Jump to content

      



























Photo

Parking issues and discussion (City of Victoria & Greater Victoria)


  • Please log in to reply
5613 replies to this topic

#4501 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 09:00 AM

Wow, have to step in here as it sounds like some of you are suggesting that ROP is free, its not! The parking was paid for by the developer (and subsequently passed on to the home owner) when the subdivision was created. its hard to calculate the cost in the past as rates and costs have varied so lets look at a current cost for a new development in the city.


If someone has a large lot in Fairfield say 100 x 120 and decide to rezone or subdivide this into two residential lots the City requires that they pay for all new: sidewalks, curb and gutter, boulevard landscaping, street lighting, irrigation sleeves, and repaving the road to the center line of the street for the entire width of the 2 new lots. This costs approx. $50-100K per lot depending on where in the neighbourhood due to road width, type of road base (gravel or concrete), number of trees required etc. So that translates to $50-$100K per residence. This road & sidewalk benefit more than just the developer or the residents of the new homes as the public walk the sidewalk and drive on the road.

Yes the developer of higher density buildings also has to pay the frontage improvement costs for roads, sidewalks etc. But the same $50-$100K is spread out over 50 to 100 new units rather than the single family dwelling. As such I would argue the roughly $1K /unit they have paid is a small cost for the use of the roads and sidewalks but does not pay for any parking.

On top of this the City's parking bylaws (Schedule C) require the SFD developer to provide at least one off street parking stall per residence. As this is generally surface parking it is a percentage of the lot that is dedicated to parking only. At an average 6000 ft2 Fairfield lot price of approx. $1M and an average parking space of approx. 200 ft2 (not including the driveway to get it behind the front wall of the home which is also required) that's an additional $33K, (plus the cost of paving it) that the developer and therefore homeowner have to pay for parking. That's about the same construction cost as providing underground parking at a condo or apartment. The condo or apartment do not have any incremental or marginal land cost for that parking stall since it is below grade and does not remove other uses for the land above ground.

The city is now approving ton's of new higher density housing in the core areas including those abutting the ROP areas with little to no parking requirements. Case in point GMC's new 30 unit rental building at 1015 Cook street with only 4 parking stalls. I understand those parking stalls are reserved for three car share vehicles and one visitors spot. This leaves zero parking stalls for any of the 30 - 60 residents of the building that may own cars. If you think that no resident of this building will own a car, you are beyond naive, your delusional. Those tenants will simply flood the ROP zones along Burdett, Mcclure, Linden, Richardson, Trutch etc. that some one else has paid for.

Some of you have suggested taxes pay for these roads and that we all pay the same tax. The assessed value (and therefore property tax) of an average condo or single apartment unit in Victoria is way less than a single family home. On top of that the closer the single family dwelling is to the core the higher the land value so rather than paying the average $4K a year someone else quoted above, many of the SFD's along the same streets mention above are paying $6-$8K a year in property tax. These residents don't use any more city provided services than the condo or apartment dweller so I think its reasonable to say the extra $4-$6K a year they pay in property taxes should cover their ROP fee!


Boom.

There it is. I’ve been trying to scream this from the rafters but it consistently falls flat.
  • TwilightZoneVictoria likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4502 Ismo07

Ismo07
  • Member
  • 5,224 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 09:06 AM

City Hall staff are constantly talking about alternative transportation modes to and within the core. The bike lanes are all about re-prioritizing the infrastructure network. Look at Vancouver Street, which is being completely re-prioritized.

Staff are also growing sympathetic to increasing parking stall reductions at new projects, to the point where projects are now being approved outside of existing old town transformations with zero parking, or extremely limited (1-4 stalls) parking.

So it’s all by-design, and not coincidental.

 

The design is also on the developer, the City is not dictating how many spaces need to be built.  If the market dictates parking then the developers will fill and start building them.  Sure at the beginning they will take advantage and those you purchase or rent spaces without parking will be sad about not having a space.  Many cities are moving in this direction.  It's the new planners norm.  I agree it's utopic in many ways but that is the direction.  There will be a correction.

 

 

Some of you have suggested taxes pay for these roads and that we all pay the same tax.   The assessed value (and therefore property tax) of an average condo or single apartment unit in Victoria is way less than a single family home.  On top of that the closer the single family dwelling is to the core the higher the land value so rather than paying the average $4K a year someone else quoted above, many of the SFD's along the same streets mention above are paying $6-$8K a year in property tax.  These residents don't use any more city provided services than the condo or apartment dweller so I think its reasonable to say the extra $4-$6K a year they pay in property taxes should cover their ROP fee!

 

While you might want to think that the higher tax on a SFD dwelling should go towards street parking, it simply doesn't.  Based on value of the property in comparison to others properties.  


Edited by Ismo07, 16 September 2020 - 09:07 AM.


#4503 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 271 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 09:35 AM

 

While you might want to think that the higher tax on a SFD dwelling should go towards street parking, it simply doesn't.  Based on value of the property in comparison to others properties.  

Typical pat response, perhaps you can actually provide some factual evidence.   If the SFD owner (or renter as they pay the tax indirectly) pays way more property tax than the apartment, or condo resident, where do all those extra taxes go to?  My argument would be to paying for all the services and BS the SFD resident never uses, but that entitled millennials use and expect someone else to pay for!   



#4504 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 09:48 AM

The design is also on the developer, the City is not dictating how many spaces need to be built. If the market dictates parking then the developers will fill and start building them. Sure at the beginning they will take advantage and those you purchase or rent spaces without parking will be sad about not having a space. Many cities are moving in this direction. It's the new planners norm. I agree it's utopic in many ways but that is the direction. There will be a correction.


No there won’t be, at least not in your remaining years as a civil servant.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4505 Rex Waverly

Rex Waverly
  • Member
  • 265 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 09:49 AM

Typical pat response, perhaps you can actually provide some factual evidence.   If the SFD owner (or renter as they pay the tax indirectly) pays way more property tax than the apartment, or condo resident, where do all those extra taxes go to?  My argument would be to paying for all the services and BS the SFD resident never uses, but that entitled millennials use and expect someone else to pay for!   

 

Well, for starters since the density is drastically lower in single family home neighbourhoods, SFD are very inefficient. The cost of servicing i.e. utilities and road maintenance is significantly higher per household. And not just the road in front of their house; SFDs have a higher rate of car ownership and drive farther and more often, especially if they're in a more sub-urban neighbourhood that isn't very walkable.  They may pay more taxes per household but far less taxes per square footage of residence and MUCH less than per acre of land.  



#4506 Ismo07

Ismo07
  • Member
  • 5,224 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 10:03 AM

Typical pat response, perhaps you can actually provide some factual evidence.   If the SFD owner (or renter as they pay the tax indirectly) pays way more property tax than the apartment, or condo resident, where do all those extra taxes go to?  My argument would be to paying for all the services and BS the SFD resident never uses, but that entitled millennials use and expect someone else to pay for!   

 

Typical pat response?  That's how taxes work, I don't know what to tell you, this is the society you live in.  Budgets are made and whatever that ends up being it's divided into residential vs commercial and then split based on property values.  A SFD doesn't get more services than their neighbour even though they may have paid more.  Is that what you thought?   The more you pay the more you get?  When you read your property tax report, there is no mention of parking.  If the City were to charge those households with more vehicles to be parked on the street, then property taxes across the board would come down, ever so slightly but still.


Edited by Ismo07, 16 September 2020 - 10:06 AM.


#4507 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 10:20 AM

Well, for starters since the density is drastically lower in single family home neighbourhoods, SFD are very inefficient. The cost of servicing i.e. utilities and road maintenance is significantly higher per household. And not just the road in front of their house; SFDs have a higher rate of car ownership and drive farther and more often, especially if they're in a more sub-urban neighbourhood that isn't very walkable. They may pay more taxes per household but far less taxes per square footage of residence and MUCH less than per acre of land.

Those are all tropes.

Density is not “drastically” lower in every case.

I can point you to countless examples where density per acre is equal between SFDs and multi-unit housing, where SFD’s are more efficient than multi-unit housing, and where vehicle ownership is irrelevant in regards to your domicile (it’s more a product of age, lifestyle, occupation and wealth, not housing type). Also, taxation is based on assessed value, not square footage, and the variables that go into that calculation are many.
  • TwilightZoneVictoria likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4508 Barrrister

Barrrister
  • Member
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 10:46 AM

Parking is less of a factor in a lot of high rises since they are often just AirBnB units. 



#4509 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 10:54 AM

Nope, that’s not quite true.

Very few suites in formerly transient zoned buildings are AirBnB units, and as of 2019 there have been no new AirBnB units created due to the municipal ban. Both stratas and the City itself have been cracking down on unlicensed AirBnBs when they are reported, and believe me, they are.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4510 Barrrister

Barrrister
  • Member
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:26 AM

Interesting to know Mike, thanks for the update on that.


  • Mike K. likes this

#4511 Barrrister

Barrrister
  • Member
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:27 AM

Maybe the city should just ban overnight street parking outright and get rid of the issue.



#4512 Ismo07

Ismo07
  • Member
  • 5,224 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:31 AM

Maybe the city should just ban overnight street parking outright and get rid of the issue.

 

The discussion wasn't about overnight parking, at least from my perspective.  It's always been about unbundling the parking from rent or purchase.    meaning people deciding not to pay for that parking and insisting that since they are residents the City has a duty to provide them street parking.  Overnight isn't a big deal but constant storage is.  I know many people added to this and it went a little into the weeds.



#4513 GetLisaSomeHelps

GetLisaSomeHelps
  • Member
  • 407 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:42 AM

Typical pat response, perhaps you can actually provide some factual evidence. If the SFD owner (or renter as they pay the tax indirectly) pays way more property tax than the apartment, or condo resident, where do all those extra taxes go to? My argument would be to paying for all the services and BS the SFD resident never uses, but that entitled millennials use and expect someone else to pay for!


I'll take straight up ignorance for 2000, Alek.

#4514 Rex Waverly

Rex Waverly
  • Member
  • 265 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:47 AM

Those are all tropes.

Density is not “drastically” lower in every case.

I can point you to countless examples where density per acre is equal between SFDs and multi-unit housing, where SFD’s are more efficient than multi-unit housing, and where vehicle ownership is irrelevant in regards to your domicile (it’s more a product of age, lifestyle, occupation and wealth, not housing type). Also, taxation is based on assessed value, not square footage, and the variables that go into that calculation are many.

 

Yeah, i guess if you're including say, townhouses or duplex/triplex as multi-family (which i guess technically is true). I was meaning more 4+ storey condo apartments and the like; i'll be more specific in the future.   

 

And, I agree that vehicle ownership is a product of age, lifestyle, occupation and wealth.  But so is housing type. So there is definitely correlation between housing type and vehicle ownership, if not direct causation.  



#4515 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:16 PM

Generalities don't get us anywhere, I think we can all agree.

 

And just to reiterate, I'm not comparing SFDs to duplex or triplex residences or townhomes, I'm referring only to single-family-homes versus multi-storey apartment buildings/condos. You can achieve residential densities that match or surpass apartment buildings with SFDs, but especially so if you include secondary suites within those SFDs, which many modern homes provide. So 15 houses could actually mean 30 residences, and within those 30 residences could be an average of 2.x people versus a 45-unit apartment block containing 1.x people per suite.

 

There exist a lot of misconceptions based solely on the optics of a residence.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4516 Ismo07

Ismo07
  • Member
  • 5,224 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:23 PM

Generalities don't get us anywhere, I think we can all agree.

 

And just to reiterate, I'm not comparing SFDs to duplex or triplex residences or townhomes, I'm referring only to single-family-homes versus multi-storey apartment buildings/condos. You can achieve residential densities that match or surpass apartment buildings with SFDs, but especially so if you include secondary suites within those SFDs, which many modern homes provide. So 15 houses could actually mean 30 residences, and within those 30 residences could be an average of 2.x people versus a 45-unit apartment block containing 1.x people per suite.

 

There exist a lot of misconceptions based solely on the optics of a residence.

 

But those 15 house would take up much more land than the 45 unit building no?  I mean I guess some of those 70s buildings sprawl a bit but also have more 2 and 3 bedroom units but still not sure if they are 15 houses worth of property.



#4517 Rex Waverly

Rex Waverly
  • Member
  • 265 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:38 PM

Generalities don't get us anywhere, I think we can all agree.

 

And just to reiterate, I'm not comparing SFDs to duplex or triplex residences or townhomes, I'm referring only to single-family-homes versus multi-storey apartment buildings/condos. You can achieve residential densities that match or surpass apartment buildings with SFDs, but especially so if you include secondary suites within those SFDs, which many modern homes provide. So 15 houses could actually mean 30 residences, and within those 30 residences could be an average of 2.x people versus a 45-unit apartment block containing 1.x people per suite.

 

There exist a lot of misconceptions based solely on the optics of a residence.

 

Yeah, that's certainly one of the difficulties in comparing apples to oranges, for sure. There is such a wide variety of residence types, land uses, lifestyles, etc. it's difficult to be on the same page.  And that makes it difficult to have a robust discussion if we don't have the same definitions....  hell, we might even agree on some of this but just don't know it!


Edited by Rex Waverly, 16 September 2020 - 12:38 PM.


#4518 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,164 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:43 PM

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of high density development, highrises, etc., but over the years of working in this industry I also realized that a lot of mis-truths, half-truths and outright porkies were being cast at development patterns that did not align with the urbanism ideals of high density, high concentration of housing in urban areas. So I'm putting more effort towards balancing the narratives out, from the perspective of a pro-density, pro-development person who sees both sides of the equation in their line of work.

 

@Ismo, I'm referring to modern development, not projects from the 70s and 80s.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4519 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:49 PM

If someone has a large lot in Fairfield say 100 x 120 and decide to rezone or subdivide this into two residential lots the City requires that they pay for all new: sidewalks, curb and gutter, boulevard landscaping, street lighting, irrigation sleeves, and repaving the road to the center line of the street for the entire width of the 2 new lots.  This costs approx. $50-100K per lot depending on where in the neighbourhood due to road width, type of road base (gravel or concrete), number of trees required etc.  So that translates to $50-$100K per residence.  This road & sidewalk benefit more than just the developer or the residents of the new homes as the public walk the sidewalk and drive on the road.

 

Yes the developer of higher density buildings also has to pay the frontage improvement costs for roads, sidewalks etc.  But the same $50-$100K is spread out over 50 to 100 new units rather than the single family dwelling.  As such I would argue the roughly $1K /unit they have paid is a small cost for the use of the roads and sidewalks but does not pay for any parking.   

 

This is an amenity contribution and is part of the cost of development. You get to raise the value of your property through subdivision and the City gets a cut of that raised value in the form of upgrades to public infrastructure. Repaving the road doesn't entitle the resident to a free parking space, the "payment" is in exchange for the City granting rezoning and subdivision.

 

 

 

On top of this the City's parking bylaws (Schedule C) require the SFD developer to provide at least one off street parking stall per residence.  As this is generally surface parking it is a percentage of the lot that is dedicated to parking only.  At an average 6000 ft2 Fairfield lot price of approx. $1M and an average parking space of approx. 200 ft2 (not including the driveway to get it behind the front wall of the home which is also required) that's an additional $33K, (plus the cost of paving it) that the developer and therefore homeowner have to pay for parking. That's about the same construction cost as providing underground parking at a condo or apartment.  The condo or apartment do not have any incremental or marginal land cost for that parking stall since it is below grade and does not remove other uses for the land above ground.

 

If anything this is an argument to remove the minimum parking requirement for single-family residential uses and instead charge for street parking if the owner chooses not to construct parking on their own property. Note that one surface parking space is allowed in the front yard setback for single-family dwellings (Schedule C, 11©), so it need not impact the buildable area of the home, just the landscaping.



#4520 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 271 posts

Posted 16 September 2020 - 03:30 PM

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of high density development, highrises, etc., but over the years of working in this industry I also realized that a lot of mis-truths, half-truths and outright porkies were being cast at development patterns that did not align with the urbanism ideals of high density, high concentration of housing in urban areas. So I'm putting more effort towards balancing the narratives out, from the perspective of a pro-density, pro-development person who sees both sides of the equation in their line of work.

 

 

 

Bingo!



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users