the thing, chopped off the foot as instructed, made a few token gestures, and walked. Maybe he just wasn't paid enough to revisit the design in a more meaningful way.
 
maestro said:
Urban NYC was built during a different era and still suffers greatly from the lack of sufficient parking/storage. I just don't see any residential project with more than 20 units getting built without parking in Toronto.

The minimum requirements are outdated but it's not as if the city isn't open to allowing less for a price and/or study.
Click to expand...

'...suffers greatly....' that is certainly a matter of opinion, they have a perfectly good subway system to get around, and taxi's. Why do they need parking. I tried not owning a car here and it has been three years now. Would be even better with a more extensive transit system. London England another great example. Very little parking but what do you need parking for in London.
 
Homer said:
'...suffers greatly....' that is certainly a matter of opinion, they have a perfectly good subway system to get around, and taxi's. Why do they need parking. I tried not owning a car here and it has been three years now. Would be even better with a more extensive transit system. London England another great example. Very little parking but what do you need parking for in London.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Both New York and London have a wonderful and extensive transit system.
We don't. Sadly, this is Toronto.
A bare bones underfunded transit system = a need for a car = a need for a parking spot = reality.
All the green preaching in the the world will not create the utopian city we wish for. Perhaps someday it will come about, though I doubt I will see it in my lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top