The project has 9 parking spots, each reserved for Autoshare. 1 Autoshare car could fill the space of 9 private vehicles. Each resident will have a free Autoshare membership and exclusive use of the vehicles on site.

The building will also have plenty of bicycle parking.

There are no condos in North America that provide 0 on site parking spaces. This will be a precedent. If Toronto wants to come across as being 'Green', I think they should set an example and approve this project.

The reasoning for 1 bedrooms and bachelors is simple. People who buy these sized units often opt for no parking, or are never offered parking in the first place. This reduces the need for parking.
 
Last edited:
Tuscani01 said:
There are no condos in North America that provide 0 on site parking spaces. This will be a precedent. If Toronto wants to come across as being 'Green', I think they should set an example and approve this project.
Click to expand...

This only makes me more curious as to why some believe council will shoot this down. Hopefully the OMB will again come to the rescue as they have countless times in the past.
 
Recommendation from Planning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. City Council refuse the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval Application
No. 08 163452 STE 20 OZ.
2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and other appropriate City staff to oppose any
future appeal of Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval Application No. 08
163452 STE 20 OZ.
Summary
 
Tuscani01 said:
The project has 9 parking spots, each reserved for Autoshare. 1 Autoshare car could fill the space of 9 private vehicles. Each resident will have a free Autoshare membership and exclusive use of the vehicles on site.
Click to expand...
1 Autoshare fills the space for 9 private vehicles.. Is this an actual stat? I hadn't heard it before.

I'm confused, are you saying there will be 9 vehicles available through Autoshare? If all residents are given free Autoshare membership, I would sure hope they'd have more than 9. Unless the condo is going to be marketed towards the anti-car crowd, which is possible.
 
cassius said:
1 Autoshare fills the space for 9 private vehicles.. Is this an actual stat? I hadn't heard it before.

I'm confused, are you saying there will be 9 vehicles available through Autoshare? If all residents are given free Autoshare membership, I would sure hope they'd have more than 9. Unless the condo is going to be marketed towards the anti-car crowd, which is possible.
Click to expand...

The 1 Autoshare = 9 cars is a figure that has been used in other projects. It does mean that 9 vehicles will be available through Autoshare. All residents would have free membership, but would still have to pay for the hours they use. Having membership just guarantees a low rate, and no monthly or yearly fee. As for the number of vehicles available, 9 is more than enough. Im a Zipcar member and the lot I book from has only 2 cars. I have never had a problem booking a car. The city does allow buildings to substitute parking space for Autoshare spaces. "Multi-unit residential buildings with AutoShare Onsite (or nearby) can also qualify for up to 2 LEED credits and/or reduced parking requirements from the City of Toronto." (Autoshare.ca)

As for marketing, its not being targeted to the anti car crowd, simply those who do not use a car for their primary method of transportation.

Its not like this building is going up in the middle of surburbia, where you need a car to do everything. The majority of the people who will buy into this building will not require a car.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
This only makes me more curious as to why some believe council will shoot this down. Hopefully the OMB will again come to the rescue as they have countless times in the past.
Click to expand...

Council doesn't see it from the developers point of view. The developer wants this to be an example for green design, while the city believes its a case of the developer being cheap and just not wanting to play by the rules. (The project would be unfeasible if the developer has to provide underground parking, and would be unfeasible if it had to reduce the height and provide above ground parking) Having worked with Tribute on this project, I know they are all about building a 'green' reputation with this building. Its too bad the city is getting in the way of this.

PS. This is also the last chance to save the RCMI, which Tribute is committed to doing. The RCMI has weighed all of their options already and decided partnering with Tribute was the best option. If this doesn't go through, it looks like the RCMI may be moving, and the building will be left to crumble.
 
Yeah of course City Council doesn't see it "from the developer's point of view" ... that is a view (not breaking but) completely ignoring any development standards that exist ... I understand and have seen planning justification for reduced parking through provision of 1 Autoshare in lieu of 10 regular parking spaces, but only in combination of REAL parking spaces being provided on site ...

I think in this case this City Council will refuse the application, and I hope the City defends their position successfully in front of the OMB (if need be) ... refusing a proposal of this sort is not the City's way of "getting in the way" ... if this proposal was not (financially) feasible for any parking to be provided and can not be reduced in height, given the extreme limitations it is a bad idea to start of with ... the City should not be blamed for refusing a proposal that stretches the limit "too far" ... a builder's profit feasibility is no ground on which City Council shall approve ANY proposal

calling this proposal with no parking as the builder's green initiative is just a bunch of marketing crap ... since when did Tribute get a "green reputation" ? other than Queen+Portland and the lowrise condos in Oakville they have alwyas been building grade related housing in the 905 area
 
Solaris,

Though I have no affiliation with this project, I would like to see it go through - if only to see what happens. I predict it could be quite successful with people who work in the Financial and Garment Districts as they would walk or ride the subway anyways.

We should work out some sort of 'O-M-B, O-M-B, O-M-B' chant.
 
Solaris said:
Yeah of course City Council doesn't see it "from the developer's point of view" ... that is a view (not breaking but) completely ignoring any development standards that exist ... I understand and have seen planning justification for reduced parking through provision of 1 Autoshare in lieu of 10 regular parking spaces, but only in combination of REAL parking spaces being provided on site ...

I think in this case this City Council will refuse the application, and I hope the City defends their position successfully in front of the OMB (if need be) ... refusing a proposal of this sort is not the City's way of "getting in the way" ... if this proposal was not (financially) feasible for any parking to be provided and can not be reduced in height, given the extreme limitations it is a bad idea to start of with ... the City should not be blamed for refusing a proposal that stretches the limit "too far" ... a builder's profit feasibility is no ground on which City Council shall approve ANY proposal

calling this proposal with no parking as the builder's green initiative is just a bunch of marketing crap ... since when did Tribute get a "green reputation" ? other than Queen+Portland and the lowrise condos in Oakville they have alwyas been building grade related housing in the 905 area
Click to expand...

First of all, this building won't be much taller than the two buildings that surround the site. Second, the city always bends the rules to permit development. It's why section 37 contributions were created. It's not like other developers havn't been given permission to exceed density. Theres nothing groundbreaking there.

The only thing holding this project back is the parking requirement. Tribute has already shown that there are enough people out there who do not and would not purchase a parking space with a new condo. What's wrong with catering to these people? Its not like people will show up on moving day with 2 cars and nowhere to park.

As for your green comment, when did ANY developer get a green reputation? Its a new trend and Tribute is jumping on the bandwagon. Why shouldn't they? Would you rather they continue building suburban subdivisions out in the middle of nowhere?

Tribute could build this building anywhere with parking if they wanted to, but thats not why they are fighting for this project. Lets not forget that the RCMI initiated this whole thing.
 
I don't see why the city is against this. I agree that there are urbanites who never have, and never will, own a car. Especially if you live downtown, why do you need a car anyway? So I am with the developer on this. Feels different lol.
 
City Planning Refusal Report

For consideration by Toronto and East York Community Council on Sept 15/09:

The application proposed to replace the existing Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI), which is a private members club, with a 6 and ½ -storey club and a 35 and ½ - storey condominium resulting in a 42-storey mixed use building at 426 University Ave. No parking was initially proposed, however, a revised application included the provision of 9 parking spaces, 8 of which were proposed to be in parking stackers.

This report reviews and recommends refusal of the application to amend the
Zoning By-law for the following reasons:
  • insufficient provision of indooramenity space; and
  • insufficient provision of parking.
​
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-21943.pdf
 
Parking in a future eco bike friendly city......To bad, it would have been nice to see a condo building in this location ,its kind of a dead zone at night.
 
Disgrace

This refusal report is a disgrace! :mad:

I am a driver and currently own a car, but I would totally ditch that in favour of an affordable condo at such a prime location, with on-site carshare, and virtually located on top of the subway.

From an ecological perspective this makes great sense. Let's not forget that for years apartments in Toronto were built without parking or indoor amenity space, and many of those gorgeous old Victoria, Edwardian and Art Deco walk-ups are among the most prized apartments in the City.

They are also often surprisingly affordable, no pool, no playground, no sauna, no gym, no parking.....lower rent (or in the case of a condo, purchase price)

We often here talk of the need for affordable housing and then insist developers build all sorts of frivolous crap into their buildings that add anywhere from $100-250 per month in rent or add $20,000-$50,000 to the purchase price.

That's hypocritical!

I'm living downtown, I walk everywhere, I don't need a gym! :D

Let the market decide. If the Tribute can't sell through the development, have no fear, it will be canceled and an alternate proposal with parking will show up in its place.

***

This is Vaughan's ward isn't it? What's he have to say about it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top