do they mean no Parking at all...


or will there be like at least 5-10 parking spots for some special needs??
 
AWESOME.

I like this quote: "This is definitely insanity to me," said Etobicoke North's Rob Ford. "You're building a condo with no parking. This is something you talk to the average person out there, they'll say you're joking right?"

To that I say:

"This is definitely insanity to me," said greenleaf. "You're building massive houses on massive lots with no sidewalks and only available by car continuing the destruction of the earth way out in the middle of nowhere out in Etobicoke? This is something you talk to the average urbanite out there, they'll say you're joking right?"
 
Clearly if someone has/needs a car, they won't buy in this building. How hard is that to understand?
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Clearly if someone has/needs a car, they won't buy in this building. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

Or cars would just be parked on side streets ... or residents in this building would be requesting to get on-street parking permit issued for parking overnight on St. Patrick Street ... which was just create more problems later for the City ~
 
I don't know. Frankly, I'd think twice about buying there, and I'm a bike-ridin' metropassin' hippie. The question is, is this something we're safe to let the market sort out? Is there a downside for the city in letting this go through? Is it going to be impossible to get street parking in the neighborhood five years from now because it's flooded with residents?
 
Solaris said:
Or cars would just be parked on side streets ... or residents in this building would be requesting to get on-street parking permit issued for parking overnight on St. Patrick Street ... which was just create more problems later for the City ~
Click to expand...

Its not like the city is obligated to give everyone a parking permit. People buying into this project will be doing so knowing that there are 0 parking spaces. Parking won't be an issue. For those who insist in purchasing here with a vehicle, there are parking lots all around the site that offer monthly parking.
 
There are two above ground lots (4-5s) just down the road at St. Patrick and Michael Sweet Ave. as well as the one under The Grange. Even though one of those above-ground lots has its demise in KPMB's sights, there are plenty of options for those who want to live here and own a car.

Though you correctly identified the question SNF, I believe the answer is yes, this is completely something which the market can and will sort out. People purchasing here know what they are buying into and acknowledge both the benefits and implications of that 'alternative' lifestyle. Furthermore, we both know that many who are purchasing here are doing so because the building has no parking; something which purchasers find to be in line with the lives they wish to lead. If that's not enough, consider that those who find this development to be inconsistent with good city-building principles are aligning themselves with the ever erudite Robbie Ford.
 
Clearly if someone has/needs a car, they won't buy in this building. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

I think that's a little short sighted. I'm more concerned by the precedence should this project be successful. Residential developers are in the business to make money and parking by and large is a money loser. The parking will get built regardless if residential developers clammour to the idea of not providing it. I'd rather not have it in ugly, commercial parkades.
 
It's nice to think that the purchasers here are content to live self-propelled lives. It's a happy ideal. But it seems more likely to me that a good number of people living there will try to get a condo on the cheap and stash their cars elsewhere. There's not a huge gap between condo-buying age and car-buying age, and the sad truth is that it's hard to live an adult life - especially a family one - without at least one car around. We still live in North America.

Also, it's not the initial buyers I'm thinking about, the ones attracted by the lifestyle-of-the-future publicity. It's the ones who will buy used units several years down the line, when the future (as always) has failed to arrive and they're trying to find a spot for their cars...

But who knows? Maybe I'll be wrong all over the place on this one.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
I don't know. Frankly, I'd think twice about buying there, and I'm a bike-ridin' metropassin' hippie. The question is, is this something we're safe to let the market sort out? Is there a downside for the city in letting this go through? Is it going to be impossible to get street parking in the neighborhood five years from now because it's flooded with residents?
Click to expand...

I agree, same with me (I walk too) and I'm healthier for it. I'm not anti-car by any means however I did sell my car about a decade ago and never regretted it for a minute.
I applaud those in Council who voted for this progressive proposal. My only criticism here would be that there could have been perhaps a half dozen guest parking spots. However, the market will decide here and I'm willing to bet this building will sell like hotcakes provided the suite designs are decent and they don't out-price themselves out of the market.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
There's not a huge gap between condo-buying age and car-buying age, and the sad truth is that it's hard to live an adult life - especially a family one - without at least one car around. We still live in North America.
Click to expand...

Luckily, the building isn't being marketed to families. The units are quite small, theres a lack of amenities, and of course, the lack of parking. Students and young professionals are the main market for units in this building. They will most likely live here until they are ready to move up in life, at which point they can find a building with more space and parking to meet their needs. It would also be a good spot for people who want to retire in the city.
 
ProjectEnd said:
$40,000 per spot, and you think they're loosing money?
Click to expand...

Tuscani01 said:
Bingo. It costs a builder on average $20,000 per spot for underground parking. Selling them at $40,000 would mean a $20,000 profit.
Click to expand...

You guys are both wrong - I'm assuming you are totally guessing to what the cost are...

Building underground is very very expensive which is why most builders build only what the minimum requirements are of the city planning department and then submit minor variances after approvals to reduce parking. Even when selling the spaces at $30k or $40k the builders are usually losing money. This creates affordability issues as the loss taken on the parking spots is then spread throughout the purchase cost of the units themselves.

A one or two floor u/g garage in a suburban open field setting may cost in the $20k range. But once you are digging down deeper costs (especially beyond the water table or in difficult soils) increase expodentially with each floor and buildings downtown in tight urban settings create major logistical and technical difficulties causing costs to skyrocket. Furthermore extending timelines due to the time is takes to excavate, remove the materials and pay for the cost of disposal and often clean-up of contaminated soils and the extended timelines to complete the parking facilities increase risk and extend the length of time of the construction loans, interest accumulated etc... There are good reasons why the development community is lobbying to have the city remove or reduce parking requirements & it's because it's a money losing requirement that makes little sense in an urban environment.

I wish people on the forum wouldn't toss out cost and profit numbers as if they are facts when they are just total guesses. No high-rise projects in the downtown core have built parking spots at a $20k cost for years and years.

If the builder as you've suggested is making this kind of profit (you suggested 100%) than they would be trying to build a lot of parking - this site is a prime example of where the cost of parking is so cost prohibitive that the economic feasibility of the entire project would be a major issue even if spots were sold for over $40k.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top