Edited by Victoria Watcher, 09 June 2019 - 10:31 AM.
Your Ideal New Downtown Projects
#301
Posted 09 June 2019 - 10:31 AM
#302
Posted 09 June 2019 - 12:41 PM
the third item costs us directly.
Not really. When a property is redeveloped the value dramatically increases which increases the amount due in property taxes. Foregoing some of that temporarily merely reduces incremental property tax revenue.
- Victoria Watcher likes this
#303
Posted 09 June 2019 - 07:27 PM
How about a podium parking lot that starts on the second floor. First floor at street level is commercial, next three floors are parking and then condo's above that? The condo owners could have a seperate level that is gated for their parking, and the rest public.
#304
Posted 10 June 2019 - 07:57 AM
Unless we see examples of how "podium parking" can look better than lipstick on a parking garage, I'm not personally in favour of that approach.
#305
Posted 10 June 2019 - 08:07 AM
And I am not in favour of my property taxes going up to incentivize developers to supply additional underground public spaces in private parking facilities.
#306
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:01 AM
Unless we see examples of how "podium parking" can look better than lipstick on a parking garage, I'm not personally in favour of that approach.
Look at just about any new building in Richmond, all of them have 2-4 storey parking podiums wrapped in CRUs, townhouses, apartments, public art, etc. It's incredibly difficult to do more than 1 level of underground parking here, so basically everything has to be at or above grade.
Three levels of parking on this one, outlines in red. There are retail CRUs at grade and a strip of office CRUs of the second storey. Rooftop patio/garden for residents on top of the podium. Venting for the garage follows the same window pattern as the CRUs below.
#307
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:03 AM
Look at just about any new building in Richmond...
So basically we're saying it's not possible to do this well...
Edited by aastra, 12 June 2019 - 04:09 PM.
#308
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:07 AM
Unless we see examples of how "podium parking" can look better than lipstick on a parking garage, I'm not personally in favour of that approach.
I'm wondering if any project anywhere has ever done a decent job of hiding ("sleeving") the elevated parking levels behind loft units and common area rooms like workout rooms, etc. (As per Jackerbie's example above, but if the parking on the third level were held back just like it is on the lower two levels.) But if you do that then you're "sacrificing" several of the very same precious parking spaces that you're trying to create.
To me this smacks of regressing back to those familiar post-1945 anti-urban habits but claiming that you're doing it in a progressive way. Yes, we put parking levels up high, but look at how we sort of covered them with hallways and bushes and stuff.
Edited by aastra, 12 June 2019 - 04:15 PM.
#309
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:08 AM
So basically we're saying it's not possible to do this well...
Just some friendly razzing at Richmond's expense.
#310
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:16 AM
There are retail CRUs at grade and a strip of office CRUs of the second storey. Rooftop patio/garden for residents on top of the podium. Venting for the garage follows the same window pattern as the CRUs below.
I wouldn't want a city full of buildings like that, but I suppose having some here or there wouldn't be a big deal. But in Victoria's case this technique would merely be an expediency, since the ground conditions don't oblige this approach. If this approach gets the proverbial green light then I'm wondering how you could stop the proverbial train once it starts to snowball (proverbially) after you let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag?
#311
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:40 AM
Consider this example from Denver. It's just another ugly parkade, right? Nope, it's an ugly parkade with a (wide) residential tower on top.
I sure wouldn't want a development like this in Victoria. But... here's the thing: would this otherwise not-so-desirable approach be more palatable if we're talking about replacing/expanding an existing parking facility? Like the Johnson St. parkade, for example? The parkade is already there and it's already ugly and it already has a poor ground floor. So what if everything was done better and the parkade was expanded in the process?
#312
Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:47 AM
SOMA Grand in San Francisco. Those are fake apartments and blinds on the lower parkade levels, yes? If we don't like fake windows on the Bay Centre then how can we like them on a project like this?
pic from https://www.clarkpac...d-1160-Mission/
**********
2008 article about this building...
There's even a stab at glitz along Mission Street at the entrance: The ground-floor facade wears a thin sheet of smooth limestone. Above it, three levels of parking hide behind the building's public art - a 390-panel mural of colorful and creamy textured glass...
Edited by aastra, 10 June 2019 - 09:51 AM.
#313
Posted 12 June 2019 - 03:58 PM
#314
Posted 12 June 2019 - 04:10 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#315
Posted 12 June 2019 - 04:45 PM
...New residents will foot the bill for the u/g through higher costs and that is fine...
Why should new residents have to foot the costs for additional public parking?
#316
Posted 12 June 2019 - 05:18 PM
Speaking of parking, check out this parkade-to-apartments controversy in Brooklyn (260 parking spaces replaced with 28 apartments). Have you ever seen comments like this before? I don't know if I've ever seen comments like this before.
- Drivers brace for Union Street garage-to-apartment conversion
- Park slopers griping over plan to turn massive parking garage into housing and retail
- Park Slope's parking garage condo conversion at 800 Union Street
...Park Slope car owners could soon find themselves circling the block looking for a spot if a developer convinces the city to let it turn a parking garage on Union Street into a luxury apartment complex.
...plans were announced to convert a cherished Park Slope parking garage... into residential apartments. Slopers complained that the 260-car garage’s removal would increase traffic and that the underway development would overcrowd schools.
...the local community board recommended it with several stipulations, among them, including affordable housing and nixing the balconies included in the original bid.
The balconies would create an unacceptable amount of noise, according to the panel.
Meltzer bought the property in 1982... The lot was zoned for manufacturing when Meltzer purchased it and required a zoning variance to operate as a parking garage. He has appeared before Community Board 6 every 10 years since then to get its blessing for renewing the variance, and the plan to build apartments didn’t come as much of a surprise...
"Since the '80s the owner has indicated he intends to convert the building to residential," he said. "He’s just getting around to it now."
"It's going to have a dramatic effect on Union St.," said... a 20-year resident of Union St. who is actively opposing the project. "Not only will there be a loss of parking there, but there is going to be increased truck traffic."
The conversion will actually result in less car congestion, Meltzer said.
"You won't have cars going in and out of a garage all day, so obviously there will be less traffic," he said. "I know some people are upset, but this will be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood."
The elimination of the garage, combined with the addition of retail, will only lead to such unseemly practices as double-parking...
...a coop member who usually drives to the organic emporium from his Eighth St. home... said the removal of the garage will force him and other motorists to circle the area searching for a parking space.
It's funny because so many aspects of this controversy are straight from Victoria's playbook. Generalities in opposition, specifics in support. (No, this is not always the case, but it sure is often the case.)
Here's the before and after:
Edited by aastra, 12 June 2019 - 05:21 PM.
- Nparker and Hotel Mike like this
#317
Posted 12 June 2019 - 05:41 PM
Anyway, that project would seem to answer my earlier question re: can today's parking levels be converted into tomorrow's residential levels?
#318
Posted 14 June 2019 - 11:42 AM
Why should new residents have to foot the costs for additional public parking?
I wasn't suggesting it as public parking just that we don't need to have parking at the bottom of every building. Just need to remove the requirements to include it and the market will solve it. Make parking cost what it costs and if there is enough profit the private sector will build more.
#319
Posted 14 June 2019 - 11:51 AM
Above ground parking is simply a cheap out. New residents will foot the bill for the u/g through higher costs and that is fine. What the city should do though is lower the requirements to match unit number to parking spots. I think that the demand for having a spot is going to decline over the next twenty years so let's force it.
They lowered it in the downtown core. See table below from Zoning Bylaw 2018
#320
Posted 16 June 2019 - 07:38 PM
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users