Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway
The site has car access off of Notre Dame.
|
Question is, is it good enough access? Is it the best access the site can be given? Because that's what operators want. Not bare minimum.
The city, planners, and arm-chair pedestrian experience heritage advocates all forget what tenants and operators truly want and need in order to succeed. They often forget to see the trees among the forest, and operators and landlords clearly owe the greatest responsibility to their tree alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow
Yep. There is existing access and existing parking space without creating new ones on the property next door (which likely wouldn't be allowed anyway). I wasn't saying that a redeveloped St. Charles Hotel should have no accommodation of vehicles, but there's a difference between some degree of accommodation and total design orientation toward vehicles.
|
I hear you, but maybe the narrative is a little heavy... there's nothing that could ever be "totally designed towards vehicles on this street" in this location. Furthermore, we all know the mantra "location location location"... wel "access" is probably a first cousin to location.
To gain exposure, you have to offer the most, whether it is luxury, amenity, cost efficiency, convenience, something, or a combination of many things to put your operation on the radar of large scale customers; travelling sports teams, medium to large volume conference guest groups, travelling consultant groups for major corporations or accountants/legal teams, etc.
If some of the obvious boxes aren't checked, then you never gain the attention of these en masse travellers and you'll be stuck with the tourists, renting one room at a time and hoping to stay full.
It's not easy, and this forum sometimes forgets what is necessary for real estate and its tenants to succeed. I like a better neighbourhood as much as the next guy, but if the individual property cannot flourish, neither will the neighbourhood. Poorly performing real estate is a bigger neighbourhood killer than additional access.
I'm not advocating for a parkade or surface lot, however... just some understanding lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg
I would argue that if this was to turn into a boutique hotel, the majority of people wouldn't have vehicles here anyway. If they do, there's a massive parkade across the street. The Radisson parkade is over 50% reserved by monthly parkers (there's 3 floors just for AMC); Fairmont/Richardson parkade is also majority monthlies. Fairmont is a pretty big hotel and they manage to keep most of the valet vehicles in the loop out front. Friend was there for 4 days last year and used valet, never left the front. Centrepoint parkade is never anywhere near full and they have the Alt, glasshouse, and office attached, and plenty other people nearby that you'd think would want parking.
|
All very true, but nobody wants to park their car far away, it would be largely valet. But if someone is in a rush, are they going to wait for a valet to take a 5-10 minute walk to the nearest parkade? Point is, you'd have to convince the hotel, not me. And they might have spreadsheet upon spreadsheet documenting their performance relative to factors such as access or parking among others.
A boutique hotel would definitely need less parking, but any hotel won't ignore these factors.
Last factor: For a city that is moderately walkable at best (though it's great in the exchange) we need better car service access, better cab service, and we don't have uber yet. It's cold, and we hav ample cheap parking downtown, so visitors won't think of a vehicle as a liability compared to, say Vancouver. These factors help a visitor determine whether or not they need a car.
Prev
Linear Mode
