Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode