Brandon Donnelly

18 responses to “Parking minimums are so last decade”

1. 

   Mary Gene Boudart

   July 19, 2023

   Unfortunately, it is also true that too few parking spaces can lead to problems. An 8 story condo unit on the other side of the laneway proposed two levels of underground parking and then requested that the City of Toronto allow only one level-which it did. Now, cars, delivery trucks and trucks routinely pull up and park on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the building. I have witnessed an endless number of “near misses” of parents, children, and dogs almost being hit by the cars pulling up behind and parking on the sidewalk. This is not a safe situation. Cars also routinely park in the laneway, blocking access and exit to cars and other vehicles trying to enter and leave the laneway. This condo development missed the mark in miscalculating the number of parking spots that are needed for the neighborhood.

   Reply
   1. 

      Brandon Graham Donnelly

      July 19, 2023

      Are these loading/servicing related vehicles versus resident vehicles, though?

      Reply
2. 

   ROMAN MYCHAJLOWYCZ

   July 19, 2023

   Did you mean too few, or too many? (A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt.)

   Reply
   1. 

      Brandon Graham Donnelly

      July 19, 2023

      Too few

      Reply
3. 

   Douglas Pollard

   July 19, 2023

   Given the current situation with unprecedented heat and fire and brimstone all over the place and the likelihood that this will continue surely these unused spaces will be converted to underground residences in the future. There are already converted (doomsday survival) missile silos etc. and underground cities are an ancient concept. AI could play a big part in making the underground world as pleasant as the surface one used to be.

   Reply
4. 

   Pedro

   July 19, 2023

   This argument from developers seems primarily motivated by wanting to save on construction costs. Parking spaces are great: they help keep cars off the street, can be leased out to others (extra income if you don’t want a car), can be easily adapted to cellars, storage, other uses. Its not wasted space- its highly adaptable and flexible.

   Reply
   1. 

      Brandon Graham Donnelly

      July 19, 2023

      Also:

      – Housing affordability
      – Housing feasibility on smaller projects
      – Embodied carbon
      – Moving towards more sustainable forms of mobility

      Reply
5. 

   john hartley

   July 24, 2023

   Lets be clear Brian you are a developer shill – you refuse to criticize developers. Likewise, being a lot time capitalist – developers cannot be blamed for doing what makes money. Parking is expensive to build – so the industry has convinced for instance Toronto to abandon all parking requirements in order to build. The effects on neighbourhoods is atrocious. It is the essence of bad planning.
   Which is whom planners and politicians are supposed to represent. They have been subverted by the industry. So Toronto will have foisted on it huge projects with minimal parking causing massive diseconomies on the surrounding neighbours. This will not be remedied for the life of these buildings. We know the industry knows it the politicians and planners know it – but hey it is incredibly profitable. They just do not care.

   Reply
6. 

   doug pollard

   July 24, 2023

   Well I am not a developer shill but having worked for some in the past, I can say from my own experience that developers will not build something that does not look like it will meet market demands. If the minimums are removed, it simply means developers can assess what the market wants/needs and build that amount but not necessarily zero. Parking is a marketable product but parking gets more and more expensive the lower down into the ground you go so it makes sense for everyone not to overbuild. Toronto is merely following the lead of a bazillion other cities in dropping these minimums. Edmonton did so in 2020 and calls it a success with none of the worries cited above coming true. I do not know if they did it this time but when I was practicing and when TO wanted to adjust their parking ratios FIRST they surveyed every parking garage to see how well it was used or not used it was and then acted accordingly.

   Reply
   1. 

      john hartley

      July 25, 2023

      Right – did you mother ever ask you “just because your friends are jumping off a cliff do you think you should”? The fact that a whole bunch of jurisdictions that are heavily developer influenced are pursuing a particular policy is not an endorsement, nor a rational justification. You may not be a developer shill but you sure are trumpeting the developer propaganda. Far too much of so called planning is nothing more or less than the au courant “idea”. And far too many of those au courant “ideas” are ntohing more than justification for something that enhances developer margins. There is a tremendous demand for heroin – do you think we should allow the market to meet that demand? Uncontrolled capitalism will not achieve an optimum solution for anyone other than the capitalist. This comes from a died in the wool capitalist. The elimination of ANY parking requirements is a golden gift to developers. It is also a scourge on the communities which will be inundated with parking problems. Those decision makers will be long gone when the results roll in. You might want to consider a recent article n the Glove and Mail, hardly an anticapitalistic rag – regarding the inadequacy of parking at hospitals. For your reference https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-satans-lot-the-diabolical-nature-of-hospital-parking/

      Reply
      1. 

         doug pollard

         July 25, 2023

         John , of course just because someone else dropped their minimums is not a reason for Toronto to do so. Perhaps though, it was after examining whether or not this move proved to be an issue or a benefit elsewhere it was considered for TO. I think the first cities to do so did it in 2017 so there is a lot of evidence now. Dozens or possibly hundreds of communities have now adjusted their parking rules to suit current ownership patterns. (They also adjust a lot of other planning issues as well) Developers and planners do not always work in collusion and neither camp always gets it right. My experiences with many many planners does not suggest that they only behave to integrate the au courant idea or enhance developer margins, mostly I experienced the opposite. I also worked with a number of community-based (nonprofit) groups who in turn worked in tandem with municipal planners to together implement the projects they thought would be beneficial to all. These nonprofit projects were also often built on their behalf by developers, behaving as builders. There is always multiple sides to every story.

         Reply
         1. 

            john hartley

            July 26, 2023

            Indeed there are multiple sides to every story – and there may well be evidence that could be objectively documented analyzed and considered. But it apparently has not. One need only consider the reports that Toronto Council relied upon is considering their decision to realize that was not the case. Moreover Toronto is a very different place than those other smaller communities. No other city in North America is undergoing the tremendous building boom, no other city in the world is being inundated with density far beyond the capacity of existing infrastructure with no credible plan or even vision to correct that situation. We so have a very good example of what can happen on a micro scale when buildings have inadequate parking. Rockport built in Leslieville – after having been approved financed and sold. The evident lack of parking capacity motivated the local councilor to promote and pass a bylaw preventing the condo residents from accessing on street parking – in order to protect the neighbourhood. The result was bad enough that even the developer complained. Our democracy has unfortunately been subverted at the municipal and provincial level by the development industry, which they are unfailingly serving to the detriment of our entire society. The protection of neighbourhoods embodied in the Official Plan passed by council approved by the province and the Ontario Municipal Board (as it then was) are being grossly violated on a daily basis.

            Reply
            1. 

               doug pollard

               July 26, 2023

               Thanks for that update. I no longer live in TO although I am fully aware of its growth issues and I do go back there with a certain regularity so I know what it looks like right now (and what it might look like in the very near future), Everything I mentioned was based on my own past experience of practicing architecture for 30 years or so in that city. and by now may no longer be relevant. If they have now reached the point where they adopt policies without due consideration to their own context then a sad day has definitely arrived and future issues will arise.

            2. 

               john hartley

               July 26, 2023

               Well put – and we honestly need real input from the professionals who uphold the sanctity of their professional obligations. I have seen how the old parking requirements were circumvented, and way back when, thought that the city had been “fooled”. More recent reflection is that the city knew exactly what was occurring, and either did not care or chose to turn a blind eye. The preceding comment is predicated on witnessing statutory consultations where planners sat mute while professionals deliberately misled with regard to the very facts that were part of the conversation . Interestingly enough the architects regulatory body when apprised of the facts, and the admission of those facts, chose to do nothing.

            3. 

               doug pollard

               July 26, 2023

               Well, that is worse than sad. The only times I was ever involved in adjusting parking requirements were for non profits where the groups themselves, based on their own analysis of future residents habits, wanted fewer cars usually because they replaced several spots with a shared car spot. They would normally take the funding money that would have built a useless spot(s) and spend it on some amenity or other. Every other developer would always build to regulation , as much for fear of exposing themselves to the C of Adj .or, god forbid, the OMB. We once did a seniors no profit project on top of an existing library building steps from Yonge and Eglinton. There was an existing garage with I think about 15 spots available for the new use. I would guess there would have been about 100 units, maybe more. There were no objections then and I knew residents in that building and there were no parking issues although I am not sure if some residents had to go find an overbuilt garage somewhere else. One thing I do recall was an objection from Mc Donalds citing that we would increase traffic!!. I can recall another project for a for-profit seniors somewhat luxury retirement facility, also close to transit where the well-to-do and heavily armed with lawyers neighbours complained of potential parking overflow. My recollection is that the requirements were not that high. Same thing, all was well after the fact and not even the few spots provided were all used. Each project has its own story. I also lived in a house without parking on a downtown street and welcomed the fact that a nearby high-rise had an overbuilt garage because I leased a spot in it as did my neighbours. That garage was still largely empty, even with the non residents cars using it
               None of that wipes out the instances where mistakes were made however, just means every case should be assessed on its own. I will hold back any and all comments about the OAA.

            4. 

               john hartley

               July 26, 2023

               For sure – the long ago storey I was referring to was where the city would accept a lease for parking spaces as providing the required space – the owner owned numerous properties in the area and would sign the required lease in order to get a building permit – then rip it up – and do the same think on the next property. It was a flagrant game – the city never registered anything. At the time I thought the city was being fooled. In retrospect I am not so sure. But the criticism about the current Toronto situation stands – there are neighbourhoods that have had parking problems for over 50 years, the beach being one where I lived and was very well acquainted with the issue. Now, with “densification” encouraged – a builder can readily build, as of right, with no parking whatsoever. The impact on already stressed communities will be significant. But our city hall thinks that is a good way to “discourage” automobiles. I see it as a method of making the city far less than livable. Builders will happily build, until they can’t sell.

            5. 

               doug pollard

               July 27, 2023

               Well I never encountered that particular scam but I do know the beach and its parking issues quite well. I lived in the north part myself and did some work in it (we always complied with the minimum parking requirements) and frequented it for all the usual reasons. Parking plagues all sorts of older communities globally especially ones created before the car and TO is no exception. I have not kept up with the stats on how others are doing with discouraging car ownership (vs car usage). The example that Brandon brought forward in Burnaby of them building 14 levels of parking near the skytrain suggests that car ownership is not diminishing much at least in Vancouver. Too tempting perhaps to have a car in order to escape to the beautiful BC interior on weekends. Whenever I am n TO it seems that both figures are high since the streets are plugged. Are all those people in traffic actually going somewhere or is it that they simply can’t find a parking space?

            6. 

               john hartley

               July 27, 2023

               your description brings to mind a trip to Chicago a very long time ago “their aint no parking on the North Side” – you have described the problem – allowing as of right building with NO parking – when we all know how expensive it is to build parking – when their is a big deficit in parking (in many older areas of the city) is quite simply a recipe for creating an environment many will avoid. That is not city building – it is agenda served Social Engineering – contrary to what the vast majority actually want – and frankly endangers the economy – it invites a down the drain irreversible decline – exactly what no one wants – and exactly analogous to the affordability issue – where municipal policy purports to foster affordability and does exactly the opposite. doug – thank you for your comments