5619 replies to this topic

[IPH]

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.

Of course that's not what I thought.  My point was that higher priced houses already pay significantly higher property taxes which benefits everyone far more then them as they don't get any more services.  So we can cut them some slack and people should stop whining that they get free parking.  They don't, they paid for it when the lot was developed and or resold.

[IPH]

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.  

As Mike has said, generalities are a poor argument.  Saying SFD have a higher rate of car ownership and drive father and more often is not always true.  I believe I have seen a statement on this site that Fairfield residents have one of the highest rate of bike use in the region, yet Fairfield also has an extremely high number of SFD.  So in this case your statement doesn't appear to hold water.

 

I know most of my neighbours and the majority are retired or semi retired and rarely use their cars.  They walk and/or cycle most of the time.  I realize they are not in a more Suburban neighbourhood as you point out, but they are in the neighbourhood with ROP.  Many of them also struggle to find a spot to park because all the people that live in all the high density buildings downtown that are to cheep to pay for parking, or cant buy parking in their building because the city approved the building with not enough parking, are taking up all the space in the ROP zone.   

[Ismo07]

As Mike has said, generalities are a poor argument.  Saying SFD have a higher rate of car ownership and drive father and more often is not always true.  I believe I have seen a statement on this site that Fairfield residents have one of the highest rate of bike use in the region, yet Fairfield also has an extremely high number of SFD.  So in this case your statement doesn't appear to hold water.

 

 

 

Just cause there is a high number that ride into downtown for work or play or whatever, doesn't mean those SFDs have fewer cars.  I'd hazard that most of those houses have at least one vehicle and most of those most have 2+ vehicles.  Those streets are pretty full of cars.

 

 So we can cut them some slack and people should stop whining that they get free parking.  They don't, they paid for it when the lot was developed and or resold.

 

No one is whining about it, but they never paid for the parking on the street.  Taxes are not meant for securing public right of way in that fashion, even though you may think that is fair or right.  I'm happy with the status quo as I think it works well for Victoria.  There are differing thoughts to either remove the restriction altogether or start a permit program that's all.  Different cities do different things.

[Mike K.]

Well, if they're driving those cars, then they're not parking those cars on their street at the same time. Sounds like we should be encouraging people who park on residential streets to park less and drive more.

[IPH]

Well, if they're driving those cars, then they're not parking those cars on their street at the same time. Sounds like we should be encouraging people who park on residential streets to park less and drive more.

LOL

[Ismo07]

Well, if they're driving those cars, then they're not parking those cars on their street at the same time. Sounds like we should be encouraging people who park on residential streets to park less and drive more.

 

LOL yes sound logic.  The point was that it's folly to think cyclists only ride and drivers only drive.  Also the generalization that SFDs typically will own more vehicles that multi-family dwellings is sound and a fine generalization.  Eliminating generalizations from wide spreading conversations such as how cities develops policy is silly.  Have to start with generalizations then pare down to more specific issues.

[Mike K.]

Oh geez. Who cares, though, how many vehicles they own. I own three and live in the boonies. I can only drive one at a time.

I also owned three when I lived downtown in a highrise, all parked off-street, with parking paid for, don’t worry.

[Ismo07]

Oh geez. Who cares, though, how many vehicles they own. I own three and live in the boonies. I can only drive one at a time.

I also owned three when I lived downtown in a highrise, all parked off-street, with parking paid for, don’t worry.

 

No one cares I thought it was you who brought it up....  You likely have room to store them out there however...  When you lived downtown you managed to park them here and there.  I own one and live in a multi-family, so generalization is real.

Edited by Ismo07, 17 September 2020 - 09:28 AM.

[Mike K.]

Here and there? I had reserved parking at my place and Mrs. Mike K’s. No here and there for this guy!

[Mike K.]

An example of what I've been talking about. We don't often agree with the DRA's sentiment, but are they wrong in pointing this out about this project?: https://victoria.cit...50-cook-street/

 

• There are 41 parking spaces proposed for 129 market condo units. There are commercial units proposed within this project and yet no commercial parking spots are being provided. There is no parking for moving trucks, delivery vehicles or guest parking and both short term and long term street parking are typically at a premium already in our neighbourhood and with all the Covid deliveries, it is even worse.
• The evidence‐based Schedule C requires over double this number of spaces. R‐48 does not require parking however there is a height variance being sought that will permit a building approximately 42% larger than the existing 10‐storey zoning limit, the OCP and DCAP would permit exacerbating the parking shortage downtown.
• • There is no evidence to justify the provision of such a minimal amount of parking for this type of housing tenure, as the demand for onsite parking by tenants will surpass the parking supply. The outcome will be that these vehicles will be parked in the surrounding neighbourhoods effectively transferring the problem elsewhere.
• The parking garage exit/entry should be more that just a plain garage door ‐ it (and all others in the downtown) should add some aesthetic appeal/value. And it should operate silently.
• The current pandemic has made it clear that privately owned vehicles will remain popular but electric cars may inevitably dominate. As reported by CTV News on November 28, 2019, “The province now boasts the highest per‐capita sales of electric vehicles in North America”. This application should provide the parking required by Schedule C as well as charging stations to support and incentivize the conversion from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles.

[Ismo07]

 

An example of what I've been talking about. We don't often agree with the DRA's sentiment, but are they wrong in pointing this out about this project?: https://victoria.cit...50-cook-street/

 

• There are 41 parking spaces proposed for 129 market condo units. There are commercial units proposed within this project and yet no commercial parking spots are being provided. There is no parking for moving trucks, delivery vehicles or guest parking and both short term and long term street parking are typically at a premium already in our neighbourhood and with all the Covid deliveries, it is even worse.
• The evidence‐based Schedule C requires over double this number of spaces. R‐48 does not require parking however there is a height variance being sought that will permit a building approximately 42% larger than the existing 10‐storey zoning limit, the OCP and DCAP would permit exacerbating the parking shortage downtown.
• • There is no evidence to justify the provision of such a minimal amount of parking for this type of housing tenure, as the demand for onsite parking by tenants will surpass the parking supply. The outcome will be that these vehicles will be parked in the surrounding neighbourhoods effectively transferring the problem elsewhere.
• The parking garage exit/entry should be more that just a plain garage door ‐ it (and all others in the downtown) should add some aesthetic appeal/value. And it should operate silently.
• The current pandemic has made it clear that privately owned vehicles will remain popular but electric cars may inevitably dominate. As reported by CTV News on November 28, 2019, “The province now boasts the highest per‐capita sales of electric vehicles in North America”. This application should provide the parking required by Schedule C as well as charging stations to support and incentivize the conversion from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles.

 

 

Is the parking impact study handy?

[Mike K.]

I’m not sure I understand your question.

[Ismo07]

I’m not sure I understand your question.

 

Typically where there is a variance for parking there is a parking impact study for the development.  It normally tries to explain what they think parking will look like..

[Mike K.]

I'm sure there is a study, but what the DRA is saying is it contradicts the City's parking demand estimate that calls for more than double the 41 stalls being provided, which at 41 is a 32% ratio.

[Ismo07]

I'm sure there is a study, but what the DRA is saying is it contradicts the City's parking demand estimate that calls for more than double the 41 stalls being provided, which at 41 is a 32% ratio.

 

Yes but the study would explain the rhetoric behind it.  Is this going to Committee this week?  Bah I'll see if I can find it.

[Jackerbie]

Typically where there is a variance for parking there is a parking impact study for the development.  It normally tries to explain what they think parking will look like..

 

I'm sure there is a study, but what the DRA is saying is it contradicts the City's parking demand estimate that calls for more than double the 41 stalls being provided, which at 41 is a 32% ratio.

 

No parking variance requested, looks like Transportation requested a Traffic Impact Assessment which may or may not include discussion on parking impacts. The DRA appears to be referring to the background work completed for the revised parking rates in Schedule C of the zoning bylaw, not something prepared by the developer.

[Mike K.]

Right, Schedule C is municipal.

So are we saying the 41 stalls is a purely happenstance figure?

[Jackerbie]

Right, Schedule C is municipal.

So are we saying the 41 stalls is a purely happenstance figure?

 

41 stalls is just what fit in two levels of underground parking.

 

FWIW, Regent's Park has a less onerous parking requirement than Schedule C, at 0.55 per residential unit, zero visitor parking, and 50% of the commercial rate defined in Schedule C. If we apply the same to this development, the total requirement would be 73 parking spaces.

[Mike K.]

Excellent. Thank you!

[marks_28]

Dan Fumano: Could a little less parking be good for Vancouver?

Opinion: Vancouver considers removing parking minimums for new buildings, a move many experts support for sustainability, economic and health reasons.

 

Kirby-Yung’s motion on next week’s council agenda is in line with a growing consensus of urban planning and transportation experts, who believe that the massive amount of space — and money — dedicated to parking in our cities needs a rethink. Despite the frustrations drivers experience when they circle a block looking for a spot, there are indications Vancouver, like other cities, has an oversupply of parking.

Kirby-Yung’s motion would direct staff to explore eliminating parking minimums, instead allowing developers and property owners to determine parking needs for new buildings. Her motivations are two-pronged, she said: “It’s an economic consideration and it’s an environmental consideration.”

 

https://vancouversun...d-for-vancouver