I mean what do you expect in this location? Transit isn't exactly excellent.

1:1 is pretty standard for the 905 still outside of a few select locations (Downtown Hamilton, VMC, maybe Richmond Hill close to the Yonge Subway Extension).

I mean Mississauga basically uses parking minimums as a density control in MCC - which has no maximum heights or densities but has a strictly enforced parking rate around 1.0 per unit.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Almost 1 for 1 parking (more if you include visitors). Markham is out to lunch.
Click to expand...

Beyond taking VIVA to connect with GO during rush hours, there really isn't enough service (sadly) for most people to go car-free in Markham. Even getting couples down to a single car is still progress in local terms these days.
 
Walk, bike, car pool...surely that would take it below the need for 1:1 though.
 
A modal shift will never happen if Markham and York continue to prioritize cars through 1:1 unit to parking space requirements, and legendarily infrequent bus service at the same time. The City and Region need a program to decrease the one and increase the other as new developments come forward.

42
 
interchange42 said:
A modal shift will never happen if Markham and York continue to prioritize cars through 1:1 unit to parking space requirements, and legendarily infrequent bus service at the same time. The City and Region need a program to decrease the one and increase the other as new developments come forward.

42
Click to expand...
It is indeed a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but I generally believe you need to get the bus service going first and then you can reduce parking provisions. Until York Region actually starts running buses, that isn't going to change. The only reason the lower parking requirements work in the few 905 areas that have them is because they are located in areas with excellent transit and walkability. Downtown Hamilton has excellent amenities in walking distance and very frequent bus and GO train service pretty much anywhere in the city, VMC has a subway coming every 3 minutes connecting to many key destinations, and Richmond Hill has a future subway planned and actual high frequency bus service with VIVA blue.

Until that happens, reducing parking provisions is just going to hurt marketability and cause overflow parking issues on surrounding streets.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It is indeed a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but I generally believe you need to get the bus service going first and then you can reduce parking provisions. Until York Region actually starts running buses, that isn't going to change. The only reason the lower parking requirements work in the few 905 areas that have them is because they are located in areas with excellent transit and walkability. Downtown Hamilton has excellent amenities in walking distance and very frequent bus and GO train service pretty much anywhere in the city, VMC has a subway coming every 3 minutes connecting to many key destinations, and Richmond Hill has a future subway planned and actual high frequency bus service with VIVA blue.

Until that happens, reducing parking provisions is just going to hurt marketability and cause overflow parking issues on surrounding streets.
Click to expand...

I'll grant the chicken and egg element; and sponsor that YRT needs considerably improved service; that said, this particular development will be served (shortly) by 2WAD, 15M service via the Stouffville GO Corridor; and VIVA service on 7, while not great isn't horrific.

One of the challenges in the chicken and egg scenario is that you need voters who don't have access to parking/cheap parking, and who must rely on transit, to bray at their York Region pols for better transit in order to move the needle.

Sure, ideally, YRT would move first; but this being the real world......Markham planning may have to do some unpopular heavy lifting to get the proverbial ball rolling.

Did I mix enough metaphors in there?
 
It's better to lower the minimum parking requirements first and then increase the transit service in my opinion, even if it inconveniences people temporarily. I'll refer to this approach as "scenario 1".

If you have high parking minimums and then improve transit service, a lot of people will still drive their cars despite the improved transit (even if it's really inconvenient to drive). I'll refer to this scenario as "scenario 2". People get quite invested in their cars and will spend a significant chunk of their earnings on their cars. Driving one's car becomes a habit that's hard to kick, especially after spending a lot of money on it.

In scenario 1, those people without parking spots are going to be clamouring for more transit service and retail in future developments, and it will happen. It has to happen for the city to function. The people with parking spaces and cars in scenario 2, on the other hand, aren't going to be clamouring for anything because they have cars. Better transit service and increased walkability may or may not happen.

You can improve transit service significantly in scenario 2 at some point in the future, but the returns will be significantly diminished if a lot of parking and road capacity already exists. Many people will still choose to drive in scenario 2 even after the transit improvements. Those people wouldn't have been able to drive at all in scenario 1 due to a lack of parking.
 
Also: there's a lag when we're talking about parking minimums. Design a building today, and it will open in 4, 5, 6, or 7 years from now. Get rid of the minimums now, and theoretically you still have years to phase in better transit service, something that if you're a spineless, no-vision politician, you can slough off until the next council session, so… perfect?!

Getting rid of the parking minimums is where to start, so that eventually hypothetical future people have to deal with that nagging transit funding issue you'd rather not deal with now so that you can keep taxes artificially low in the meantime.

42
 
Northern Light said:
I'll grant the chicken and egg element; and sponsor that YRT needs considerably improved service; that said, this particular development will be served (shortly) by 2WAD, 15M service via the Stouffville GO Corridor; and VIVA service on 7, while not great isn't horrific.

One of the challenges in the chicken and egg scenario is that you need voters who don't have access to parking/cheap parking, and who must rely on transit, to bray at their York Region pols for better transit in order to move the needle.

Sure, ideally, YRT would move first; but this being the real world......Markham planning may have to do some unpopular heavy lifting to get the proverbial ball rolling.

Did I mix enough metaphors in there?
Click to expand...

As it stands today, it would take roughly half an hour to walk to Unionville GO station. It's really not that close. You would have to take the VIVA bus to it or drive. And that VIVA service is infrequent.

Forcing people to not own cars won't work - people won't buy the units or will park illegally. This has happened in many projects around the GTA before that haven't built enough parking. The reality is living in this location today is a huge inconvenience without at least one automobile in the household as basically nothing but the most basic services are in walking distance, and nobody is going to rely on an infrequent bus to do all their errands and commutes. If you can increase walkability and transit service to be actually useful, people will start leaving their cars. Until then, you need the spaces.
 
Yeah, well there's a lag for the chicken, and in the meantime the egg should be rolling down the road.

42
 
Further City Planning memo on this file in March 2023
https://pub-markham.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=74260

The Owner proposes to develop the Subject Lands in two development blocks as follows:

Total Units 1,962 Units
Total GFA 201,165.26 m2 (2,165,324.84 ft2 )

West Block (Block 1 – Phase 1)
899 Units
Building Height (storeys) 6 to 34
GFA – 84,783.32 m2 (912,600.06 ft2 )

East Block (Block 2 – Phase 2)
1,063 Units
Building Height (storeys) 6 to 46
GFA – 116,381.94 m2 (1,252,724.8 ft2 )
 
I think this proposal is hideous. Everything about it. Way too dense, huge, overbearing. Silly cascading balconies. It looks like a giant U. I guess U is for ugly. I’m surprised H P is behind this mess.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top