sixrings said:
If I am buying anything 600k and over I at least want a spot for my potential Porsche (Ferrari, Lambo) whether I have one or not.
Click to expand...


According to my friend who is a valet, some of these rich dudes give out huge tips to the velvet's, so they can park their Ferrari, Rolls or what ever supercar in the few spots out front on display ;)
 
Yup, agreed with the parking sentiment. Most people buying these units will want a parking spot, even if they use the car once a month or something. Most won't be using the car every day, but when you are making that much money the appeal of autoshare isn't that great anymore.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Especially since they have the privilege of living in such a prominent spot with public transit all around, it shouldn’t be made so easy for them to drive. I wish the City had maximum parking rules.
Click to expand...

It isn't a 'privilege' to live here when it's been earned/paid for.

There's a lot of judging going on in these posts, which is what i dislike about the 'I only bike/eat gluten free/never venture out of downtown' douche-baggery some use as a weapon to bash others with. It's equally as elitist as anything on offer in Yorkville, in fact worse for the self-righteousness.

We need better transit in this city for far better reasons than I hate rich people, but if a private development wants to accommodate for the limos and ferraris of it clientele, so be it.
 
I really don't find that a lot of parking spaces. Not even one per suite once you take the commercial spaces away.
 
This isn't an issue of privilege, but of necessity. We all know that there are too many cars on the road as it stands today. As the city densifies, it will only get worse - unless, that is, we restrict the number of parking spaces. Farcically, the current bylaws actually stipulate that a lot of parking *must* be built.

I get that some of you love your cars or identify with the Fordian mentality that car owners are somehow disadvantaged. Also, because the GTA is car dependent, a lot of people do need a car. However, the simple fact is that we aren't making any more roads, so something has to give.

Carsharing and other approaches are attempting to bridge the divide and allow for density and car accessibility. But simply allowing more parking everywhere downtown is not a long term solution.

So, what's the alternative solution? That is, other than angrily blaming "downtown elites" who eat gluten free food?
 
Last edited:
I use to live in a very nice condo downtown with a few astons porsches and ferraris. Those cars are not driven regularly. So to say that there should be less spots because otherwise these downtowners will drive everywhere and clog the streets doesn't make sense. Versus if you have a civic in the suburbs you are more likely to drive more often and further distances.
 
sixrings said:
I use to live in a very nice condo downtown with a few astons porsches and ferraris. Those cars are not driven regularly. So to say that there should be less spots because otherwise these downtowners will drive everywhere and clog the streets doesn't make sense. Versus if you have a civic in the suburbs you are more likely to drive more often and further distances.
Click to expand...

I've got a 13 year-old car with 52,000km on it. And 80% of that mileage were drives to Montreal to visit parents. I use the car twice per month, or less. Underground parking is not synonymous with traffic congestion.
 
If you are spending that much money on a condo you deserve to have a parking space. People have cars. Whether they live in this building or not. There will be cars. Car share, better transit and bikes all help to lesson the use of cars. But people will still own cars regardless, especially if they can afford it. Whats the difference if they own a car and live downtown and park underground or live in the suburbs and have a 3 car garage.

also come on there is NO relevance to talk about gluten on this forum, people can eat it or not, it has nothing to do with parking spaces.
 
agoraflaneur said:
This isn't an issue of privilege, but of necessity. We all know that there are too many cars on the road as it stands today. As the city densifies, it will only get worse - unless, that is, we restrict the number of parking spaces. Farcically, the current bylaws actually stipulate that a lot of parking *must* be built.

I get that some of you love your cars or identify with the Fordian mentality that car owners are somehow disadvantaged. Also, because the GTA is car dependent, a lot of people do need a car. However, the simple fact is that we aren't making any more roads, so something has to give.

Carsharing and other approaches are attempting to bridge the divide and allow for density and car accessibility. But simply allowing more parking everywhere downtown is not a long term solution.

So, what's the alternative solution? That is, other than angrily blaming "downtown elites" who eat gluten free food?
Click to expand...


Must a sustainably growing city preclude car ownership for so many people?

I would agree with you that fewer active cars must be on the road, with public transit being *the* option for the majority of commuters; though, instead of eliminating parking space and refusing to allow a portion of the market to participate in owning and driving their own vehicles, I think that a dense and sustainable city is able to and should be allowed to stabilize traffic congestion and create an ideal flow for economic goods through costing the activity of car usage.

To prevent lost economic productivity due to traffic congestion: there should be a price to pay for not participating in traffic security -- aka: public transit. Intelligently, there may be a spectrum of pay ratios, allowing car owners a variety in the frequency of their car usage.
Drivers must pay, and virtually everyone must use public transit at least some of the time. A majority will use regularly, while a minority of people will almost always be using their cars.
The appropriate public revenues may be generated from persons wishing to exclusively use their cars.

I'm pro car ownership, but I also acknowledge the capacity limits of our roads and that "more roads" is not the answer.
Car ownership contributes to the economy, the creation of jobs, a driver for innovation; while, with sprawl -- the more I read about its public costs through infrastructure maintenance, environmental degradation and the negative impacts to human health, the more anti-sprawl I become, the more frustrated I am to see centrally relocated land go undeveloped and underdeveloped while low-density, subsidized real estate sucks up most of the market in most of Canada's municipalities.

We cannot deal with debt at any government level until we deal with sprawl.

As far as 'The One' goes, which pertains to this thread, I would not be disappointed by the construction of parking spaces underground. All parking should be underground, or at least verticalized in garages or parkades.

Community space is not for parking; it is for infrastructure and natural habitat.
 
Must a sustainably growing city preclude car ownership for so many people?
Click to expand...

Case studies of cities like Paris, Copenhagen and Zurich suggests yes. Look to Moscow as a counter-example of where no such measures were enacted.

If we as a city want to cost the activity of car usage, the most straight-forward and proven successful approach would be through reducing parking spots. Maybe not necessarily in private developments (although we can provide incentives to developers who build less parking spots), but through gradual reduction of on-street parking spaces. People will stop using cars in the downtown if it becomes increasingly challenging, time consuming and expansive to find an on-street parking spot. This approach was massively successful in Copenhagen.

That being said, I don't think this particular building's parking spots is a large issue. What kind of luxury condo development not provide parking spots for its tenants?
 
Personally I think to reduce driving you simply charge more for the ability to drive. Could be tolls. Could be more gas tax. Could be increased parking fees. I have no problem with trying to encourage people to walk, bike or take transit. But for the crazy people who are willing to pay then they should be able to.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top