Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by bolognium

That line of thought seems so antiquated and just stinks of overreach. It's like saying all units should be two-bedroom units because there's no way to guarantee the resident won't have a child. Providing people with options on the rental market that better fit their needs, lifestyles, and requirements is pretty much objectively a positive move.

If someone owns a car and still chooses to rent in a building that doesn't provide parking, then let them deal with the consequences like any normal adult. So what if they pay to park off-site? If street parking becomes a problem then change or enforce the parking bylaws in the area. I genuinely don't see the logic in trying to force mandatory parking down people's throats.

Are you guys just projecting your own car-dependency on others? Is that what's going on?

Well I think the logic is that most buyers in mid-sized Canadian cities are still largely car dependent, and so a developer going for zero parking could be seen as a just off-loading the externalities of those still car dependent buyers onto the wider market. I tend to agree that having options like this in the market is better than not having them. However, the result would be better if there was actually a healthy vacancy rate that meant buyers could drift towards the options that actually work for their lifestyle, instead of just grabbing the first affordable unit that is available, functional or not.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by bolognium

What makes you think this development won't meet the resident's needs?

I don't own a car, and I happily live in a downtown apartment building that doesn't have parking available. Abolishing parking minimums is a very positive step away from pervasive auto-centric planning.

Also, some apartment buildings provide one parking space per unit, and the cost of that spot is bundled into the cost of rent. Someone that doesn't own a car ends up paying more for something they have no intention of using. How is that meeting their needs?

Diversity in housing types and the amenities a building offers is is a positive. Not sure why you're trying to spin this.

So you have no friends that drive? No family that visit from time to time that could use a space? never have out of town guests? These types of developments are a joke and create problems in communities across the country. Here in winnipeg a city councillor is bitching about lack of street parking in her community that has a bunch of condos and apartments that lack parking and clearly don’t meet the needs of the people living there. They add to street congestion and create more unsafe communities for drivers and pedestrians. Stop defending them.

[Hecate]

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

car ownership rates in apartments are far lower than that however, particularly in large cities.

Aren't you a big free market guy? These rules aren't banning the provision of parking - just not mandating it. If there is demand for parking, developers will build it.

The reality is that it costs ~$100,000 a parking space to build an underground parking garage. Most people will go car-free before spending $100,000 to own a car - especially if they live somewhere fairly walkable - so demand is a lot lower.

Like you, I would never want to live car free. I would pay that $100,000 to have a parking space. But many people wouldn't. So let them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Just what we need! living spaces that don’t meet the needs of people living there. How will this impact the entire community as their on street parking gets eaten up by these types “pass the buck” of developments. The only one who wins is the developer who makes more from providing less. Stop championing mediocrity.

This isn't mediocrity. It's the free market in action.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by Hecate

So you have no friends that drive? No family that visit from time to time that could use a space? never have out of town guests? These types of developments are a joke and create problems in communities across the country. Here in winnipeg a city councillor is bitching about lack of street parking in her community that has a bunch of condos and apartments that lack parking and clearly don’t meet the needs of the people living there. They add to street congestion and create more unsafe communities for drivers and pedestrians. Stop defending them.

Dude stop white-knuckling those pearls. The sky isn't falling.

Sure I might have the odd out of town friend visit me, and if they drive they pay $12 to park overnight in a garage around the corner. It's not a big deal. I'd rather not get gouged on rent for a parking spot I don't want or need.

You know what else creates problems in communities across the country? A bunch of fucking under-productive parking on valuable downtown land, and people that don't drive being forced to subsidize parking for those that do. I'm not defending developers, I just want the market to be free to provide housing that meets people's diverse needs. Not everyone drives (despite what you think) and developers should be allowed to build projects that reflect that. Mandated parking minimums (just like SFH zoning) are antiquated and outdated.

Originally Posted by Hecate

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

By that logic shouldn't only 80% of housing require parking then?

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

car ownership rates in apartments are far lower than that however, particularly in large cities.

Aren't you a big free market guy? These rules aren't banning the provision of parking - just not mandating it. If there is demand for parking, developers will build it.

The reality is that it costs ~$100,000 a parking space to build an underground parking garage. Most people will go car-free before spending $100,000 to own a car - especially if they live somewhere fairly walkable - so demand is a lot lower.

Like you, I would never want to live car free. I would pay that $100,000 to have a parking space. But many people wouldn't. So let them.

Thank you for this quality post. Wonderful that despite the development not catering to your specific wants/needs you're able to remove yourself from the equation and see the benefit in allowing different housing types for different lifestyles. Hecate should be taking notes.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

I don't know if there are statistics on car ownership by census tract, but in the census tract where this parking-less development in Victoria is going up, 49 per cent of people walk or bike to work, and 10 percent use public transit. Only 37 percent drive. So the development is responding to a specific, local market, not Canadians at large.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Just what we need! living spaces that don’t meet the needs of people living there. How will this impact the entire community as their on street parking gets eaten up by these types “pass the buck” of developments. The only one who wins is the developer who makes more from providing less. Stop championing mediocrity.

Why would someone move into new (not cheap mind you either) housing that doesn't meet their needs?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

car ownership rates in apartments are far lower than that however, particularly in large cities.

Aren't you a big free market guy? These rules aren't banning the provision of parking - just not mandating it. If there is demand for parking, developers will build it.

The reality is that it costs ~$100,000 a parking space to build an underground parking garage. Most people will go car-free before spending $100,000 to own a car - especially if they live somewhere fairly walkable - so demand is a lot lower.

Like you, I would never want to live car free. I would pay that $100,000 to have a parking space. But many people wouldn't. So let them.

The problem is that the lack of parking in new buildings just jams up roadways as people seek parking near their homes. The most laughable is Vancouver abolishing parking minimums when 2 bedrooms cost around $1.5 million. Almost everyone with that kind of money is going to keep a car.

A little Urban Geography 101 is a dangerous thing, as dewy-eyed undergrads come out mewling against cars. They change their tune 10 years later when they have a kid or two.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

Lol so this represents the 20% that don't having parking.

Why do we hate the free market so much and government overreach so much.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem is that the lack of parking in new buildings just jams up roadways as people seek parking near their homes. The most laughable is Vancouver abolishing parking minimums when 2 bedrooms cost around $1.5 million. Almost everyone with that kind of money is going to keep a car.

A little Urban Geography 101 is a dangerous thing, as dewy-eyed undergrads come out mewling against cars. They change their tune 10 years later when they have a kid or two.

No developer / condo seller in their right mind would try to sell a $1.5 million dollar condo without parking. It is likely so rare you can count them on one hand. We sell the odd studio without a parking stall, but they are intended to be rented out long term and not lived in by the buyer.

And in 10 years they'd have likely moved out of the car free unit, now make more money and can afford a new place with a $100k parking stall.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem is that the lack of parking in new buildings just jams up roadways as people seek parking near their homes. The most laughable is Vancouver abolishing parking minimums when 2 bedrooms cost around $1.5 million. Almost everyone with that kind of money is going to keep a car.

A little Urban Geography 101 is a dangerous thing, as dewy-eyed undergrads come out mewling against cars. They change their tune 10 years later when they have a kid or two.

If they won't go without a car they'll buy a space then.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

No developer / condo seller in their right mind would try to sell a $1.5 million dollar condo without parking. It is likely so rare you can count them on one hand. We sell the odd studio without a parking stall, but they are intended to be rented out long term and not lived in by the buyer.

And in 10 years they'd have likely moved out of the car free unit, now make more money and can afford a new place with a $100k parking stall.

And how many new two beds in Vancouver go for less than $1.5 these days?

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Over 80% of Canadians own a car. Built housing should be reflective of that.

Truth, lies, and statistics.

Assuming your 80% figure is correct, that is for the entire nation and housing/jobs/transportation are very localized. Building housing with no parking in a walkable and transit friendly city like Victoria is very appropriate while doing it in Vermillion would be patently ridiculous.

Also these buildings are in downtown Victoria not in some far flung suburb where you need a car just to grab a bag of milk. People don't live in downtown areas for the cheap rent but because it is close to their work and daily needs so they don't have to burden themselves with the cost of car ownership in the first place. Housing must be designed to fit the neighbourhood & city in which it is located and these Victoria no-parking buildings are a good reflection of that.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And how many new two beds in Vancouver go for less than $1.5 these days?

I'd like to say not many, but of course it depends on the size of the 2-bed psf, concrete or woodframe, and location and position within the building.

Our last batch were about $1.2m.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Truth, lies, and statistics.

Assuming your 80% figure is correct, that is for the entire nation and housing/jobs/transportation are very localized. Building housing with no parking in a walkable and transit friendly city like Victoria is very appropriate while doing it in Vermillion would be patently ridiculous.

Also these buildings are in downtown Victoria not in some far flung suburb where you need a car just to grab a bag of milk. People don't live in downtown areas for the cheap rent but because it is close to their work and daily needs so they don't have to burden themselves with the cost of car ownership in the first place. Housing must be designed to fit the neighbourhood & city in which it is located and these Victoria no-parking buildings are a good reflection of that.

I know several people who walk or bike to work, I know people who use public transit going to work as well. I also know people who work from home.. These people all own cars. Sometimes it’s nice to not have to lug your purchases home on a bus. Sometimes it’s nice to not have to worry about transit operating times or waiting for a cab. Sometimes it’s nice to drive out of the city for a day and enjoy some of our country’s wonderful wilderness.

I’m not opposed to buildings not needing lots of parking, i think buildings geared towards seniors and student housing would generally need less parking for residents. Doesn’t mean they need none. Like I said people have visitors. but to build any type of multi family housing without any option for parking at all, on this kind of scale is… stupid and will negatively impact the surrounding community.

[Hecate]

And here’s some stats about car ownership in Canada. Because I have no idea what I’m talking about.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...827345320.html

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Hecate

I know several people who walk or bike to work, I know people who use public transit going to work as well. I also know people who work from home.. These people all own cars. Sometimes it’s nice to not have to lug your purchases home on a bus. Sometimes it’s nice to not have to worry about transit operating times or waiting for a cab. Sometimes it’s nice to drive out of the city for a day and enjoy some of our country’s wonderful wilderness.

I’m not opposed to buildings not needing lots of parking, i think buildings geared towards seniors and student housing would generally need less parking for residents. Doesn’t mean they need none. Like I said people have visitors. but to build any type of multi family housing without any option for parking at all, on this kind of scale is… stupid and will negatively impact the surrounding community.

Then I doubt those people you know would live here. Seems really inconvenient. Metro Victoria is something around half a million people. This apartment is about 250 units. I'm pretty sure 250 people can live without a car, or live with the inconvenience and expense of parking it off site.

Public parking is exactly that as well, public. Not enough parking nearby? Sounds like a perfect free market business solution to build some.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Hecate

And here’s some stats about car ownership in Canada. Because I have no idea what I’m talking about.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...827345320.html

I don't think anyone yet is disputing that 80% ownership claim. What we are pointing out is that the other 20% of Canadians might want to live in this 250-unit building in the middle of downtown Victoria.

[Innsertnamehere]

It also ignores the variety of car ownership rates across Canada. I can assure you that car ownership rates are far higher in the downtowns of Canada's big cities.

Anecdotally when I lived in Downtown Toronto I rented in a building which had 203 parking spaces for 395 units. The parking was maybe 2/3 full at best, at a rental rate of about $200/month for a space. We always had 1 space, and actually increased it to 2 spaces for the last couple of months before we moved to Hamilton.

Through my work I've seen developers saying that most recent condo sales in Downtown Toronto are seeing parking space uptake be at about 2-3 spaces per 100 units sold.