Sen̓áḵw (Squamish Nation) | 11 Towers | 171m | 58fl | 4M sqft | U/C

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

See above: it's more likely that car-obligate tenants will simply avoid Senakw altogether than move in and flood Kits Point with parked vehicles. I realize that one can't go without four wheels in the suburbs, but the inner city (including Vanier) is more like Manhattan and its 78% that don't drive, and so 886 stalls for 9,000 people (~10%) right next to a major busway and pedway seems more than fine.

Also, ridesharing and home delivery are things now; the street parking spaces that do exist should be more than adequate for Evo lots and dropoff spaces for Uber, Amazon and DoorDash, lowering car dependency even further.

Yeah, I know that part.
It's more likely to be self-selecting if it's 1 project.

If we remove parking requirements across the whole city, or cut them down too much, it can result in a tragedy of the commons situation with street parking.


I don't want Squamish Nation to do this on their other lands in NS or other lands they get for development just because they have good transit access.
That could become a problem.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Too late, there's already a tragedy of the commons - hence parking metres and resident-only permit zones across most of the CoV. Between that and increased transit/walking/other options, it's simply going to get less convenient to own a car than not to, so I don't blame City Hall or the MST for not trying to delay the inevitable.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Too late, there's already a tragedy of the commons - hence parking metres and permits across most of the CoV. Between that and increased transit/walking/other options, it's simply going to get less convenient to own a car than not to, so I don't blame City Hall or the MST for not trying to delay the inevitable.

Then let's not make it worse than it needs to be.
That good?

And no, I don't think a completely/mostly 'car-ownership free' downtown is necessarily inevitable by any means.


You may want a car for long-distance travel, for instance.
People may want cars for that 5% of travel.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Or, we could just go with the flow. City Hall's already thinking of ditching its parking minimums policy.

Long-distance travel is what the SkyTrain's for; in many cities, it's possible to get from one location to any other location without ever needing a car. Groceries, furniture and other such edge cases don't always lend themselves to transit commutes, but don't necessarily require a privately-owned vehicle either.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or, we could just go with the flow. City Hall's already thinking of ditching its parking minimums policy.

Long-distance travel is what the SkyTrain's for; in many cities, it's possible to get from one location to any other location without ever needing a car. Groceries, furniture and other such edge cases don't always lend themselves to transit commutes, but don't necessarily require a privately-owned vehicle either.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-parking-minimum-requirements-open-option-parking
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...king-underground-at-new-builds-1.5721645
The motion to do so was 3 years ago and went nowhere.
It's not even in public consideration right now, despite the affordability crisis.
I don't think the idea is even liked amongst the wider public, looking at the comments on the articles reporting on this.


Either way, it's not really 'in the flow', whatever you mean by that.


Again, markets don't work well when you have commons, and banning street parking overnight probably isn't going to happen.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Then let's not make it worse than it needs to be.
That good?

And no, I don't think a completely/mostly 'car-ownership free' downtown is necessarily inevitable by any means.


You may want a car for long-distance travel, for instance.
People may want cars for that 5% of travel.

There's something called car hire, and you can take Modo vehicles for extended periods. In Vancouver it's easy to not own a car, and still drive when it's a 'necessity'.

The new rental tower at Arbutus by TransLink PCI has 67 car spaces for 266 units. And commercial projects are going the same way. 800 Granville has 470,000 sq ft of office space, 100,000 sq ft of retail and 50,000 sq ft of restaurants, as well as the Commodore Ballroom, and 98 parking spaces.

[seamusmcduff]

Maybe if people want to own a car, they can always choose to purchase or rent in a place that provides a parking space? Why are we advocating to force people to purchase or rent expensive space that they will never use.

When I bought my condo, I had a choice between two identical units, a unit with a stall and one without. The one without was ~65k cheaper, largely due to the cost of construction, but also because currently more buyers are looking for units with stalls and so there was a premium on the unit with a stall. I chose to make the economic choice to buy the one with the stall because unfortunately thats what fits my lifestyle right now. However, if youre someone whos car free, how annoying is it knowing your burying that much money into something youll never use?

If a developer wants to forgo that potential profit on parking stalls, and feels that there is a market for it, we should allow that.

And I think the concerns around street parking are highly overstated. The places where high density development that can support parkingless units are mostly in areas where on street parking is highly regulated or restricted anyways, so it's not possible to use that parking long term as a resident . I wouldn't have bought the unit without a stall as I knew there wouldn't be anywhere close by to park the car.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

Sarah Kirby-Yung is still on the council, Vancouver, Coquitlam, Surrey and Richmond have all relaxed their minimums, and Edmonton (which is definitely more car-dependant than we are) ditched theirs entirely, so the idea isn’t going away any time soon. Instead of trying and continually failing to stop the problem from getting worse, Vancouver now has the option to... just quit seeing it as a problem to stop. Nobody’s banning street parking, nor suggesting it.

If said market determines that underground parking is necessary, developers will add more of it, and if it doesn’t, they won’t; one way or another, the CoV and three major suburbs have realized that making it mandatory creates a lot of pollution and additional housing costs for no reason. There should be another thread that made the exact same points a few years back when this was a thing.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sarah Kirby-Yung is still on the council, Vancouver, Coquitlam, Surrey and Richmond have all relaxed their minimums, and Edmonton (which is definitely more car-dependant than we are) ditched theirs entirely, so the idea isn’t going away any time soon. Instead of trying and continually failing to stop the problem from getting worse, Vancouver now has the option to... just quit seeing it as a problem to stop.

If said market determines that underground parking is necessary, developers will add more of it, and if it doesn’t, they won’t; one way or another, the CoV and three major suburbs have realized that making it mandatory creates a lot of pollution and additional housing costs for no reason. And nobody’s banning street parking, nor suggesting it.

Also, yes Edmonton removed their parking minimums in certain parts of the city, but developers continued to provide parking, albeit not as much. Why? Because edmonton isn't somewhere you can get away with living car free yet , and residents and businesses expect to have parking. But as the city densifies and gets better transit, they should be able to provide less in less parking in developments as there becomes less demand for it.

A developer isn't going to build a project without parking if it makes it impossible to sell, or less money than they would if it had been included. Meaning the only reason to provide less parking is if there's a demand for parkingless units.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sarah Kirby-Yung is still on the council, Vancouver, Coquitlam, Surrey and Richmond have all relaxed their minimums, and Edmonton (which is definitely more car-dependant than we are) ditched theirs entirely, so the idea isn’t going away any time soon. Instead of trying and continually failing to stop the problem from getting worse, Vancouver now has the option to... just quit seeing it as a problem to stop.

If said market determines that underground parking is necessary, developers will add more of it, and if it doesn’t, they won’t; one way or another, the CoV and three major suburbs have realized that making it mandatory creates a lot of pollution and additional housing costs for no reason. And nobody’s banning street parking, nor suggesting it.

Reducing parking minimums are not the same thing as removing them entirely, even to less than 100%. I support the former, but not the latter.


The effects of Edmonton’s removal have not shown themselves fully (too early to tell.)

Maybe it’ll work out. We’ll see.
Edmonton is culturally more similar to Vancouver than Manhattan, so it’ll be an interesting datapoint.


Also, this is Vancouver.
Just because you can make people choose between their car and cheap housing, doesn’t mean you should. The market is such that it’s not going to work like that where developers and residents self-select.

There’s just not enough supply to effectively do that, and I doubt reducing the number of parking stalls will make such a huge difference in prices that it allows this to happen anytime soon.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Reducing parking minimums are not the same thing as removing them entirely, even to less than 100%. I support the former, but not the latter.

Too late for Downtown Vancouver. Parking minimums were removed on January 1 2019. Only the required accessible spaces and loading have to be provided.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Edmonton's gone without their minimums for three years and counting... so far, so good. And choosing between housing and cars is kind of a false dichotomy when again, the latter is becoming much more unnecessary for most Vancouverites; it's a fact that developers are finding that residents don't use as many parking spaces as the various municipalities mandate them to build.

Bottom line, the City doesn't need that much underground parking anymore, and back to the actual topic, neither does Senakw.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Too late for Downtown Vancouver. Parking minimums were removed on January 1 2019. Only the required accessible spaces have to be provided.

Ah, didn’t know that.
Good to know. Thanks.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's something called car hire, and you can take Modo vehicles for extended periods. In Vancouver it's easy to not own a car, and still drive when it's a 'necessity'.

The new rental tower at Arbutus by TransLink PCI has 67 car spaces for 266 units. And commercial projects are going the same way. 800 Granville has 470,000 sq ft of office space, 100,000 sq ft of retail and 50,000 sq ft of restaurants, as well as the Commodore Ballroom, and 98 parking spaces.

Gotta love how the Translink building has so little parking. I wonder why they didn’t limit the parking at their Marpole trolley depot?

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Edmonton's gone without their minimums for three years and counting... so far, so good. And choosing between housing and cars is kind of a false dichotomy when again, the latter is becoming much more unnecessary for most Vancouverites; it's a fact that developers are finding that residents don't use as many parking spaces as the various municipalities mandate them to build.

Bottom line, the City doesn't need that much underground parking anymore, and back to the actual topic, neither does Senakw.

This.

Enable and you receive.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gotta love how the Translink building has so little parking. I wonder why they didn’t limit the parking at their Marpole trolley depot?

Even you can see the differençe between somewhere bus drivers and mechanics have to get to in order to operate the transit system when it starts up in the morning, and closes down at night, and an apartment building on West Broadway.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, maybe not that much lower.

I think you misread the post. mcj said that if access to a parking spot was as important to future Senakw renters as you and other posters are indicating it will be, then the market would punish the development by demanding lower rents.

I believe omitting parking in this development may not push down rents that much because it's location is incredible, and because I don't think the type of person renting in Senakw will put that high a premium on having an available parking spot (because if they did, they would rent elsewhere).

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are alternatives to owning a car in Vancouver, with both Modo and Evo car sharing.

Per the 2018 transportation survey, 13% of all adult residents in Vancouver do not have access to a car and 34% of adult residents have a car share membership.

That is not a large share of Vancouver's population, but it is a large number of people (13% = 88k) that are more than numerous enough to fill out 6k homes. And there is a question of causation; when my wife and I lived in Burnaby with a "free" parking spot we owned a vehicle. Once we moved to the West End and had to pay for a parking spot and had far more destinations within walking distance, we got rid of the car. If the Senakw units can come at a reasonable monthly rent figure (and with 1,200 affordable homes at least some of them will) you may have some young adults who currently live with their parents in Surrey or East Van that may ditch the car and move to a car-free lifestyle.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You may want a car for long-distance travel, for instance.
People may want cars for that 5% of travel.

People who do not own cars can do long-distance travel. Ignoring the alternatives (planes, trains, and buses) renting a car is not that difficult. For a trip to Portland this past winter I rented a car for two days, and I plan to do the same for a camping trip to the island this summer.

And if you're talking day trips, the $100 Evo daily rate (gas included) is pretty competitive with owning your own car if you use a couple tanks of gas.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Even you can see the differençe between somewhere bus drivers and mechanics have to get to in order to operate the transit system when it starts up in the morning, and closes down at night, and an apartment building on West Broadway.

That being said, one of my favourite things is getting on a bus or train with a Translink driver when they are on their way to or from work. The 410 and 418 always have a few bus drivers on them.

[idunno]

FWIW I think parking minimums were only removed for commercial buildings downtown. Residential still has minimums.

[GenWhy?]

������������������