Toronto Eight Cumberland | 170m | 51s | Great Gulf | a—A

IMG_2606.JPG
IMG_2607.JPG
IMG_2608.JPG
IMG_2609.JPG
IMG_2610.JPG
 
Interesting tidbit here from a minor variance application submitted last week: they're looking to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces from the current 0.28 parking spaces for each dwelling
unit to 0.16 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, citing lack of demand.

From the CoA doc:

The applicant is also seeking a reduction to the required number of residential parking spaces.
Parking for the Site was approved at 104 parking spaces, a rate of 0.28 spaces per residential
unit, with no non-residential parking required. In April 2019, LEA Consulting Ltd. (“LEA”), the
applicant’s traffic consultant for the Site, was asked to provide an updated assessment of the
parking supply. It was LEA’s conclusion that given the location of the proposed development with
regard to the availability of public transit (less than 250 metres to Yonge/Bloor Subway Station),
the proposed development is intended to be Transit Oriented Development, attracting residents
who choose to live without a car. As at the date of LEA’s assessment on April 26, 2019, of the
384 residential units, 322 had been sold while only 37 parking spaces had been sold, for an
“uptake” of 0.115 spaces per residential unit.

The proposed redesign would accommodate 65 parking spaces, a reduction of 39 spaces from
the currently approved 104 parking space supply. Even if the remaining unsold units had a parking
space demand, or uptake, equivalent to the approved zoning by-law requirement of 0.28 spaces
per residential unit, the reduced overall parking supply of 65 parking spaces would still provide a
surplus of 11 parking spaces. If the remaining 62 unsold units were to sell parking at the current
uptake rate of 0.115 spaces per unit, only an additional 7 spaces would be sold for a total of 44
parking spaces, and there would be a corresponding surplus of 21 parking spaces. We have
included the Parking Supply Assessment Letter, prepared by LEA Consulting Ltd., dated April 26,
2019.
 
Interesting tidbit here from a minor variance application submitted last week: they're looking to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces from the current 0.28 parking spaces for each dwelling
unit to 0.16 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, citing lack of demand.

From the CoA doc:

The applicant is also seeking a reduction to the required number of residential parking spaces.
Parking for the Site was approved at 104 parking spaces, a rate of 0.28 spaces per residential
unit, with no non-residential parking required. In April 2019, LEA Consulting Ltd. (“LEA”), the
applicant’s traffic consultant for the Site, was asked to provide an updated assessment of the
parking supply. It was LEA’s conclusion that given the location of the proposed development with
regard to the availability of public transit (less than 250 metres to Yonge/Bloor Subway Station),
the proposed development is intended to be Transit Oriented Development, attracting residents
who choose to live without a car. As at the date of LEA’s assessment on April 26, 2019, of the
384 residential units, 322 had been sold while only 37 parking spaces had been sold, for an
“uptake” of 0.115 spaces per residential unit.

The proposed redesign would accommodate 65 parking spaces, a reduction of 39 spaces from
the currently approved 104 parking space supply. Even if the remaining unsold units had a parking
space demand, or uptake, equivalent to the approved zoning by-law requirement of 0.28 spaces
per residential unit, the reduced overall parking supply of 65 parking spaces would still provide a
surplus of 11 parking spaces. If the remaining 62 unsold units were to sell parking at the current
uptake rate of 0.115 spaces per unit, only an additional 7 spaces would be sold for a total of 44
parking spaces, and there would be a corresponding surplus of 21 parking spaces. We have
included the Parking Supply Assessment Letter, prepared by LEA Consulting Ltd., dated April 26,
2019.

Their rational may make sense in the short term but in the long run, I.e 20 years I think the approved number of parking space make better sense.
 
Their rational may make sense in the short term but in the long run, I.e 20 years I think the approved number of parking space make better sense.

I think it's quite likely that the exact opposite is true; I can't envision a reason why the prevailing trend of declining personal auto ownership would reverse itself.
 
I think it's quite likely that the exact opposite is true; I can't envision a reason why the prevailing trend of declining personal auto ownership would reverse itself.
Exactly.

Plus I like to think that in locations like these parking demand is fairly elastic - if your condo has a spot, you are more likely to buy a car. if the spaces aren’t provided less people will own overall. This is actually a good thing if you are a driver as well as you will have less cars to compete with downtown. As someone with a car living downtown, not only am I an arduent supporter of the removal of minimum parking requirements and would totally be ok with tons of 0 parking developments, I also certainly appreciate that when I’m driving around the vast majority do not which gives me the space on the road to move at a reasonable speed..
 
Fair points above but at the same time people are switching from sedans to larger suv's ...not sure where all that fits in, why not meet half way and both reduce the spots and convert some of those "extra" spots that they cant sell into more electric vehicle charging stations? makes more sense than getting rid of it entirely. Maybe it's because I'm a car guy:p. We certainly don't want the mall trends of 70s-90s era U.S where large parking lots were put in place for malls but in the age of amazon many sit empty even with the population growth factored in. Has to be a better way than just getting rid of the spots altogether.
 

Back
Top