Quote:
Originally Posted by WolselyMan
Sorry if my reply is coming a little too late, but I have to respond to this.
And yet with every new above ground parkade that gets built, you make the area less and less appealing for people to settle into in the first place. That means no market to support underground parkade construction as well, which means more above ground parking structures have to be built, which makes the area less appealing for people..... and on and on this cycle goes. Obviously this whole pattern has to be broken somewhere.
And I have to seriously disagree that a parkade is an improvement over a surface lot, although I used to think that it was. It's an improvement in that it takes the function of several surface lots and fits it all efficiently into one compact space. Freeing former parking area up for development. The trouble is that it does not actually get rid of the aesthetic ugliness that parking lots have. Instead it takes that intrinsic ugliness and compresses it all into a single small location. Sure it's great for everything outside of the block, but for the unfortunate city block that it resides on a parkade is an unsightly abomination for everyone who uses the area. It's one of the most effective structures out there when you wanna ruin the appeal of an urban environment. This is why downtown Vancouver and Toronto have nearly all of their parkades completely underground, because they wanna give people an actual reason to go downtown and use those parkades. If they had all of their parking infrastructure located above ground they would become the ugliest and most unlivable parts of the city that no one would want to drive to in the first place.
Look, you could make the same case for a city with open sewers. "Sure it would be great if we could put our sewer lines underground, but our city isn't big enough to be able to afford covering them up! We just need to wait until more people move into our raw sewage filled city. Then we'll be able to collect enough taxes to start the construction project of covering them over!" Poorly integrated on-street parkades are part of what's CAUSING the downtown's lack of an office and residential market. You may think that I'm putting too much importance into aesthetics of an area, but this stuff seriously matters when you expect people to sit outside a patio in the exchange district right across from a giant smelly parkade tucked in the middle of a canyon-like street, that's supposed to be a marvel of turn of the century european style architecture. It matters because the sheer lack of awareness of how to implement these decisions properly in our city council produces utterly tragic results upon the long term appeal of an area.
This is why a city designed around the automobile wouldn't be half bad if it weren't for the fact that eventually you need to find a place to park all of them. That is the real price of car-centric urban planning, the disaster that parking demands exert on a city's valuable supply of space.
|
I must clarify one thing... I'm not pro parkade, contra St Regis. I'm pro parkade PLUS SkyCity, contra St Regis.
I agree with aspects of your post, for sure, but...
1. I think sometimes we generalize our woes from surface parking to Parking in general, perhaps by accident. If we have a "need" for parking, I'd rather see a density of parking than a series of surface lots. Perhaps I'm being more pragmatic vs your slightly utopian take on the matter.
2. I don't think "urgh, the parkades" are what drives people away from downtown at all because that would be #11 on a list of boo-boos pushing potential residents away, well behind crime (or perceived crime), safety concerns, surface lots, potential harassment from drunk people (or people housed by the St Regis or Woodbine regulars).
2. I'd prefer underground parking as well, but that's expensive. I like to look at the silver linings of parkades... because why does anyone build a parkade? They don't provide a strong return at all and have a lot of concrete ie cost $$$$$$. They are only built to serve the express purpose of having another asset thrive.
This brings me to my point: Is that other asset worth it? IF, and only IF SkyCity gets built, it's absolutely worth it.
When Marwest planned to build the Grain Exchange Parkade for Artis, all hell broke loose, because they had to tear down a 6k sf derelict empty building on their own property... and it wasn't heritage status. What few saw through the trees was that the Grain Exchange couldn't suffiently support its current and prospective tenants with the limited loading and parking the had at the time. Nobody understood that the parkade and loading redesign was to restore the viability of a true heritage gem.
Point being, that parkade was worth it. Sometimes the bigger picture is the thriving asset not "oh, another parkade".
3. Parkades can be visually engaging, like the aforementioned Grain Exchange parkade, the parkade on King and Bannatyne, even Centrepoint is visually engaging but only lamented for lack of CRU's primarly. We have to remember that the true eyesores were built decades ago.
4. The pattern has to be broken but that can't be forced and is not for us to decide. It has to make financial SENSE, and right now it doesn't. It's not our money. We can obviously have our opinions but there's seldom a concern for the substantial risk developers take on. That risk merits some respect. In THIS case we're more cynical because it's Fortress, so respect, mine included, is hesitant.
5. I get the ugliness aspect, but a downtown is still about numbers. People are attracted to pretty downtowns, but form follows function. Numbers come first. If the properties downtown aren't viable, then they don't attract quality retailers and office tenants. This means you do not attract commercial mass. This leads to reduced investment. Our office market is lagging and improved retail has helped the exchange... residents follow the retail and a thriving downtown office market would make urban residential growth SURGE.
If a condo development isn't viable, how will people move downtown? A collective massing of commercial, retail, and residential is what drives a growing city centre. A strong market, not our distaste, is what makes parkades useless because we can go underground.
Aesthetics come after numbers. We need to fix our numbers first, and a parkade is a stop gap for that.
6. Piggybacking on 5, it's a progression. Underground parking and reduced dependency on parking are the end goal, but we're at the surface lot stage. We can't just leapfrog the parkade stage to get to the garden of eden.
7. Vancouver and Toronto have infinitely stronger markets and lower construction costs. Yes, Winnipeg has a history of cheaping out, but we can't afford what they can. But we still need parking and that's ok. Everyone say it together.....
8. The open sewer case isn't remotely the same.
9. We need more national businesses putting numbers into our downtown. Parkades are not what's preventing businesses from using our city. In fact, they all need parking.
I gotta reiterate, I'm pro-underground, but the LOGIC has to be there.
Just as the jets for whatever reason need Thorburn, we may need parkades. Except you could beautify a parkade and Thorburn will always have that nose, and never see a barber. I'm not sure it's a perfect metaphor, but it's better than the sewer one
Quote:
Originally Posted by borkborkbork
The difference between requiring street level CRUs and not is a huge one. The Centrepoint parkade is a disaster for the street. The King/Bannatyne one (Chosabi/Bronuts/King+Bann) is not.
|
It's not a disaster. Without the parkade, there would be no centrepoint. I wish it had CRUs, but that street doesn't do much to attract tenants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban recluse
True, despite the length of time it took to fill those spaces.
|
This is true and frustrating. Everybody note... it took FOREVER to fill CRUs in a GOOD location. never mind the centrepoint parkade. Again, I too wish CP had CRUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
They must show proof of financing before they are allowed to demolish. There are as many checks on them as possible. That doesn't mean they can't bail. There are penalties to doing that but there is no way to absolutely guarantee it.
I'm not saying they will bail. I just don't understand their interest in a project like this. If the tower was half way up I wouldn't be fearful but without the big project it seems weird they would want to do the little one.
Maybe it's a good sign. Maybe it means they are confident that the big project will happen.
Fingers crossed.
|
This is what I'm thinking...
How does Fortress benefit from paying for land, paying for more land, paying for demolition, and leaving?
I would only assume, and hope, that it services a genuine highrise tower.
Prev
Linear Mode
