Quote:
Originally Posted by PBlonde
My main point throughout this conversation has been that new rental buildings without sufficient parking will have trouble leasing up, not that there must be more parking built for the good of the City. Not completing lease up or taking longer to do so has significant consequences for developers.
I understand your point that as there is no net increase in car ownership in the City of Vancouver (even with population growth), we don't need more parking stalls built because currently everyone can park their car somewhere.
What I'm trying to point out is that where you have new developments that are beginning to lease up, renters will be asked to pay top of market rents. For those top of market rents they will expect a nice new building, good amenities and for their to be a net improvement in their day to day living. Why would someone that is in an older building that has parking go to a new building where they pay more and at the same time be forced to get rid of their car because there's nowhere to park? They may move because it's closer to their work, family, transit, whatever, but there needs to be an incentive to up and move. If a new building cannot adequately incentivize enough people to move in, they will not lease up.
|
Developers are presumably aware of that dynamic, and are having to decide how big a hole to dig to add to a building's cost and time to construct it, to add parking, against the income they hope to get from renting the parking spaces, and the additional tenants they might attract who will only consider their building if it has parking.
The recent data suggests that some households (in Vancouver) are moving to having no vehicle and using alternative arrangements for transportation, so that must play into the overall decision too. In the case of PCI, in their next tower they're just starting to build at Arbutus they're putting 67 spaces for 260 units, so they seem convinced that lower parking provision isn't a huge deal.
In the case of this building, it seems to be leasing up pretty quickly (in the context of higher rents than the general market, because it's a new building). I don't think new rental buildings fill up in the first few months - West End projects in the past few years certainly haven't. In the US rental market new buildings in 2025 were filling up at the slowest rate on record. In 2024 CMHC noted that in Vancouver there were more new rental units coming to market on transit at the same time that demand was falling, and vacancy rates increasing. Last year MLA noted that in Vancouver 'In response to slower absorption, developers are adopting more agile leasing strategies. Many are reducing the volume of units released at once or staggering lease-ups by floor or building phase. The goal isn’t to fill quickly; it’s to match product and pricing to today’s more cautious renter.' 5,500 new concrete rental units were added to the Metro market last year, most of them on transit. I doubt PCI are too upset about the rental level they've already achieved - and they're not even on a transit line until fall next year.
The test of significantly reduced parking being offered is obviously Senakw. That project doesn't even sit on top of a transit station, so if the comments by the developer about interest in leasing there are true, it would seem providing parking may not be a huge deal in the current market.
Prev
Linear Mode
