kettal
Banned
I wonder why more developers don't apply for a minor variance to reduce their parking requirements, then?
|
|
|
Ontario Budget Cut and Transit Expansion
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
I wonder why more developers don't apply for a minor variance to reduce their parking requirements, then?
TOareaFan
Superstar
As far as I know this is because the variances are rarely granted.......I could be wrong there though.
valkoholic
Active Member
There's two main reasons. The first is that the City will often say no and developers do not want to win or lose the right to develop based on parking. For all it's big talk about sustainability getting the City of Toronto to grant a parking reduction variance can be brutal. The second reason is developers are often willing to take the loss on parking in order to sell / lease the space above. For example, a developer may be willing to spend $50,000 on a parking space and sell it for $40,000 if its helps them sell a $500,000 condo. The economics is weird, but very common for almost all developments.
TOareaFan
Superstar
That just about sums it up.....not sure anyone has taken the chance on building a condo without ample parking....I guess the one on University (the old Military building) will be a real test of the marketablility of parkingless condos. For all the talk of "green" and "urbanity" condos with parking seem to market much better than those without. If you go on MLS and look at re-sale condos, if the person does not have a parking spot to sell with the unit they tend to go to great lengths to explain where/how you can rent or buy parking......speaks to the market.
nfitz
Superstar
With all the media discussion, discussion here, etc. I haven't seen one word of complain about delaying that $-billion Viva project. But lots and lots about delaying Transit City.
I haven't even seen a Region of York politician complain.
If no one in York cares about the project, isn't that an obvious choice for the chopping block?
I haven't even seen a Region of York politician complain.
If no one in York cares about the project, isn't that an obvious choice for the chopping block?
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I also haven't heard people trying to cancel it to build more expensive items either.
kettal
Banned
You should see the parking garage at my condo, it's never more than 30% full. There's such an excess, that owners have trouble renting their spots.
But really, these vacant garages aren't causing congestion or anything, just making shelter less affordable.
Last edited:
TO City of Light
Active Member
Of course, the obvious answer is to run the garage as a separate commercial venture. Those in the building or nearby buildings that want regular parking can pay for it on a monthly/annual basis - they, in theory, saved 40 to 50 thousand on their condo purchase. Those who need occasional parking, visitors or just folks looking for a parking space can pay by the day or hour.
It seems to work in New York and other large cities but, I digress, what we have is just fine - a made in Toronto solution for Torontonians.
It seems to work in New York and other large cities but, I digress, what we have is just fine - a made in Toronto solution for Torontonians.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Perhaps York Region does not expect their VIVA Next to be canceled or deferred. Therefore, they do not complain.
taal
Senior Member
It was mentioned a few times directly in various articles ... that's not to say they're in any way accurate but they mentioned *part* of Viva next would be delayed at the very least.
I think some parts already under construction, like the Sheppard line will go ahead, in particular I'm referring to the eastern stretch in Markham, maybe other parts as well?
The big issue for York region right now will be trying to get funding for the Yonge subway line ... it probably supersedes Viva next, but I think that will be a long way off ... and if it isn't politics will have to be one huge factor in the decision (which wouldn't suprise me) ... but if it pushes the DRL or other such lines I for one won't be complaining.
nfitz
Superstar
I wouldn't complain either ... but it would require about $4-billion that is currently unfunded for the Yonge extension, and a Pape (Donlands?) to Yonge DRL.
taal
Senior Member
Yep, so I'm sure it would ammunt to a lot more then $4 billion at the end of the day
So unless these 'budget' cuts are a political move to endorse / push subways over LRT i.e. the money really is still there
, then we probably have to wait for this as well.GenerationW
Senior Member
Extremely unlikely, but imagine if York went on its own and got funding for its own Yonge subway from Steeles north to wherever. Miller's rage would blow out the TTC's PA system.
taal
Senior Member
Extremely unlikely, but imagine if York went on its own and got funding for its own Yonge subway from Steeles north to wherever. Miller's rage would blow out the TTC's PA system.
Correct me if I'm wrong but York region has the worst debt load in all of Canada (at least the GTA) with all the talk about Toronto running out of money it seems like there's a ticking time bomb to the north ... of course, it gets limited to no press coverage.
brockm
Active Member
You know, these conversations are worthless because nobody is really consistent on these issues, in any case. The fact is we live in a society where everybody wants everything to be "fair", and unfortunately everyone has a different definition of what "fair" is.
If Toronto had sufficient political clout in Ontario, it would require that the suburbs subsidize Toronto infrastructure, arguing that "Toronto is the lifeblood of the economy". If rural Ontario had total clout, it would argue that "agriculture is the lifeblood of society".
Everyone can rationalize why their community and/or demographic is deserving of a larger piece of the pie. And the problem is not going away anytime soon.
We've got people in rural Canada who are demanding access to broadband internet access. And every centrist to centre-leftist politician is salivating at the prospect of requiring that licensing rules require that companies like Bell, Telus and Rogers go out of their way to undertake these unprofitable ventures, forcing people in urban centres to carry the cost. This way it can be "fair".
Of course, we won't require people to live in North Bay. Nor do we require people to live in Toronto. Or work there. We don't require a business to setup on Adelaide street in Toronto, or on King Street in Hamilton. These choices are market decisions. Then the populist masses get involved and start trying to use the government to impose "fairness" and suddenly we have public debts skyrocketing, endless cycles of transfer dependence and withdrawal, and every special interest group (and yes, transit riders are a special interest group) demanding special treatment when the going gets tough -- to be excluded from the consequences of the necessity of austerity -- because their plans, their programmes, their contribution is "essential".
I have news for everyone: nothing is essential, except oxygen to breathe, food to eat and some way to keep warm. About half the world's population can attest to this.
If Toronto had sufficient political clout in Ontario, it would require that the suburbs subsidize Toronto infrastructure, arguing that "Toronto is the lifeblood of the economy". If rural Ontario had total clout, it would argue that "agriculture is the lifeblood of society".
Everyone can rationalize why their community and/or demographic is deserving of a larger piece of the pie. And the problem is not going away anytime soon.
We've got people in rural Canada who are demanding access to broadband internet access. And every centrist to centre-leftist politician is salivating at the prospect of requiring that licensing rules require that companies like Bell, Telus and Rogers go out of their way to undertake these unprofitable ventures, forcing people in urban centres to carry the cost. This way it can be "fair".
Of course, we won't require people to live in North Bay. Nor do we require people to live in Toronto. Or work there. We don't require a business to setup on Adelaide street in Toronto, or on King Street in Hamilton. These choices are market decisions. Then the populist masses get involved and start trying to use the government to impose "fairness" and suddenly we have public debts skyrocketing, endless cycles of transfer dependence and withdrawal, and every special interest group (and yes, transit riders are a special interest group) demanding special treatment when the going gets tough -- to be excluded from the consequences of the necessity of austerity -- because their plans, their programmes, their contribution is "essential".
I have news for everyone: nothing is essential, except oxygen to breathe, food to eat and some way to keep warm. About half the world's population can attest to this.
Last edited: