Central Park East Hotel & Residential

[azsunsurfer]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

People have been saying that for decades, and when they continue to do that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's time to stop repeating the same old tired cliches and think differently. In actuality, it's never been easier for someone to go without a car in Phoenix -- not everywhere, but certainly across the street from Central Station when the combined effect of light rail, bus, rideshare, bike lanes, and scooters is considered. Not having a car won't work for 100% of tenants -- probably not even for 50%, but it will for some, and those tenants shouldn't pay for parking they don't use -- especially in a building that is focused on affordability.

With the Coronavirus I certainly will be driving my car for the indefinite future. I know also that no one in my car will try and start a fight with me or randomly yell obscenities at me.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

With the Coronavirus I certainly will be driving my car for the indefinite future. I know also that no one in my car will try and start a fight with me or randomly yell obscenities at me.

That's great, but this isn't about you. It's about a building that is located directly across the street from the city's main transit hub and is marketed with an eye towards value. Lowering rents by unbundling parking increases value for those tenants who don't share your fears or who have no choice in the matter. Unbundled parking probably doesn't make sense most places in Phoenix, but this is one place where it absolutely does.

[biggus diggus]

From an unbiased outsider who has no horse in this race I see two things:

1. an opinion that phoenix has too much parking and shouldn't have any more.

2. an opinion that phoenix needs parking and people still want it.

I agree with #2. Sorry guys, this city just isn't big enough to be where you want it to be. Building a 200+ unit apartment building with limited or no parking is not in the cards right now, no bank will finance it and no investors are going to fund it. Just because you want it to happen doesn't mean the general population feels the same way.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

ust because you want it to happen doesn't mean the general population feels the same way.

This whole conversation began with my statement that I found Kenect's advertising "parking included" to be frustrating. That's obviously nothing more than an expression my opinion and not meant to be some sort of statement of what the general population might or might not want. I'm certain that Kenect could get away with providing less parking and unbundling it, but I also know that lenders and city governments are often stubborn maintainers of the status quo.

[Phxguy]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

From an unbiased outsider who has no horse in this race I see two things:

1. an opinion that phoenix has too much parking and shouldn't have any more.

2. an opinion that phoenix needs parking and people still want it.

I agree with #2. Sorry guys, this city just isn't big enough to be where you want it to be. Building a 200+ unit apartment building with limited or no parking is not in the cards right now, no bank will finance it and no investors are going to fund it. Just because you want it to happen doesn't mean the general population feels the same way.

I have to disagree that Phx needs parking and people still want it. There will always be push back from those who think Phx will never be a car-free city which then creates an unwillingness to give up driving. Now more than ever before are people and developers willing to forgo the car. Not saying everyone feels this way, but it certainly has entered the mainstream consciousness.

Garfield House GPLET (the planned 25-story tower at Garfield and 6th St) will be a 0.65 parked building. The new Social Communities Project (18 story building) on 2nd Ave will have zero resident parking. If these were proposed elsewhere you could argue they would need parking, but where they are now, it’s a step in the right direction.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Phxguy

I have to disagree that Phx needs parking and people still want it. There will always be push back from those who think Phx will never be a car-free city which then creates an unwillingness to give up driving. Now more than ever before are people and developers willing to forgo the car. Not saying everyone feels this way, but it certainly has entered the mainstream consciousness.

Garfield House GPLET (the planned 25-story tower at Garfield and 6th St) will be a 0.65 parked building. The new Social Communities Project (18 story building) on 2nd Ave will have zero resident parking. If these were proposed elsewhere you could argue they would need parking, but where they are now, it’s a step in the right direction.

Pretty sure Derby has limited parking as well.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Phxguy

I have to disagree that Phx needs parking and people still want it. There will always be push back from those who think Phx will never be a car-free city which then creates an unwillingness to give up driving. Now more than ever before are people and developers willing to forgo the car. Not saying everyone feels this way, but it certainly has entered the mainstream consciousness.

Garfield House GPLET (the planned 25-story tower at Garfield and 6th St) will be a 0.65 parked building. The new Social Communities Project (18 story building) on 2nd Ave will have zero resident parking. If these were proposed elsewhere you could argue they would need parking, but where they are now, it’s a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Pretty sure Derby has limited parking as well.

That's great news. Also, there's the Cul de Sac development in Tempe with zero parking for its residential tenants. Clearly, it's possible even if Kenect isn't on board.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Pretty sure Derby has limited parking as well.

Derby will have 1 space per residential unit and 5 spaces per commercial unit for a total of 227 spaces. Not sure how that comes out percentage-wise as Phxguy posted about Garfield House.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

This whole conversation began with my statement that I found Kenect's advertising "parking included" to be frustrating. That's obviously nothing more than an expression my opinion and not meant to be some sort of statement of what the general population might or might not want. I'm certain that Kenect could get away with providing less parking and unbundling it, but I also know that lenders and city governments are often stubborn maintainers of the status quo.

I think you should try putting yourself in the shoes of a tenant who does not have a ton of disposable income but does have enough money to afford a downtown apartment. I remember you saying you've lived here a long time, so surely you know the population of this city is widely car dependent and people's habits are based on driving. Wanting a switch to happen quickly is an exercise in futility, I believe. It will take a catastrophic change in the way the automobile is used or multiple generations before people are going to start widely ditching their cars in Phoenix, AZ. That's what this whole thing is based upon, right? The belief that since there's a light rail/bus station across the street that people should be using that instead of driving?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

I think you should try putting yourself in the shoes of a tenant who does not have a ton of disposable income but does have enough money to afford a downtown apartment. I remember you saying you've lived here a long time, so surely you know the population of this city is widely car dependent and people's habits are based on driving. Wanting a switch to happen quickly is an exercise in futility, I believe. It will take a catastrophic change in the way the automobile is used or multiple generations before people are going to start widely ditching their cars in Phoenix, AZ. That's what this whole thing is based upon, right? The belief that since there's a light rail/bus station across the street that people should be using that instead of driving?

I'm putting myself in the shoes of a tenant who doesn't have a ton of disposable income and doesn't need a car often enough to justify owning one. With unbundled parking, that tenant doesn't pay extra for vehicle storage they don't need.

I have lived here a long time, and that makes me particularly frustrated to hear the same hackneyed excuses (too spread out, car culture, not enough density, etc.) repeated again and again, without question, when in fact I've seen many of those factors change substantially over the decades.

Also, I never said anything about change happening quickly. My desired scenario is both incremental and moderate. Most apartment complexes throughout the city should probably continue to package parking with rent, but buildings in a city center near high-capacity public transit should reconsider the practice -- not necessarily by building no parking at all, but by building less of it and charging a separate fee for it.

[Obadno]

Our public transportation is not pervasive enough for most people to live without a car.

Our buses are unreliable and slow, light rail only lets you have access to a very small percentage of the region.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Our public transportation is not pervasive enough for most people to live without a car.

Our buses are unreliable and slow, light rail only lets you have access to a very small percentage of the region.

The key word is "most." Someone who chooses to live downtown, and perhaps works downtown as well, is already making a decision to be less car-dependent. That person will probably use light rail and bus a great deal but also rely on rideshare or the occasional car rental. Focusing solely on public transit misses the point. It's a combination of all available modes of transport, along with the ability to walk more places for basic needs, that lessens the need for cars in an urban environment.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The key word is "most." Someone who chooses to live downtown, and perhaps works downtown as well, is already making a decision to be less car-dependent. That person will probably use light rail and bus a great deal but also rely on rideshare or the occasional car rental. Focusing solely on public transit misses the point. It's a combination of all available modes of transport, along with the ability to walk more places for basic needs, that lessens the need for cars in an urban environment.

I have to agree with this. If I were going to look at living at Kennect, Derby, Central Station, Aspire, Adeline or Stewart (which I already have considered), I would do so with the intention of being less car dependant.

Downtown is going to nearly double its size at its current rate of development by 2025. Chances are, a second grocery store could be in the works by then with a multitude of more retail, restaurants, bars, LTR, etc.. There will really be no reason to own a car by 2025 if you live in Downtown. Honestly, you can really get by without a car now if you live closer to Block 23 where you can have access to Fry's. I would imagine a large amount of residents at the Ryan may not have a car do to this reason alone.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

My frustration has nothing to do with the lack of balconies and everything to do with including parking in the base rent and marketing that decision as a feature of the building when it's actually a bug. Saying that parking is included may sound great to tenants who have a car, but with a location right across the street from Central Station, not every tenant will need one. Nevertheless, every resident is going to pay for the expensive and ugly parking podium under the residential floors. A better approach would have been to build less parking and unbundle it from rent. Those who have a car they wish to park on site would pay an extra monthly fee for a spot, and those who don't need one would pay less in rent because they're paying just for their own living space and not for the extra room needed to store a vehicle.

Parking podiums are pretty much the standard in all but the highest-rent districts as far as I can tell these days. In Northern Virginia, everything outside the Beltway is being value-oriented around above-ground parking and whatever on top. I don't think this is unique to Phoenix at all and a general trend pretty much everywhere but maybe NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.

[azliam]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The key word is "most." Someone who chooses to live downtown, and perhaps works downtown as well, is already making a decision to be less car-dependent. That person will probably use light rail and bus a great deal but also rely on rideshare or the occasional car rental. Focusing solely on public transit misses the point. It's a combination of all available modes of transport, along with the ability to walk more places for basic needs, that lessens the need for cars in an urban environment.

Not everyone is able to work downtown, work remotely, or has a direct beeline from downtown to their jobs. That is a given. Until more business start expanding or relocating to downtown, there will be those who prefer to keep their vehicles in order to ensure reliable transportation to get to their jobs, but still prefer living downtown - so say my friends who live downtown.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by azliam

Not everyone is able to work downtown, work remotely, or has a direct beeline from downtown to their jobs. That is a given. Until more business start expanding or relocating to downtown, there will be those who prefer to keep their vehicles in order to ensure reliable transportation to get to their jobs, but still prefer living downtown.

Of course, but we’re not taking about everyone. Some tenants will have cars, and some won’t. Those that don’t would benefit from not having parking built into their rent.

[azliam]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Of course, but we’re not taking about everyone. Some tenants will have cars, and some won’t. Those that don’t would benefit from not having parking built into their rent.

I agree.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I'm putting myself in the shoes of a tenant who doesn't have a ton of disposable income and doesn't need a car often enough to justify owning one. With unbundled parking, that tenant doesn't pay extra for vehicle storage they don't need.

I have lived here a long time, and that makes me particularly frustrated to hear the same hackneyed excuses (too spread out, car culture, not enough density, etc.) repeated again and again, without question, when in fact I've seen many of those factors change substantially over the decades.

Also, I never said anything about change happening quickly. My desired scenario is both incremental and moderate. Most apartment complexes throughout the city should probably continue to package parking with rent, but buildings in a city center near high-capacity public transit should reconsider the practice -- not necessarily by building no parking at all, but by building less of it and charging a separate fee for it.

I appreciate what you are saying. Has anyone done a study to determine the percentage of downtown apartment dwellers who own/use cars on a daily basis?

From a business standpoint you have to offer parking, there's no way around this. I know what you desire and what you're saying makes sense in a vacuum. I agree, it would be great if these buildings would ease off the parking, but reality is reality. If you tell someone who can comfortable afford $3,000/mo for their luxury apartment that parking is $75/mo they won't even care. If you tell someone who lives paycheck to paycheck to pay their $1,400/mo rent they have to pay $50 for parking it can be a pretty big deal.

I'll use one of my employees as an example, she lives in a building downtown that has a parking garage and does not charge a monthly fee for parking. I'm asking her about it as I type this. She feels that an additional $50 - $100 a month to park her car is a non-starter. She wouldn't live in that building, she would "feel gouged". I think this is the type of person who is going to rent at Kenect. If the building lowers the rents $50 a month across the board to make parking a $50 charge, for example, then they're going to lose on every single unit that doesn't buy a parking space. That really hurts the bottom line and might be the difference between making the proforma look good enough to a buyer or being stuck with a dog of a building.

What this amounts to, in my mind, is understanding what will appeal to consumers and doing it. Building this apartment building is a money transaction and nothing more, they're not in Phoenix to try to initiate culture change or anything, they just want to make money and get out of their building.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

If the building lowers the rents $50 a month across the board to make parking a $50 charge, for example, then they're going to lose on every single unit that doesn't buy a parking space. That really hurts the bottom line and might be the difference between making the proforma look good enough to a buyer or being stuck with a dog of a building.

This doesn't make sense for two reasons:

1) You and other Kenect defenders have argued that the number of people who would choose to live there without a car is negligible, even though the building is directly across the street from the city's main transit hub. If the number of car-free tenants is so low, then the impact on revenue should be minimal.

2) If parking is something that is charged for separately, then there is no longer a need to guarantee one space per apartment. Some tenants won't have a car to park, and some will find an alternative they prefer in terms of street parking or a nearby lot. The parking revenue may go down, but so will the expense.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

This doesn't make sense for two reasons:

1) You and other Kenect defenders

I'm a kenect defender now? I have no dog in the fight, no reason to defend anyone. I'm sharing my experience as an apartment owner and lifelong real estate hobbyist. If you come to market with a working class budget rental product and don't include parking, you're dead in the water. The end. It doesn't matter to your prospective tenants that there's a light rail or bus station across the street. Most people are not interested in riding public transportation. This is Phoenix, not New York.

All the ins and outs of how to deal with the dilemma is just going to seem like jargon to those not interested. There are services and amenities that are expected at each price level, and at this level parking is one of them. If you don't have it you're cooked. At an even lower level we have difficulty finding tenants when we don't include certain utilities like water/gas. It's viewed as another bill to pay and that creates a mental block that many people cannot overcome.

I respect your opinions and your contributions to this community very much but we do not see eye to eye on this one. I view this as you trying to wish something true.

To address your stement:

"If the number of car-free tenants is so low, then the impact on revenue should be minimal." Since I've thrown out an arbitrary number of $50 let's use that number for this exercise. My understanding is 320 units are in this building. I don't know the rent roll but they are advertising up to three bedrooms in a unit and being affordable. I'll take a shot in the dark and say it's an average rent of $1450 and most apartments expect a 97% occupancy rate. 310x1450=449500 for a monthly rent roll. Now, if you un-bundle the parking at the admittedly arbitrary $50/mo charge per space and assume 1.5 spaces per unit (conservative estimate) that means you have 465 spaces available for rent. If there's an 85% take on this then that's about 395 spaces being sold. So first let's remove the parking cost from each unit by un-bundling the parking, we now have a rent roll of 434000. Then we'll add in the 85% take rate of parking spaces and you're making 19750 on parking and you're making more money than if you bundled it. BUT that only tells half the story. Every single number I have thrown out is made up on the spot, I've made them up for illustrative purposes. If you know the actual numbers then lets throw them into the equation and fine-tune this.

The other half of the story is hard to predict - it's the human element. "parking costs extra" makes your building a non-starter. So many people are going to pass you up. The point of this is to get a full building, not stand on ceremony about your arbitrary societal norms. This is where my point is made. None of that simple math in the previous paragraph means anything if I don't have people renting apartments from me. And it's an unknown how many people at that income level will play the game we're discussing. If people at $750/mo won't move into an apartment where they have to pay water, you can bet plenty of people won't move into a $1400 apartment where they have to pay parking.