Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
It means a lot more small scale housing and businesses will be allowed to operate. Most parking minimums specify your parking lot can accommodate something like “maximum capacity +20%” which is just absurd. I’ve never seen a full Walmart parking lot in my life, let alone the 30 spaces at most banks and 50 spaces at most pharmacies. Land is valuable, and this removes a big roadblock for reasonable construction.
You’ve clearly never lived in Montréal. We have had a massive decrease in private lots over the years, massive expansion of bike lanes, expansion of car share programs, and newly built train lines. Every year we are less and less dependent on cars and the city has only gotten better from things like this.
Good, hopefully with a significant cost so it encourages people to use public and active transport. Free parking isn’t free since society bears a significant cost to provide it.
yeah im not sure how I feel on this. I have known folks who will drive their ice car around and around a block to access free parking. I want more cars parked and not running than running. Especially if self driving cars become a true thing. If its cheaper folks will totally have their cars drive back home and then a few hours later drive to pick them up and double their energy usage and exhaust.
The problem is tons of free parking everywhere needlessly sprawls out our cities, makes people drive further, and makes actual green methods of transit (like walking, cycling, and electrified public transit) less viable.
In the long term, maintaining car dependency is fundamentally incompatible with addressing the climate crisis. Removing mandatory parking minimums is a necessary step towards ending car dependency.
I mean the common podium design with a garage at the bottom works well and the space is not desirable in condo design. Larger high rises are the same as higher is more sought. Your not really losing housing as the parking is cheaper than fully done residentail for the square feet and taking much less square feet overall. I know a 3 over one that gives two spaces so a 6 over one should be able to do one easy enough and since lower sizes should be able to get the same out of even four flats as it just needs one additional story.
For no parking? Short term they do stupid shit (like a large event). Long term they just get rid of cars.
Ground and semi-recessed also makes a fantastic space for retail, which makes more money than parking. Digging subterranean JUST to add parking only adds costs, you don’t have to keep digging (or if you do, you can solid fill instead of putting in parking garages).
Again, nothing stopping people from putting them in, but don’t think it’s free space or inexpensive to do.
I mean I highly disagree because I have seen some stupid and I don’t know anyone who wanted to have a car who has not found a way to have one. Short term they might do without but I found folks who give up cars were willing to do it regardless of circumstances.
It’s not something to agree or disagree with, traffic evaporation exists and cities which remove, charge for our increase charges on parking see reduced traffic volumes.
Why do you hate affordable housing? I mean, you do realize how incredibly expensive those parking podiums are, right? Forcing developers to build them basically guarantees the development will have to be “luxury” in order to make the economics work.
I don’t and the parking again is cheap relative to the finished area per square foot. Granted part of it is the way the 5 over ones and such are done with the one is part of the foundation and so can handle the higher weight.
In my area the parking sells and rents for more per square feet but I don’t think they should allow that. It should have to stay with the unit. Honestly another thing is condos should have to allow the parking to be used for general storage only being allowed to require it stays within the area and maybe that it has to be in a cabinet or such to keep it neat and such.
If parking sell/rents for more than housing, you should be building parking garages instead of condos. Peter you aren’t maximising potential of the land.
Allowing storage in parking stalls is inefficient. They should be leased to people who want to pay. Massive lanes between storage lockers is inefficient space usage. Task cabinets blocking sight lines is a safety issue. Just use strife lockers.
Also it would be more cost effective to rent finished area for storage instead of parking spaces, since the later rents for more.
All this will lead to is more privately owned parking areas opening up
It means a lot more small scale housing and businesses will be allowed to operate. Most parking minimums specify your parking lot can accommodate something like “maximum capacity +20%” which is just absurd. I’ve never seen a full Walmart parking lot in my life, let alone the 30 spaces at most banks and 50 spaces at most pharmacies. Land is valuable, and this removes a big roadblock for reasonable construction.
If that drives up demand for more mass transit infrastructure, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
You’ve clearly never lived in Montréal. We have had a massive decrease in private lots over the years, massive expansion of bike lanes, expansion of car share programs, and newly built train lines. Every year we are less and less dependent on cars and the city has only gotten better from things like this.
😂😂😂
Good, hopefully with a significant cost so it encourages people to use public and active transport. Free parking isn’t free since society bears a significant cost to provide it.
yeah im not sure how I feel on this. I have known folks who will drive their ice car around and around a block to access free parking. I want more cars parked and not running than running. Especially if self driving cars become a true thing. If its cheaper folks will totally have their cars drive back home and then a few hours later drive to pick them up and double their energy usage and exhaust.
The problem is tons of free parking everywhere needlessly sprawls out our cities, makes people drive further, and makes actual green methods of transit (like walking, cycling, and electrified public transit) less viable.
In the long term, maintaining car dependency is fundamentally incompatible with addressing the climate crisis. Removing mandatory parking minimums is a necessary step towards ending car dependency.
I mean the common podium design with a garage at the bottom works well and the space is not desirable in condo design. Larger high rises are the same as higher is more sought. Your not really losing housing as the parking is cheaper than fully done residentail for the square feet and taking much less square feet overall. I know a 3 over one that gives two spaces so a 6 over one should be able to do one easy enough and since lower sizes should be able to get the same out of even four flats as it just needs one additional story.
There’s nothing stopping people from building them.
There’s just no longer something forcing people to build them.
thats a good point but again to go back to my original point people will do stupid things to deal with a no parking situation.
For no parking? Short term they do stupid shit (like a large event). Long term they just get rid of cars.
Ground and semi-recessed also makes a fantastic space for retail, which makes more money than parking. Digging subterranean JUST to add parking only adds costs, you don’t have to keep digging (or if you do, you can solid fill instead of putting in parking garages).
Again, nothing stopping people from putting them in, but don’t think it’s free space or inexpensive to do.
I mean I highly disagree because I have seen some stupid and I don’t know anyone who wanted to have a car who has not found a way to have one. Short term they might do without but I found folks who give up cars were willing to do it regardless of circumstances.
It’s not something to agree or disagree with, traffic evaporation exists and cities which remove, charge for our increase charges on parking see reduced traffic volumes.
Why do you hate affordable housing? I mean, you do realize how incredibly expensive those parking podiums are, right? Forcing developers to build them basically guarantees the development will have to be “luxury” in order to make the economics work.
I don’t and the parking again is cheap relative to the finished area per square foot. Granted part of it is the way the 5 over ones and such are done with the one is part of the foundation and so can handle the higher weight.
Rough estimates are $90 / sq foot for parking, $160 / sq foot for finished construction.
But guess which one sells and rents for more?
In my area the parking sells and rents for more per square feet but I don’t think they should allow that. It should have to stay with the unit. Honestly another thing is condos should have to allow the parking to be used for general storage only being allowed to require it stays within the area and maybe that it has to be in a cabinet or such to keep it neat and such.
If parking sell/rents for more than housing, you should be building parking garages instead of condos. Peter you aren’t maximising potential of the land.
Allowing storage in parking stalls is inefficient. They should be leased to people who want to pay. Massive lanes between storage lockers is inefficient space usage. Task cabinets blocking sight lines is a safety issue. Just use strife lockers.
Also it would be more cost effective to rent finished area for storage instead of parking spaces, since the later rents for more.