Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[VanK]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

If the developer thinks there is a market for that type of product they should be allowed to build it.

I have to disagree with this. As a developer, it benefits the developer to reduce the parking count as the parkade is a huge cost to the developer, thus the developer's motive is to reduce the parking count.

[s211]

It's the developer's goal to sell units and get the hell out. They could care less about how a project ages or faces reality.

Face it. The world could go through a fluffy unicorn phase, and all of a sudden developers throw a fluffy unicorn room into each suite, and they sell like hotcakes. A few years later? The world's moved on to meditation rooms, and pity the suckers who have a suite with a fluffy unicorn room. The original developer could care less about the suckers.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by VanK

I have to disagree with this. As a developer, it benefits the developer to reduce the parking count as the parkade is a huge cost to the developer, thus the developer's motive is to reduce the parking count.

Yes ... but, the Developer will only build what is sellable in the marketplace. If research says that people will buy units "without" parking then that is what the market wants, and the city shouldn't dictate market needs.

A developer will not build a project without parking if research says that clients see parking as a condition of purchase.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

Yes ... but, the Developer will only build what is sellable in the marketplace. If research says that people will buy units "without" parking then that is what the market wants, and the city shouldn't dictate market needs.

A developer will not build a project without parking if research says that clients see parking as a condition of purchase.

In this case the developer is proposing a drastic reduction in parking from the norm & the closest example of anything coming close to this reduction (and still is not at 0.45 stalls p/u is Marine Gateway/MC2 - both examples have not yet been built & honestly mostly sold to investor types. In those examples we have not yet seen if the parking reductions will work or create a nightmare. Both examples are @ Marine Drive a market where one would argue will attract more singles/renters. Sure the units sold but do we really know what the outcome will be? The Oakridge location coupled with the fact that the developer is known to be a higher-end developer, will likely attract more end users, and families, given the unit mix presented.

At 0.45 stalls per unit this has the potential for lack of parking disaster that will be irreversible.

Just because units pre-sold does not mean that is what the market WANTS. It is very possible that this COULD mean that these buyers purchased in a frenzy and bought units with the intention of collecting rents or with the intention of re-selling money - not ultimately caring what the end result of the unit is because they have no intention of living there.

The City in this case is a council with a GREEN - NO CAR AGENDA - BIKE LANE agenda & is all for making car ownership less desirable. I just hope that IF this green-Vision council passes a 0.45 stall per unit development, they realize that there is the possibility of a huge parking problem on their hands.

[Mikemike]

The developer doesn't want to build those spot, probably because they know that buyers will not be willing to pay enough for them, and they are probably smart enough to see that even if it might not be quite enough today, it might be just right by the end of the 20years or so that the project takes to complete.
They know what a parking space takes to build, and what one will rent for, and they are probably aware of trends that strongly suggest that demand will decrease in the future.

It would be short sighted to ask them to build more than they need, and suggestions that they must do so (at a cost likely over $40,000 each for the additional stalls) to avoid the mere possibility of some residents or shoppers parking on the street is the classic NIMBY position: that the residents of the existing houses have some sort of god-given right to park on the street, but if apartment dwellers do the same, that's a travesty.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by VanK

I have to disagree with this. As a developer, it benefits the developer to reduce the parking count as the parkade is a huge cost to the developer, thus the developer's motive is to reduce the parking count.

If people actually want parking, they should be willing to pay for it. And pay enough that the developer would make a profit on those stalls. If they aren't willing to pay, who is the city to demand that they build it only to sell it at a loss?

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by phesto

The results from reduced parking are mixed. With Telus Garden, the one bedrooms didn't come with a stall but an option to purchase one anyway and obviously with it being downtown and with so much hype for that project, it wasn't an issue. Intracorp went with approx. 0.55 stalls per unit at MC2 (Marine and Cambie) and one bedrooms without a stall are a particularly hard sell despite discounts.

I don't know about this location, but I think that the model of strata-titled parking stalls isn't ideal for low-parking developments. People will be afraid to buy a unit without a stall that they may not need, "just in case", even if that means a huge additional cost. It would be much better to be able to buy a condo where the parking is owned by the condo corp, so each owner owns shares in the common parking lot that is then rented out at market rates to those who will pay. Those who need parking can pay, and the while the parking portion of the building still adds to the purchase price of a unit, it also provides revenue that should cover that cost, at least if there isn't too much built.

I suspect that here the developer will keep the parking, and will charge market rates. If they can't fill the spots, resident stalls can be converted to shoppers parking. If there's a waiting list, they can raise the price.
Easy.

[s211]

Originally Posted by VanK

The City in this case is a council with a GREEN - NO CAR AGENDA - BIKE LANE agenda & is all for making car ownership less desirable. I just hope that IF this green-Vision council passes a 0.45 stall per unit development, they realize that there is the possibility of a huge parking problem on their hands.

You'll love this. New project near Cambie/Broadway/Oak. Many units. City specifically EXCLUDES residents of said tower from being able to apply for resident street parking passes.

True story: wife calls to get a permit, and gets an earful from the bureaucratic pucktart, giving my wife hell because my wife drives instead of taking transit or cycling.

Writing's on the wall.

[Pinion]

I don't know how common this is but Seylynn Village in North Van was willing to take $30k off the price if you didn't want a parking space. But in that neighbourhood you'd be crazy to not have at least one car...

Having options is good. I'd be more interested in condos with options of two spots - zero spots is a non-starter.

[jlousa]

I agree, even though I'm car less I wouldn't buy a unit that I planed on living in w/o a spot and preferably two. I have no problem paying extra for the additional spot.
I also agree that any unit w/o a parking spot will be a harder sell even if offered at a discount vs a unit with a spot.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by s211

You'll love this. New project near Cambie/Broadway/Oak. Many units. City specifically EXCLUDES residents of said tower from being able to apply for resident street parking passes.

True story: wife calls to get a permit, and gets an earful from the bureaucratic pucktart, giving my wife hell because my wife drives instead of taking transit or cycling.

Writing's on the wall.

That's normal nimby-pandering policy. Permits are reserved for residents of single family homes, because you apartment dwellers would overwhelm the streets if you could all park virtually free.
Residential permits should be expensive, if available at all.
Really, if there's enough demand that permits are deemed necessary there should be meters during the day, and possibly time limits during the night.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I agree, even though I'm car less I wouldn't buy a unit that I planed on living in w/o a spot and preferably two. I have no problem paying extra for the additional spot.
I also agree that any unit w/o a parking spot will be a harder sell even if offered at a discount vs a unit with a spot.

What if you knew that you could rent someone else's stall for less than it would cost to finance that $30,000 stall. That's $150 a month, roughly.

[jlousa]

Interest is cheap, that 30K at 3% has a carrying cost of only $75/month. I'd take the spot all day long at that price even if I let it sit empty.
That's my preference, others might choose the $75 in their pocket and should have the right to make that choice. The fact is the spots w/o stalls are a much harder sell, and previous examples have shown that.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

That's normal nimby-pandering policy. Permits are reserved for residents of single family homes, because you apartment dwellers would overwhelm the streets if you could all park virtually free.

The other apartment buildings in the area are not excluded. They have the right to permit-only parking. This new building? No.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by s211

The other apartment buildings in the area are not excluded. They have the right to permit-only parking. This new building? No.

If that's what it takes to get neighbourhood support for upzonings, I'll take it. It's not ideal (and catering to the selfishness of the existing residents is irritating), but it beats a world where the new building doesn't go up at all.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

What if you knew that you could rent someone else's stall for less than it would cost to finance that $30,000 stall. That's $150 a month, roughly.

What if the developer only builds 0.45 stalls per unit. Then there would be NO available parking stalls to rent!! There won't be any excess stalls available.

& What if I want to purchase a 3 bedroom unit & I am willing to purchase 2 stalls for my unit. Then what? The problem is there wont be a second stall for me to purchase even if I will be willing to fork out the $$. Where am I then supposed to park my car?

Sure for free parking I will gladly park my car in a single family area near Oakridge on the street and contribute to their parking problems (as I surely won't be the only one). Or if there is resident only parking restrictions.. Ill find some homeowner that wants to make a few bucks and rent a city permit from them.... I don't think this is the solution but it might be a problem that the City will have to deal with.

[SFUVancouver]

Metro Vancouver did a study in 2012 on apartment building parking utilization in the region: http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/d...rtment_Parking_Study_TechnicalReport.pdf

The key findings were:

-Residential parking supply in strata apartments generally exceed parking demand in the range of 18 ‐ 35 percent across the region.

-Residential parking demand is lower near TransLink’s Frequent transit Network. For apartments near the Frequent Transit Network, the parking demand range is 0.89 –1.06
vehicles per apartment unit; whereas for apartments further away from the Frequent Transit Network, the parking demand range is 1.10 – 1.25 vehicles per apartment unit.

-Residential parking demand near Frequent Transit Network bus stops are similar to demand near SkyTrain/SeaBus stations, but the parking supply is higher.

-Vehicle holdings and parking demand for apartment renters are much lower than for owners. This is consistent with prior research. In purpose‐built market rental sites, the parking demand range is 0.58 ‐ 0.72 vehicles per apartment unit.

-Visitor parking supply may be over supplied. Observed parking demand rates were below 0.1 stall per apartment unit, compared to the typical municipal requirement of 0.2 visitor stall per apartment unit.

-Participation in carshare programs was highest in Vancouver (16% of surveyed households) and UBC (15% of surveyed households), where carshare programs predominantly operate. Households with carshare memberships have fewer vehicles than do non‐members.

-Proximity to transit was consistently cited by over half of the households surveyed as one of the top three factors when choosing their current home.

Globe and Mail piece about the parking standards report: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...ce-in-crunched-vancouver/article4231201/

[jlousa]

The numbers SFUVan just posted are pretty well spot on from other analyses I've seen.

[amor de cosmos]

would translink or snc-lavalin be interested in a stake in something like this? I'm thinking of integration with the canada line. maybe not necessarily this project but something like it. wasn't there another huge project in the commercial/broadway neighbourhood? wouldn't translink want a piece of that too in order to integrate more with the millennium line? what would be the downside?

[jlousa]

There are some downsides as a commercial landlord to be directly tied to a transit station. Fires, crashes, terrorism threats, police incidents, union strikes and countless other possibilities that can lead to shutting down your commercial space for hours or days. Ideally you want to be close enough to take advantage of a transit station but without being integrated into it.