Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit
Actually, if they weren't building underground parking these buildings would be built much faster because they wouldn't have to excavate to build the parking; they'd just drill for structure/ foundation piles. It would also be more cost-effective to not have to build underground parking (don't forget, below-grade parking is more expensive to build, too). So yes, I would prefer to see no parking, be it underground or on the surface.
|
Assuming that the soil/geological conditions allow them to build 25 floor tower on the surface by only drilling piles, and assuming that they can put the minimum 22 visitor parking spots on the surface without reducing the footprint of the building (the current design only has 13), then that could be a faster, cheaper option. However, if the developer feels that the cost in time and money of digging out a parking garage will be recouped by improved demand and parking fees, then those costs become a non-issue. This is private money after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit
Are you familiar with Induced Demand? I recommend look it up and learning about it. Building parking underground or on the surface will have the same effect on the area anyway and contribute to more people choosing to drive despite this building being right across from a rapid transit station in one of the most walkable neighbourhoods in the city, which is also counter to intensification efforts, 15-minute neighbourhood plans and Transit-Oriented Development.
|
Yes I am familiar with Induced Demand. While excessive residential parking can have a small induced demand effect, I would argue that more/larger roads and excessive destination parking will have a much larger effect.
While going car free is admirable, people own cars for a variety of reasons. Maybe while they use transit for their commute, their spouse can't, maybe they frequently visit family/friends/places that aren't easily accessed by transit, or maybe they aren't quite ready to cut the cord and commit to being car free yet (in which case having a place to park a car could help wean them from needing a car).
If you were talking about a decade ago, when Ottawa didn't have different minimum parking requirements near transit stations, and this building would have been required to have significantly more parking than is currently proposed, then you would have a valid argument, but I don't see this as being the big problem you are claiming it is.
I am not sure what the exact rules were back then, but by comparison, if this same building were built in Area C, it would require at a
minimum 276 parking spaces for residents
plus 46 parking spaces for visitors
plus however many would be needed for the commercial portion, depending what type of tenant it is planned to have. So that is more than 322 parking spaces, with the developer having the option to have over 400 parking spaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit
To clarify your numbers, they are providing 22 parking spots for visitors and 154 for residents. That is 67%, which is still far to high for this site and area.
|
Where are you seeing that? Section 5.2.1 (Parking Supply) of the
Transportation Impact Assessment says:
Quote:
a minimum of 22 designated visitor parking spaces must be accommodated based on the prescribed ratio and no more than 30.
|
And as far as I can tell, the
Architectrual Set doesn't seem to indicate which parking spots are for visitors and which are for tenants either.
Even if you are correct, when you consider that the
average household in Ottawa has 2.5 people, that works out to 1 parking spot for every 3.7 people living in the building.