Toronto ditches archaic parking rules that have clogged the city with cars

[Nite]

Toronto ditches archaic parking rules that have clogged the city with cars


Toronto just took a big step away from car dependency, with city council adopting new by-law amendments on Wednesday to eliminate controversial parking rules that force developers to include vast parking garages in their projects.

Not only is the city removing most of these outdated minimum parking requirements, it's also imposing new limits on the number of parking spaces that can be built into a development. A double-whammy for car dependency.

"This decision means that developers will no longer be required to build parking spaces that home buyers don't want, making it easier for residents who live without a car to purchase a home," said Mayor John Tory.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/12/...ged-city-cars/

[MolsonExport]

great news

[WhipperSnapper]

They have allowed developers to building fewer spots than required for some time. I guess they no longer have to apply for a variance.

It's good news but reducing the number of parking spaces is not how one gets away from car dependency. Bike lanes help to a small degree. They're impractical for most commutes in a sprawling metro like Toronto. (with the worst climate to boot) We are building transit. It's not fast enough. I guess what I'm saying is that too few spaces will be built. Developers can reduce costs and time of construction. I don't trust council to be clear headed in selecting a new limit for the odd chance a developer considers building above the limit.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

They have allowed developers to building fewer spots than required for some time. I guess they no longer have to apply for a variance.

It's good news but reducing the number of parking spaces is not how one gets away from car dependency. Bike lanes help to a small degree. They're impractical for most commutes in a sprawling metro like Toronto. (with the worst climate to boot) We are building transit. It's not fast enough. I guess what I'm saying is that too few spaces will be built. Developers can reduce costs and time of construction. I don't trust council to be clear headed in selecting a new limit for the odd chance a developer considers building above the limit.

Eliminating parking minimums means small buildings can be built much cheaper than before.

[C.]

Good news, but I’m surprised such a progressive city like Toronto took this long. It’s no longer a radical proposal to combat clogged city streets and car culture, it’s just the common sense thing to do. Parking is now regulated through the free market, as those with the desire and means to purchase a spot will do so.

The next step should be to eliminate single family zoning and allow up to 4 units to be built in neighborhoods. Since parking is no longer required, this can be done as long as Toronto tells the self serving NIMBY groups to get lost.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by C.

Good news, but I’m surprised such a progressive city like Toronto took this long. It’s no longer a radical proposal to combat clogged city streets and car culture, it’s just the common sense thing to do. Parking is now regulated through the free market, as those with the desire and means to purchase a spot will do so.

The next step should be to eliminate single family zoning and allow up to 4 units to be built in neighborhoods. Since parking is no longer required, this can be done as long as Toronto tells the self serving NIMBY groups to get lost.

Your first mistake was thinking Toronto is a progressive city. Toronto is dominated by it suburbs after the mega city was created. So if suburban voters don't approve of something it doesn't pass. The last 3 of the 4 mayors after the merger have been very conservatives politicians.

[Peggerino]

Originally Posted by C.

Good news, but I’m surprised such a progressive city like Toronto took this long. It’s no longer a radical proposal to combat clogged city streets and car culture, it’s just the common sense thing to do. Parking is now regulated through the free market, as those with the desire and means to purchase a spot will do so.

The next step should be to eliminate single family zoning and allow up to 4 units to be built in neighborhoods. Since parking is no longer required, this can be done as long as Toronto tells the self serving NIMBY groups to get lost.

What other cities besides Edmonton have gotten rid of parking minimums in North America? I thought they were the first majorish city to remove them and that was relatively recent.

Also, I agree with Nite. While Toronto is home to lots of progressive people as a result of it being a large city, its reputation is that it's relatively conservative and slow to change, especially when compared to Montreal and Vancouver.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nite

Eliminating parking minimums means small buildings can be built much cheaper than before.

Like I said, the minimums weren't being enforced in the urban areas at all. It was very easy for developers to get approval for less parking. It wasn't hard in suburbia either. This is more about creating maximums than cutting unnecessary "tape"

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by C.

Good news, but I’m surprised such a progressive city like Toronto took this long. It’s no longer a radical proposal to combat clogged city streets and car culture, it’s just the common sense thing to do. Parking is now regulated through the free market, as those with the desire and means to purchase a spot will do so.

The next step should be to eliminate single family zoning and allow up to 4 units to be built in neighborhoods. Since parking is no longer required, this can be done as long as Toronto tells the self serving NIMBY groups to get lost.

There's only bankruptcy buying a SFH and replacing it with 4 units. That's SFH is far more desirable than the 4 condo units. There is nothing to stop you from doing it in several key neighbourhoods. Those 4 units will have to sell at $1.8 million. It's not going to create affordability no matter if you build 4000 of them

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

There's only bankruptcy buying a SFH and replacing it with 4 units. That's SFH is far more desirable than the 4 condo units. There is nothing to stop you from doing it in several key neighbourhoods. Those 4 units will have to sell at $1.8 million. It's not going to create affordability no matter if you build 4000 of them

All additional supply helps with affordability even if the new units sell for 10 million each, that still means that the people who buy here will not be buying an someplace else.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nite

All additional supply helps with affordability even if the new units sell for 10 million each, that still means that the people who buy here will not be buying an someplace else.

Not really. A condo or house selling for a record amount becomes a trend setter for every future sale. It only leads to things becoming more unaffordable. Canada's housing is a international traded commodity earning citizenship, education and, laundering opportunities.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Not really. A condo or house selling for a record amount becomes a trend setter for every future sale. It only leads to things becoming more unaffordable. Canada's housing is a international traded commodity earning citizenship, education and, laundering opportunities.

And the person who buys it is not buying another home that is available for someone else therefore freeing up more housing stock.
It's not the home they buy that improves affordability, it's the homes they would otherwise have bought. This ripples all the way down to the market to the cheapest property and it is here that affordability improves.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Not really. A condo or house selling for a record amount becomes a trend setter for every future sale. It only leads to things becoming more unaffordable. Canada's housing is a international traded commodity earning citizenship, education and, laundering opportunities.

No. You're probably talking about comps. But that's illusory. An actual sale depends on buyers choosing that property and price, and that's all about supply and demand.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Nite

Your first mistake was thinking Toronto is a progressive city. Toronto is dominated by it suburbs after the mega city was created. So if suburban voters don't approve of something it doesn't pass. The last 3 of the 4 mayors after the merger have been very conservatives politicians.

Even within the old city, I'm surprised at how given to reactionary piggishness a lot of Torontonians are. I'm thinking of the tantrums business owners throw anytime anyone suggests something progressive. King st. traffic restrictions, $15 minimum wage... Do people think using their business as a platform to broadcast their selfishness is going to endear them to anyone?

[samne]

Originally Posted by biguc

Even within the old city, I'm surprised at how given to reactionary piggishness a lot of Torontonians are. I'm thinking of the tantrums business owners throw anytime anyone suggests something progressive. King st. traffic restrictions, $15 minimum wage... Do people think using their business as a platform to broadcast their selfishness is going to endear them to anyone?

Inner Toronto is not full of progressives…It’s full of Champagne Socialists.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Peggerino

What other cities besides Edmonton have gotten rid of parking minimums in North America? I thought they were the first majorish city to remove them and that was relatively recent.

Also, I agree with Nite. While Toronto is home to lots of progressive people as a result of it being a large city, its reputation is that it's relatively conservative and slow to change, especially when compared to Montreal and Vancouver.

It's not conservative in the way that Americans or even many other Canadians would envision "conservative".

More like the dictionary as opposed to the political definition of conservative.

Think prudent.

The opposite of revolutionary.

[Innsertnamehere]

Major projects which were in for rezonings already basically built what they wanted - but some suburban projects would get pushback from the city if they wanted too much of a change from the by-law, and the city still pushed for *some* level of parking even in the downtown.

The standard for parking in the core has varied between 0.1 and 0.2 spaces per unit for about a decade now, but it's closer to 0.5-0.7 in the suburbs.

For these projects, I don't expect to see much change in the amount of parking being provided as it was basically already at the level which developers wanted to build.

The mandated parking minimums impacted smaller scale projects more, which don't typically go through a full rezoning process. It was a lot more challenging to reduce parking requirements through the minor variance process.

What this removal does is make infill residential triplexes, small additions atop commercial storefronts, etc. much easier to implement.

It also notably lowers the visitor parking ratio requirement, albeit does not eliminate it, which up until now the City had been much more of a stickler on, even for downtown sites.

[Crawford]

One thing I've noticed about driving/parking in core Toronto is that it's really cheap. Like shockingly cheap. Parking overnight in a new tower garage right in the core, connecting to the underground walkways and transit, for like $15-20 Canadian using parking apps. You can't get that in downtown Detroit. In Chicago, it will be 3x as much. In NYC it basically won't exist (self parking in a new tower).

That suggests that maybe the previous parking requirements went overboard, and there was an oversupply of core parking relative to demand. Core Toronto has relatively high transit share, and basically two arterials flowing from the suburbs, so the garages are relatively cheap. No doubt people have cars, but probably not more than one max per household.

[Doady]

Toronto has been called "The Los Angeles of the North" for a reason. It's a city built for the car, essentially a giant suburb, more akin to Sunbelt city than to older cities like NYC or Chicago that it is constantly compared to, but maybe now that is finally starting to change, and it is finally becoming a real city and less car dependent.

In addition to relaxing parking requirements, maybe the City of Toronto can also relax its ban on buses from the neighbouring suburban systems like MiWay and York Region Transit from providing services within its borders. But of course, even if the city did end its ban on suburban buses, Toronto residents might still protest and block those buses as they have done in the past.

[mhays]

Why on earth would they ban other bus systems? Would they rather those people drive, or stress Toronto's system?

In the Seattle area we rely on a variety of systems. Outlying counties have always run buses into the Seattle core.