Blixtein
Active Member
Relentlessly sterile part of the city. Zero imagination and ambition.
16 York | 154.83m | 32s | Cadillac Fairview | a—A
- Thread starter Ramako
- Start date
kthing
New Member
All of the visitor parking for Ice 1 and 2 have been taken over by CF for 16 York. Reason being that CF technically owned the parking spots all along. They're currently all fenced off.
Really quite annoying for 2 full condos to have 0 visitor parking anymore...
Really quite annoying for 2 full condos to have 0 visitor parking anymore...
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 16,452
- Reaction score
- 18,882
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
I am very surprised that the Site Plan documents did not state the number of visitor parking units required and if it did that it was set at 0. I do not think that these documents are now easily available online. I suggest that you ask your Councillor (Joe Cressy I assume) why your building now seems to have no visitor parking and ask him what number they were supposed to have and if 'they' were allowed to reduce this, to zero.
I just looked at the Council Approval for this, See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-20290.pdf
This said:
The applicant proposes 930 parking spaces consisting of the following: - 317 spaces for the office building - 15 spaces for the retail - 5 spaces for car share - 593 residential parking spaces.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Typically office building parking is operated as a commercial garage which allows for visitor use, the fencing must be a temporary measure in preparation of the garage's opening.
It's not uncommon for visitor parking these days downtown to be bundled up and sold off for commercial operations - as long as the parking is publicly accessible it still qualifies for the visitor parking requirement.
My building expanded the visitor parking area into residential section after opening, to give more spaces since it was in such high demand. The building is built to by-law parking rates, so 0.1 visitor spaces a unit and ~0.5 residential spaces a unit, but the 0.1 wasn't enough visitor, it's probably closer to 0.15 now. The residential demand is probably closer to 0.25 by the looks of it, so the garage is pretty empty.
Mind you it's a rental building so it's not like the residential parking is individually owned making it much easier to do the conversion, and while the visitor parking isn't free, it's about 1/3rd the price of market pricing in the area, so people tend to use it at really high rates.
I'm not that big a fan of very low visitor parking ratios as it is one variable that tends to stay relatively high in demand regardless of how urban a location is. Residents can easily live car free - but visitors often come from not so urban locations and need places to park.
It's not uncommon for visitor parking these days downtown to be bundled up and sold off for commercial operations - as long as the parking is publicly accessible it still qualifies for the visitor parking requirement.
My building expanded the visitor parking area into residential section after opening, to give more spaces since it was in such high demand. The building is built to by-law parking rates, so 0.1 visitor spaces a unit and ~0.5 residential spaces a unit, but the 0.1 wasn't enough visitor, it's probably closer to 0.15 now. The residential demand is probably closer to 0.25 by the looks of it, so the garage is pretty empty.
Mind you it's a rental building so it's not like the residential parking is individually owned making it much easier to do the conversion, and while the visitor parking isn't free, it's about 1/3rd the price of market pricing in the area, so people tend to use it at really high rates.
I'm not that big a fan of very low visitor parking ratios as it is one variable that tends to stay relatively high in demand regardless of how urban a location is. Residents can easily live car free - but visitors often come from not so urban locations and need places to park.
Last edited:
kthing
New Member
The notice from the building was quite vague, just saying there's no longer visitor parking. Doesn't mention whether it's temporary or permanent.
I'm not sure if it's meant to be temporary to open up a connection to 16 York's parking?
I'm not sure if it's meant to be temporary to open up a connection to 16 York's parking?
Richard White
Senior Member
FWIW,
55 and 65 Bremner have no visitor parking. The two towers have paid public parking only for visitors. It is expensive at the best of times but as with 16 York the building is owned by Cadillac Fairview who contracted the parking out to Imperial Parking Ltd.
55 and 65 Bremner have no visitor parking. The two towers have paid public parking only for visitors. It is expensive at the best of times but as with 16 York the building is owned by Cadillac Fairview who contracted the parking out to Imperial Parking Ltd.
Dustin William
Active Member
I agree! Curious to know, all office buildings in the area have public pay parking - wondering if 16 will have the same - and if there will be a connection between ICE parking and 16
Lachlan Holmes
Active Member
Today:
drum118
Superstar
Dec 28
sikandar
Active Member
This looked like it would be completed ahead of schedule and they could open up critical lanes on Bremner again, until PCL seemed to suddenly stop working on the ground floor and canopy for some reason.
MafaldaBoy
Senior Member
sikandar
Active Member
This building looks frozen in time since October 2019, with no visible changes to the podium or canopy since then. Would PCL have any incentive to complete this ahead of time?
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
junk-tacular. an absolute embarrassment to the city.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
travis3000
Active Member
Embarrassment? I think that's a tad dramatic. I mean it's a boring rectangular box, a few lines thrown in to give it character. But overall it's just infill, nothing amazing, nothing horrible.