'Car-free' condo: 42 storeys, no parking

mthq · #1 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 10:38 PM**

a bit old, but thought it was neat. Getting around the parking requirements... doesn't happen often.

http://www.thestar.com/article/696394
Published On Wed Sep 16 2009

Quote:

A controversial 42-storey condo building that will be built without permanent parking spots cleared a key hurdle yesterday.

The Toronto-East York community council overruled city staff skeptical about the dearth of parking to allow a plan that provides for only nine car-share rental spots, plus 315 spaces for bicycles. [...]

emathias · #2 Posted **Nov 20, 2009, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mthq

a bit old, but thought it was neat. Getting around the parking requirements... doesn't happen often.

http://www.thestar.com/article/696394
Published On Wed Sep 16 2009

Coolness. Wish Chicago's so-called "green" Mayor Daley would push for a little more like-minded thinking here.

Inkdaub · #3 Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 11:06 AM**

I love it. Good for them.

LMich · #4 Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 11:37 AM**

Does anyone from Toronto know the exact zoning designation for this land? I'd be interested to see all that this particular zoning designation requires and/or bans.

Busy Bee · #5 Posted **Nov 26, 2009, 4:57 PM**

If I had absolute political power, one of my first decrees would be an elimination of all parking requirements citywide and letting the chips fall where they may. Parking requirements are an unnatural amendment to what should be pure free market real estate development, like that which vigorously occurred before the age of the automobile. I wholeheartedly believe that zoning enforced parking requirements are a detrimental hindrance on the economic health of cities nationwide. If given more freedom to construct building envelopes without concern and cost of parking elements, means more potential profits and more real estate development. This obviously would be a significant boost to efforts to create a truly pedestrian and transit oriented urban environment. Another side effect could be something I've always believed in: the construction of stand alone car warehouses (garages) in industrially zoned areas, built for profit and removing long term automobile storage form residential and commercial areas where the real estate values makes accommodating automobiles a negative and impractical economic requirement.

LMich · #6 Posted **Nov 27, 2009, 7:53 AM**

I'm in general agreement with the abolition of parking requirements, but couldn't you argument be used against zoning, in general? It too is "unnatural". If you're for "pure free market real estate development," then I'm not sure how you could be a supporter of land zoning to begin with.

BTW, I did a little research into my own little city's zoning codes and was able to find that there is a zoning designation available that allows for the construction of any high-rise tower without a parking requirement. It's called "G-1" Central Business District. In fact, a developer is currently trying to construct a 12-story residential tower on one of these zones, downtown.

Busy Bee · #7 Posted **Nov 27, 2009, 4:27 PM**

Well no zoning I think is a bit reckless. I'm a supporter of form based codes and do think that government oversight is needed to prevent undesirable use combinations (the obvious: industrial next to residential, hazardous, etc. etc.) as well as to steer aesthetically pleasing proportions, i.e. comfortably flexible FAR guidelines that developers can work with. But as far as mandating financially unreasonable density limits and other absurd technical requirements, I am not in favor of that.