Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

it states minimum numbers, and developers usually want to go below that because the demand isn't there for the minimum amount. (and thus selling less than what they provide) Theres a reason projects like Mirvish-Gehry have 300 spots for 2700 units or projects such as 2 Queen West and RCMI have 0 spots whatsoever.
 
The 0 spots was done through a special request/amendment (not sure of the right terminology) because the developer felt that given its location, residents wouldn't need parking -- apparently that wasn't actually the case. (City staff presented about this back at a condo consultation meeting a year or so ago so my memory is fuzzy on the details). But yes, there is definitely a move to provide minimum parking -- now if only they'd get better at providing improved bike storage!
 
PinkLucy said:
The 0 spots was done through a special request/amendment (not sure of the right terminology) because the developer felt that given its location, residents wouldn't need parking -- apparently that wasn't actually the case.
Click to expand...

But it was the case, considering the building sold out without even having to go to market, and without the addition of any parking.

Concord Adex was still selling available parking spots at Luna/Luna Vista as recently as last year, and the building is now going on its 4th year of being built and registered. Minimum parking requirements make no sense in the city. It should entirely be driven by demand, not mandated.
 
The way they explained was that once people had bought (as investors I guess) and then rented out, people who actually lived in the building wanted parking.
 
PinkLucy said:
The way they explained was that once people had bought (as investors I guess) and then rented out, people who actually lived in the building wanted parking.
Click to expand...

An interesting thought. As an investor you want to minimize your costs in order to maximize your profits. Their thinking likely was that this building was in the city and thus why invest in a parking spot which may or may not be wanted by the tenent. From a distance it's easy to say "hey there's lots of transit why would you need a car". However in real life these tenents might have a car and need a parking spot for a number of reasons (work out of the core/in the 905, occasional trips which require a car, even general attachment to having a car even if you don't use it more than once or twice a month.)
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
An interesting thought. As an investor you want to minimize your costs in order to maximize your profits. Their thinking likely was that this building was in the city and thus why invest in a parking spot which may or may not be wanted by the tenent. From a distance it's easy to say "hey there's lots of transit why would you need a car". However in real life these tenents might have a car and need a parking spot for a number of reasons (work out of the core/in the 905, occasional trips which require a car, even general attachment to having a car even if you don't use it more than once or twice a month.)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but who in their right mind would rent in a building with no parking, fully knowing that they would need a parking space? To be honest, when I did a project for Tribute RE: the RCMI, we did look at lots around the site to see if any offered monthly parking, and most did... for around the same cost you would pay to rent a spot in a condo. So parking is available if you were stupid enough to rent there while owning a vehicle. However, we found that most people living in that area do not own vehicles anyway, so it wouldn't be an issue.

The auto share memberships should be able to satisfy demand for those occasional trips anyone might have.
 
It is all about economics. Owing a car would cost me minimum 6k per year (+ headache), combination of TTC, taxi, zipcar and autoshare costs maximum 2-3k.
 
Somewhat related news story today about access to the island for residents.

Seems someone miscalculated a bit on when ice would be an issue....the Ongiara, a steel-hulled ferry, has been in dry dock and is due out tomorrow or Friday.....this is the boat used in the winter as The William Inglis is not suitable for winter use. Unfortunately The William Inglis has been damaged by ice and has been taken out of service.

So, until the Ongiara can be put back in service, residents are being bussed across the airport property to the airport ferry....the bus has to wait for appropriate gaps in take offs and landings to make the crossing across airport property.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
WestJet wants slots to land 737's at Billy Bishop. What happened to the airport being un-profitable. Not that I support the 737 at the island
Click to expand...

This is the point where we should be saying any plane that flies into the airport must meet "X" noise profile.....decide who's stats for each plane are relied upon and then operate as such.....rather than "planes of a certain technology good...other technology (which may or may not be noisier) bad"....in other words, regulate noise not technology.

Does anyone know how the 737 max compares to the C series? how it compares to other aircraft currently allowed to land at YTZ?
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
WestJet wants slots to land 737's at Billy Bishop. What happened to the airport being un-profitable. Not that I support the 737 at the island
Click to expand...

I think they may just be trying to thwart Porter's bid to allow the C-Series by scaring the public with the prospect of a greater number of even larger jets and a further increase in traffic.
 
Voltz said:
I think they may just be trying to thwart Porter's bid to allow the C-Series by scaring the public with the prospect of a greater number of even larger jets and a further increase in traffic.
Click to expand...

That. And a genuine desire to fly out of BB. As will Air Canada with their new 737s.
 
Voltz said:
I think they may just be trying to thwart Porter's bid to allow the C-Series by scaring the public with the prospect of a greater number of even larger jets and a further increase in traffic.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought as well. Keep in mind that WestJet is in the process of joining the commuter market with the purchase of Dash 400's identical to Porter's current fleet. No Jets TO will definitely use the WestJet announcement to support their "opening a can of worms" argument.
 
What makes the C-series quiet is the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G. The only impact on sound the aircraft design can make is in placement of the engine(s) vs. the airflow (ever heard a Piaggio P.180, same engine as a Q400, 10x louder due to engine placement) and the amount of power needed to achieve a level of lift. The C-Series isn't some magic aircraft, and Westjet could order Boeing 737s with the PW1000G engine to hit the same sound targets.
 
Admiral Beez said:
What makes the C-series quiet is the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G. The only impact on sound the aircraft design can make is in placement of the engine(s) vs. the airflow (ever heard a Piaggio P.180, same engine as a Q400, 10x louder due to engine placement) and the amount of power needed to achieve a level of lift. The C-Series isn't some magic aircraft, and Westjet could order Boeing 737s with the PW1000G engine to hit the same sound targets.
Click to expand...

I think Boeing is only selling 737 MAXs with the CFM International LEAP-1B. I don't think it would be possible for Westjet to get a 737 with the PW1000G. If Westjet were to switch to Airbus, they could get the PW1000G on a A320neo. Since both air canada and westjet just placed orders for 737 MAX i don't see them switching to Airbus.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top