Unaffordability has apparently gotten so bad that we are now seeing a groundswell of support for increasing overall housing supply. So politicians are doing things. And this week, the Province of British Columbia proposed some new legislation related to transit hubs.
As proposed, the legislation will require BC municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas), mandate minimum heights and densities within certain radii (broadly 800m in the case of rapid transit stations), and remove parking minimums.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people are excited about this and, there's no question, that this is directionally the right thing to do. But I have two immediate thoughts.
The first is that the devil is always in the details. This all sounds good, but: Are the proposed minimum densities and heights going to be enough to stimulate development? For example, is 4 the right minimum FAR for 300m from a transit station?
The second thought has to do with the level of excitement surrounding this announcement. (I'm going strictly based on Twitter, which admittedly could just be my bubble). The fact that city builders are so excited about this announcement tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.
Unaffordability has apparently gotten so bad that we are now seeing a groundswell of support for increasing overall housing supply. So politicians are doing things. And this week, the Province of British Columbia proposed some new legislation related to transit hubs.
As proposed, the legislation will require BC municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas), mandate minimum heights and densities within certain radii (broadly 800m in the case of rapid transit stations), and remove parking minimums.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people are excited about this and, there's no question, that this is directionally the right thing to do. But I have two immediate thoughts.
The first is that the devil is always in the details. This all sounds good, but: Are the proposed minimum densities and heights going to be enough to stimulate development? For example, is 4 the right minimum FAR for 300m from a transit station?
The second thought has to do with the level of excitement surrounding this announcement. (I'm going strictly based on Twitter, which admittedly could just be my bubble). The fact that city builders are so excited about this announcement tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.
Because what this proposed legislation is more or less saying is the following: "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's build more housing around higher order transit and not force the market to build unnecessary parking."
Is this really something that should be considered novel? I thought this was just how cities should work.
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
We knew it was coming. But it's important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.
If you'd like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you'll find them linked here. I haven't gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for "maximum" given that this week's adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here's an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I'm talking about:
Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given use and minimums
Because what this proposed legislation is more or less saying is the following: "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's build more housing around higher order transit and not force the market to build unnecessary parking."
Is this really something that should be considered novel? I thought this was just how cities should work.
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
We knew it was coming. But it's important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.
If you'd like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you'll find them linked here. I haven't gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for "maximum" given that this week's adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here's an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I'm talking about:
Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given use and minimums
should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
zoning standards should require the
minimum
responsible amount of parking for a given
land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
dependence.
One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.
All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There's a joke (half-joke) that when you're designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That's not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week's adoption is in service of that.
should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
zoning standards should require the
minimum
responsible amount of parking for a given
land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
dependence.
One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.
All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There's a joke (half-joke) that when you're designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That's not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week's adoption is in service of that.
