Downtown Update

[king10]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Did it used to be a nightclub? That sounds so cool actually, what was is and when?

MONOPOLY! and the vault was a special room in the club lol. Mid to late 90s?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Chronamut

Too bad the bank of montreal can't use it.

What a novel idea that would be.

Their site at Bay/Main is probably worth more to sell now... hmmm, maybe this actually would be a good idea for BMO. Especially if they can jam a drive-thru in there somehow.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by king10

MONOPOLY! and the vault was a special room in the club lol. Mid to late 90s?

That's it! I had forgotten the name.
I can't recall if it was ever called anything else too, for that type of use.

At least it kept the building intact for a time until Gowlings moved in.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Niagara Falls just approved a 72 storey hotel condo ... Hamilton rejecting things like this because we have a "mountain" haha

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by HamiltonBoyInToronto

Niagara Falls just approved a 72 storey hotel condo ... Hamilton rejecting things like this because we have a "mountain" haha

To be completely honest. I've completely gotten on side with the height limit. 72 storeys is insane, and there is a density where you can't effectively move people. Toronto is struggling to keep up infrastructure wise with demand for moving people, and the only reason New York does it so well is because they have tons of subway lines which are able to move 4x the number that light rail can.

The issue in Hamilton isn't the height limit, it's that they deny buildings outside the downtown that are completely reasonable, like the two beside the Go station, and the one on the north side of James by the bayfront.

If we want to move the city away from automobile dependency we need to spread density out from a single location. Toronto's biggest issue is it's yellow belt of low density zoning around the core. Toronto is slowly changing though and more midrises are going in.

That said, tall buildings have their place. They can be approved in a one off if it is beneficial to the skyline or community, but allowing anything and everything is bad city planning, and I'm kind of disappointed that this forum is so naive about urban planning. Tall buildings have their place, but without proper thought they become like Mississauga where it's unlivable and shitty.

[drpgq]

I don't think Hamilton suffers from those problems you mention. Hamilton suffers from a critical lack of people living downtown area and the city allowing projects like Television City to go ahead without endless battles at LPAT would do the city a world of good.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by drpgq

I don't think Hamilton suffers from those problems you mention. Hamilton suffers from a critical lack of people living downtown area and the city allowing projects like Television City to go ahead without endless battles at LPAT would do the city a world of good.

We absolutely do have these issues. Hamilton is not going to be amazing from Television City. Do I think it should have been denied; no. But it's not a magic pill that will make it all better. Hamilton's issues are not simple, and this simple answer solution will not work. Hamilton is behind on tons of issues. Infrastructure like roads and transit and cycling are underfunded, or a decade behind where they should be. The B-line is already struggling to keep up with demand, and that's why we're getting LRT, but Hamilton's only desirable location right now is James St N and Locke for many newcomers. The city is denying things out by Ottawa St and by the Go station. The city needs density outside the downtown, along improved transit routes, more than it needs downtown skyscrapers.

The city should have urban growth areas along Ottawa, Kenilworth, Parkdale, Consession and Upper James and Upper Wellington. The city also needs to attract employment. There is chronic lack of good paying jobs. There are a ton of min wage jobs, and nursing jobs, but if you're in anything other than medical it is a serious struggle to find work.

Many friends have moved to Toronto for work, and because rental prices are hitting the same prices as Toronto is areas that people want to live. A 30 storey limit isn't the problem, it's the lack of developable properties, making it impossible to turn a profit. The properties downtown are way too expensive because nobody wants to develop Cannon or Ottawa street or the north side of the CN tracks because the city and NIMBYs are against density anywhere outside the downtown.

It's not surprising that people can't pinpoint Hamilton's problems, but it's both simple and not. Lack of employment downtown, car dependent highways, lack of housing anywhere other than downtown or on the fringes of the city, and lack of Infrastructure funding are the main issues in the city.

Again, tall buildings have their place, and can look nice, but there are literally hundreds of examples of successful cities without towers. Towers can be a piece of the puzzle, but if anyone has the opinion a tall tower will solve Hamilton's issues, they're ignorant to the actual problems facing Hamilton.

Furthermore I've seen people on this forum literally suggest us being more like Mississauga and square one which is an absolutely horrid example of planning and density. A suburb with tall towers is still a suburb, and people will only move there to commute, which is the only reason Mississauga has expanded.

I just wanted to add that every single person I've talked to from outside Hamilton that moved here, did not do so to live in cheaper Toronto, they did so because it was more affordable, and because it isn't a boring suburb. They like urban living without the extreme insanity that is Toronto. Nobody I know that lives or lived downtown Toronto enjoyed it for more than a year, living by the medium density areas were and are far more enjoyable.

We shouldn't be aiming to be Toronto, or worse Sauga, and we definitely shouldn't be aiming to have tall towers simply because we like the jagged shape it makes from across the bay.

[lachlanholmes]

I'm disappointed to hear you've completely gotten on side with the height limit, TheRitsman. I think you raise some good urban challenges - but the reality is that height has very little to do with any of it.

72 storeys isn't insane. 72 storeys, in a downtown core, with ample transit, is perfectly acceptable and in fact should be where that kind of height and density is located. From my research on this, there is not a single density that cuts off whether you can move people effectively. In fact, European with much higher population densities (and shorter buildings, which you cited), move people very well by disincentivizing vehicle use and investing in proper urban transit.

Toronto is struggling to keep up infrastructure-wise for a few reasons. First, transportation policy in Toronto, in Ontario, in really the entirety of North America, is highly politicized. You know this as a cycling advocate. This is a major delay for both creating concrete transit plans, and getting adequate funding to build it. Secondly, all levels of government are making poor transportation investments, prioritizing cars over public transit. Thirdly, Toronto's subways are old and getting older. They need significant modernization and maintenance investment, but that is not popular like new subways and light rail lines, so funding for it gets pushed down the road until you end up with situations like there was just a few weeks ago where a large portion of Line 2 Bloor Danforth was out of service.

The height limit is an issue in Hamilton, and to say it isn't, is, from my view, ignoring reality. However, I am in complete agreement with you that denial of moderate and reasonable midrise proposals are an issue of great proportion too.

I went to two events in Toronto last month. One was a talk from Alain Bertaud on his urban concepts, and another hosted by a group similar to ours called Housing Matters - highlighting the issues with the Yellowbelt. You are absolutely correct that the Yellowbelt is a major issue in Toronto, and it should be 'unlocked' for missing middle housing. However, missing middle housing will not fill the demand for housing in Toronto, and it won't fill the demand for housing in Hamilton. Economies of scale dictate so much of development, and while allowing missing middle housing is a no-brainer, I haven't seen evidence suggesting that it will create the tens of thousands of units needed in Toronto.

Further. The City of Toronto's TOCore plan (pre-provincial modification) blocked residential density increases within it's planning area. That resulted in the application of One Front being denied by the City of Toronto and thus blocking hundreds of new residential units. I really don't think there's a solid basis to deny those units, seeing as the height of that project has precedence, the density has precedence, and the application would result in much better usage of the beautiful curved heritage Government building on site now. Plus - if one of your worries is strain on transit - applications like that make the most sense, because people would then be within walking distance of jobs in the core.

Of course allowing anything and everything everywhere is crappy policy. Allowing (very) tall buildings in the downtown makes sense, though. I don't agree that this form is naive about urban planning. Urban planning is by its very nature an ideological profession and one in which the science is never settled. What was good planning in the 1950s (tower in the park etc) is generally regarded as awful policy today, and I'm certain in another 70 years the urban debates of the time will look back on urban planning now and offer similar constructive criticism.

You mention Mississauga. Mississauga is an urban failure for a few reasons. Like Hamilton, Mississauga has a ton of wide, fast, and unfriendly roads through their "downtown". Mississauga has very strict parking requirements, which have exacerbated the car culture in the downtown. They're getting an LRT soon, just like us, but also like us, they're not really touching their parking minimums. As well, they've built their towers around a giant mall surrounded with acres of parking. Not smart. And the transit in Mississauga is really lacking - disincentivizing it's usage alongside cheap and plentiful parking. The issue in Mississauga is not height. The issue in Mississauga is poor planning with regards to technical policy (parking minimums), transportation (public transit and unfriendly streets), and also the suburb-of-Toronto mentality of many of the residents that live in the core of the city have, which further perpetuates transportation woes.

Hamilton is not going to be great from Television City, absolutely. But if approved, it represents a turning point in the urban ideology of Hamilton. The city absolutely needs density around and outside the downtown, but that is not a mandate for it to sacrifice the downtown. As well, further density outside the downtown is likely to include higher parking ratios than projects in the downtown. As someone who is worried about transportation, I absolutely support major increases to transit investment in our city but also recognize that if our City Council is unwilling to make those increases, that growth in the downtown is the least-worst option from a transportation utilization standpoint.

Completely agreed on attracting quality jobs. It's a big challenge, even with low rents for office space in our downtown office buildings. Where I feel I might divert on that point is that those jobs ought to be in the core, and the people working in those jobs should also be in the core.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by lack of developable properties. There are very few lots and properties in Hamilton that couldn't be redeveloped to higher and better uses, in a tangible and physical sense. If you're referring more to that the City doesn't want to see redevelopment outside of the core and that has led to a shortage of developable properties in a regulatory sense, then I agree, and like I've said, I want to see action on that too. (Similar to yellowbelt issue)

The "hundreds of examples of cities without towers" is, no offence, the weakest point I think you made. Those examples are nearly all European, and have existed for hundreds of years longer than most North American cities, when cities were not designed around cars and single family houses, but rather around early mass transit, walkability, and midrise apartment blocks from the very start. You cannot recreate that without knocking down 90% of our city and redrawing all the roads. I would also add that many, many, many of those cities have now created areas outside of their historic low- and mid-rise downtowns which accommodate tall buildings. See La Defense in Paris as an example.

I completely disagree that nobody enjoys living in Downtown Toronto for more than a year. I really don't think they'd have been able to build and sell so many condos if that was the case. As well, even if you consider the downtown of Toronto "extreme insanity", there are plenty of areas throughout Toronto that are medium density. The downtown isn't one of them, nor should it be. I don't think it should be in Hamilton either. We have plenty of room for both, and our rules should permit and encourage both levels of density in different areas of the city.

I apologize for the rant, but I don't appreciate it when people wrongly attribute urban planning failures to something so simple like height when in fact these results come from a multitude of decisions and policies, of which height rarely effects, but is often blamed, thanks to it's striking visibility.

[TheRitsman]

To your first point, it isn't so much that there is a height limit on moving people, its more that keeping up with these densities is difficult. My argument is essentially that if there is demand for 1000 units, that it would be better to spread this over ten 100 unit buildings than two 500 unit buildings. The reason is that transit is better spread across these 10 buildings than it would be for 2 buildings. There is a certain demand for living in Hamilton, and if we want the city to grow more sustainably while also generating livable places to live outside the core, we need both highrises in downtown and midrises elsewhere.

Highrises of epic proportions look nice, but take demand from other locations the city should be focusing on. They do not generate a community, make it difficult to keep up with transit and are not great psychologically for humans.

Again, I think we agree on nearly everything here, except height alone. I think an obsession with height for heights sake is as bad as limiting height for Nimbys. I think the limitations in downtown are fine, the issue is that the planning policy for the rest of the city is terrible. Downtowns policy is terrible in the context of the rest of the city.

Any major road, be it Concession, Ottawa, Kenilworth, Parkdale, Barton, Cannon, Upper Wellington, Upper James should all be zoned for 3-4 storey minimum, with 8-10 storey as of right with bonusing available for higher heights. There should be limitations on parking on these streets and no surface parking similar to downtown.

The issue isn't a height limit downtown in my opinion, its that the rest of the city has bad planning. From friends who have done cost analysis on different heights of buildings, it made me form this opinion, because to put it simply, height to price per unit is not a linear function. There are a whole bunch of factors that cause certain heights to be less financially stable than others.

Having been dealing with the city for a while now with various issues, I honestly don't think Jason Thorne is the issue. It's the city not allowing him to properly plan anything outside the downtown. I have spoken and discussed many of these issues with planners from Burlington and city staff from Kitchener. Thorne is a great addition to the city, the man is right in his understanding of height limits, and how they affect property speculation and the power they give the city with bonusing. The issue is that our politicians and staff are regressive and don't think.

With the 4 recent midrise failures, staff recommended denial on 2 which council voted against, and recommended approval on 1 which council voted against. These 3 midrises could have held the quantity of people that a single 35 storey tower would hold. Instead they deny that, and will approve a 30 storey tower downtown.

This is bad planning, plain and simple. This cap was designed by a planner, and is being used by a ignorant council in the wrong way. Unfortunately, planners can't force the hand of council. There is also the situation of demand and supply. The demand right now is artificially high because of the low supply. Taller towers could indeed provide this supply, but this isn't Toronto, demand does have a limit here. If we fill tall towers with people, midrises won't be able to develop as demand won't be there. You can see how many highrise and midrise developments are dragging their feet because of slow sales. RC3, Steel City Video, Connolly, and others are sitting waiting for demand to pick back up. When it does, a ton of people will go to a very small area, and businesses that already exist will have more customers but vacant units further out will remain empty.

Extremely low density in some areas, with extremely high density in others is bad planning practice, and while you bring up that my European example is a bad one, I disagree, because we should be trying to emulate that success in European cities. Many North American cities are doing exactly that, and even in Toronto, midrise areas are flourishing.

Hamilton is like a micro version of Ontario. If we look at Ontario, one area is desirable and has jobs and is accessible and therefore expensive and that's Toronto, while the locations with less jobs, that require a car and is less desirable is Brantford, Hamilton, St Catherine's. Hamilton has James and it has Ottawa, and the exact same thing is happening, where James is desirable, accessible, and has jobs, while Ottawa St is not as desirable, less accessible, and has much fewer jobs.

This is a result of no new growth in Ottawa St area, and has until recently been the same problem in Hamilton when compared to Toronto. Hamilton needs to grow up everywhere, not just downtown. By putting a 60, 70, 80, 90 storey tower downtown Hamilton you slow that from happening. Hamilton's major issue isn't a 30 storey limit downtown, it's that the city doesn't understand what that means.

It means that 30 storeys should be the limit in bad locations for height, and it means that if a developer wants to go higher there should be bonusing. It also means that the city needs to have a comprehensive plan outside the downtown, and not deny 11 storey buildings 1 block outside the "downtown" secondary plan.

The Pier 8 development is a great example of good planning, and would not have been improved by being taller. Toronto's waterfront is much less enjoyable because of the massive height right against the water, and the locations with midrises are much nicer with large walking paths and restaurants and patios. I legitimately think Centre Mall at Barton should have been the same design, and Ottawa St and Kenilworth would have exploded with popularity, especially with Go nearby and LRT bringing people into and out of downtown.

Most people I know that do enjoy living in Toronto live outside the main core, by Ossington, by the ROM, or out by Queen East. I will also add that I agree that Mississauga isn't bad because of height, but again it isn't helped by it. My point was that height alone does nothing.

I don't think having no height limit achieves anything, and the reality is that Hamilton's downtown core has a limit in size. It's unlikely we will be tearing down old victorian homes east of John St anytime soon to build condo buildings. Even at John and Barton, there is a townhouse complex being build, not even a midrise. If we go too tall, then we will have extremely tall towers against low density residential which is bad planning as well.

Again, my point with agreeing with the height limits for now is because I don't think that if we suddenly allowed unlimited height Hamilton would get significantly better. Hamilton's issues revolve around leadership, bad planning in general outside the downtown core, which mostly has a decent secondary plan, and infrastructure.

Infrastructure can be improved with property taxes, but is helped more by property taxes and people using it, and the best way to get the latter is to increase density around transit corridors, which is all I am really arguing for. Also your points are better received by me, than blindly wanting tall towers which is what many on here naively want with the assumption that is will solve everything.

Also my comment is much more rambly, but I'm too tired to edit. I hope to see you continue to advocate for height where it makes sense, and appreciated your design around Jamesville, I do like that design more, as I agree that it a good location for a bit more height. I think it illustrates where we agree and disagree. Firstly I don't like space in the middle of buildings as this is a known problem area in older developments and become dead zones. I personally think the corner of Strachan and James is too tall, and half the height should be taken to the corner Ferrie and James, to match the kitty corner. The middle section should be a market square type design similar to what you can see in Brantford's Harmony Square with water feature and ice rink and a few commercial units. I think this would get a better bang for your buck than just a triangle in the middle which would feel exclusive to owners in those buildings.

See: https://i.imgur.com/mixFR9c.jpg and https://i.imgur.com/99YYlcq.jpg

[lachlanholmes]

I understand why you support spreading the density further out and your reasoning behind it. However, the concern with spreading those units out around the city is that smaller buildings (think 50-150 units) typically cost more to construct (per unit) than a tower (with more units) which is essentially repeating the same steps over and over again, floor by floor. The question of demand is one in which everyone has a different opinion. I believe there's enough demand to support both towers over 30 storeys in the downtown and midrises outside of the core, but others may not.

I completely disagree that towers do not create a community and that they're 'not great psychologically'. I have always lived in an apartment tower. I have never seen anything to suggest that they don't create a community or that they're psychologically bad for their residents.

Agreed regarding increasing height on all major roads.

I agree that the rest of the city has poor planning. Our city plans don't understand or implement the concept of density nodes - which is a major flaw. But I also don't think that the fact that the rest of the city has fallen behind is a good reason to defend the height limit downtown. And yes, while I can agree in principal that it's not a linear line with height and unit cost, there are 'sweet spots' so to speak with regards to unit cost. For example, an 8-12 storey building is a lot more economical per unit than a 3-6 storey building, and 30-50 storey building is a lot more economical per unit than a 15-25 storey building.

I don't blame any one person at the city for poor urban planning decisions - I'm not privy to the behind the scenes information and I can't make that judgment. What I will say, and while this wasn't popular the previous time I said it, is that he isn't correct on the correlation of the height limit and speculation. At the most basic level, it must be understood that just because a site is zoned for say 30 storeys, doesn't mean you're going to get it. It's a combination of many variables like floor space ratio, lot size, separation distances, setbacks and stepbacks, etc. Likewise, the economic impact of the DTSP so far has been a massive transfer of wealth to existing landowners within the plan area speculating that their property is now much more desirable to a developer. You see this with 100 James South or 188 Cannon for example.

I agree that it was bad planning to deny the three midrises in the West Harbour you talk of. I can't agree that the city should therefor block tower development in the downtown core because the same number of units could fit in a midrise.

Supply and demand are at the core of why I believe what I believe. I said above I believe there's enough demand for both high rise towers in the core and midrises outside the core. As well, no mater what type of supply you're adding, it takes time to develop. The data I've seen show the Greater Golden Horseshoe region growing exponentially - and at a rate that Toronto and it's suburbs aren't going to be able to keep up with. I firmly believe that there is going to be a further demand increase in Hamilton as a result, and from the developers taking an interest in building in Hamilton, they do too.

Agree somewhat regarding extremely high density in areas and extremely low density in others - Mississauga is the prime example of this - townhomes right next to 50 storey towers. I don't support that. But there also isn't a solid reason why the development surrounding those 50 storey towers can't be 20, 15, 10 storey buildings.

And I don't really think the Toronto example of midrises are comparable with European midrises. For one, in Toronto, they are regulated by archaic angular plane rules, which increases cost exponentially. As well, European midrises are typically right next to each other, Toronto midrises are usually a whole block or have large separation distances between them.

Density bonusing is a deeply flawed concept I don't really support, but that's not really the point of this discussion. However, even if you do support bonusing, the DTSP doesn't allow for bonusing above the 30 storey limit. If it did, I would have much less of an issue with it. Much less.

I agree that the Pier 8 plan is good as is. I wouldn't increase the height of it. However, I don't think Toronto's waterfront is as bad as it's made out to be. Most of the height is considerably set back from the water itself, even more of it beyond Queens Quay.

As I said, I agree height that height is not a magic bullet to all our challenges. Where I differ is that I think it's a deeply, deeply necessary component of righting our urban ship.

And I do plan to keep arguing in favour of height, especially in the core. On Jamesville, I appreciate your feedback. I worked on it with feedback from other board members, with the 25 storey height being recommended by one of our other members. As for the mid-rise buildings, they have to be broken up into certain floorplate sizes or you end with 'bowling alley'-type units that are long and skinny and not particularly livable, with limited sunlight. As well, those large open spaces are effective for keeping the floor space ratio low, and the plan we presented is simple to show a reasonable density and unit count.

[Pipedreams]

My biggest problem with the height restrictions in Hamilton is that very few people (with the exception of Jason Thorne and some urban planners probably) actually believe in what they stand for. Television studios wanted to build at 40 and they used the height restriction as an excuse to block it, when they came back at 32 still blocked.

Harbour condo's came in at 11 on proposal and got blocked with one it's reasons being height, despite being midrise transit oriented development, the lofty holy grail of new urbanism. 468 James north wanted 8 stories of market-affordable housing and got attacked for height.

For the vast majority of times I have seen in this city, height restriction has just being a sharp sword to swing against change in any form.

[King&James]

Interesting that those developers that have pulled the trigger and built or are building are doing so and seemingly being successful. So why so many stalled projects, whether they be downtown or suburbs. Market conditions seem ideal (low vacancy, decent $ psf sales - not Toronto , but for sure high enough on a national ranking basis). Which projects are void of needing Council approvals (RC3/4/5, Connelly, Tivoli, and maybe the Stoney Creek trio). Those seem to be in a pretty sweet spot, given the barriers to entry for anything new). Why are they not taking advantage?

[King&James]

So this article in Urbancity just screams out for some developer to bring a downtown option to the table .... Better here than in Burlington or Oakville

https://urbanicity.com/hamilton/city...hamilton-area/

[johnnyhamont]

Originally Posted by Pipedreams

My biggest problem with the height restrictions in Hamilton is that very few people (with the exception of Jason Thorne and some urban planners probably) actually believe in what they stand for. Television studios wanted to build at 40 and they used the height restriction as an excuse to block it, when they came back at 32 still blocked.

Harbour condo's came in at 11 on proposal and got blocked with one it's reasons being height, despite being midrise transit oriented development, the lofty holy grail of new urbanism. 468 James north wanted 8 stories of market-affordable housing and got attacked for height.

For the vast majority of times I have seen in this city, height restriction has just being a sharp sword to swing against change in any form.

If you're saying there' hypocrisy from the City in challenging buildings that aren't over 30 storeys after they approved a DTSP that allowed for them, those examples don't support that because none of those properties are actually covered by the DTSP. So the city has never zoned any of them for up to 30 storeys. Might be bad planning policy but if it's a policy they believe in, they are not going against what they believe in.
Anyway, those north end properties are good proposals. The City was very supportive of the 8-storey 468 James proposal, it was just the NIMBY neighbours who opposed the height.

[realcity]

^ It was a council committee of 8 councillors that struck it down against staff recommendation.

[realcity]

Originally Posted by King&James

So this article in Urbancity just screams out for some developer to bring a downtown option to the table .... Better here than in Burlington or Oakville

https://urbanicity.com/hamilton/city...hamilton-area/

This should be a gimme for Hamilton. Somewhere downtown where students want to be.

[yomsen]

Does anyone know what is being built at the corner of Mary and Wilson?

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by yomsen

Does anyone know what is being built at the corner of Mary and Wilson?

New police forensics building.

[drpgq]

City looks to hike Hamilton parking rates to narrow budget gap
Increasing meter rates by 25-cents would add $280,000, 50-cent hike would add $560,000 in annual revenue

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9...ow-budget-gap/

Hamilton drivers enjoy some of the cheapest municipal parking around.

But those low rates are a drag with the city facing a 5.5 per cent tax hike, councillors say.

"We need to make operational changes, and increased parking revenues are an avenue to do that," Coun. Chad Collins said.

Coun. Jason Farr said there are "much stronger arguments to making increases across the board than status quo."

Last year, meters generated roughly $2.4 million in revenue for the city. In June 2017, council hiked the hourly rate to $1.50 from $1.

A city staff report before councillors on Tuesday notes a 25-cent hike to the current rate would amount to an extra $280,000 in annual revenue. A hike of 50 cents would put roughly $560,000 into city coffers each year.

Staff found out of seven "peer municipalities," Hamilton's metered parking was third lowest. The average rate was $2 an hour.

The report also notes Hamilton's 61 public lots and two parkades — which have roughly 4,400 spaces — have an average rate of $1.05 an hour versus $2.35 in other municipalities.

Increasing the off-street rate for municipal lots by $2 per hour — on roughly 2,500 spaces downtown — would amount to an extra $325,000 in annual revenue, staff say.

A hike of $10 per month on 2,550 permits would mean a $306,000 infusion.

The gulf between local municipal lots and private ones is significant with some of in the latter category charging as much as $6 an hour. Staff believe the highest daily rate for off-street parking is $13.

Farr, who represents downtown, said it makes sense for city lots to be "equal or near equal" to private ones.

If monthly parking rates are lower than monthly bus passes, the city isn't doing enough to encourage people to use public transit or cycle, he said. Moreover, the existence of wait lists for parking passes suggests the "price point is too low."

In 2016, council increased monthly rates for some city lots by $10.

Farr said consultation with business improvement areas (BIAs) is an important step before making hikes. In recent years, the attitudes have become more "progressive" when it comes to parking, the Ward 2 councillor said.

If the city hikes meter rates by 50 cents, the sky's not going to fall, said Kerry Jarvi, executive director of the Downtown BIA. But trying to find that change in your purse, "that's more the problem," she said.

Business owners look forward to the launch of pay-by-phone options come spring, Jarvi noted. That, for instance, would allow restaurant patrons to extend their stay from their table or customers to linger in a shop longer.

Jarvi said wait lists for monthly passes are discouraging businesses from setting up shop downtown, where 65 per cent of the members are professional services. "I need people to come to work. ... Where are they going to park?"

Municipal staff started working on a city-wide parking master plan this fall to determine a "co-ordinated, strategic approach" to the service.

Farr suggested council might support some rate hikes rates for January, but noted others wouldn't likely come into effect until the end of budget deliberations.


Average meter rates
• Calgary — $3.31

• Winnipeg — $3

• Montreal — $2

• Windsor — $1.75

• London — $1.50

• Hamilton — $1.50

• Sudbury — $1.30

• Thunder Bay — $1.25

[drpgq]

I think Farr is right where the downtown lots should be at least close to the private ones.