Quote:
Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a
I'm not sure if you're making a joke here. The floor plates are different sizes.
|
Let's compare concept 1 and concept 3
(7 residential floors vs 9 residential floors) since they have similar massing for a second here...
For what's being conceptualized, there's a difference of
1 unit when there's a difference of 2
floors between the concepts. For me I have to question this because UNLESS the specific unit in question is one of the largest penthouses in urban Canada taking up two floors, then as a citizen I would like to know why that is. Otherwise it is a bit of a waste of construction cost to construct an entire floor
(including an elevator, etc) for just one unit unless it was priced as a
premium unit. Personally I don't think we have the market for an urban two story penthouse in Winnipeg but I could be wrong
.
I can throw a bone to concept #2 since it's a skinnier, taller tower as opposed to a shorter wider midrise. But yeah, concept 1 and concept 3 having a difference of 1 unit, and 2 floors is a little odd since they have similar massing. That's all
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy
Being in the TOD zone the development more then likely can get by with less parking then the 1:1. If not a variance application would be needed, hard to imagine that being declined based on it's proximity to Osborne Station and the 10+ transit routes that service the immediate area.
|
Larger cities in North America rarely have parking requirements less than a 1:1 ratio for their denser residential structures, even in their TOD zones.
As an aside: Vancouver is going to be a hell of a challenger for this urban standard though as its Senakw project is indeed challenging those parking requirement norms by having only 1 parking stall per 10 homes. You can read about it here if you'd like.
I did some researching on Winnipeg's current parking requirements and I was only able to pull the following from a
2006 document:
This is found on
Page 114 of the Winnipeg Zoning By-Law document. I can see these concepts' residential counterparts falling under the "Other multi-family" requiring it to have 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
Again, this was a 2006 document so if there's a better updated one, I'd be happy to check it out as well if directed to the right place.
I also compared it to the
TOD handbook developed by the city of Winnipeg and it does talk a little bit about relaxing parking minimums for higher density around transit stations (Page 28) but this document was created as a guide; in other words, I'm pretty sure that there aren't any by-laws currently in place that allow parking minimums to get reduced for TOD. I honestly would be surprised if Winnipeg had a policy like this since Canada's larger cities don't have similar policies, but I am happy to be surprised if that's the case
.