(11-20-2014, 11:49 PM)mpd618 Wrote:

(11-20-2014, 02:59 PM)Spokes Wrote: Yes of course.  I guess I was thinking he meant a parking garage as a parking garage, not offering parking for a condo.  But I guess if you chopped the tower off of One Victoria, that's what it'd be.

I meant a parking structure of some kind, and of course a street like Victoria needs active use at street level. At the same time, I think the Tannery, 72 Victoria St S, and the UW Pharmacy campus all desperately need a parking structure first so that the endless surrounding parking lots can be developed.

(11-21-2014, 07:57 AM)Spokes Wrote:

(11-20-2014, 11:49 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I meant a parking structure of some kind, and of course a street like Victoria needs active use at street level. At the same time, I think the Tannery, 72 Victoria St S, and the UW Pharmacy campus all desperately need a parking structure first so that the endless surrounding parking lots can be developed.

I 100% agree with you.  Also factor in the coming employment opportunities at the Bramm Street Yard and that need is increased.

(11-21-2014, 09:35 AM)Drake Wrote: Well seeing as the Tannery has already cleared out an inventory of historic buildings for parking, the city should have insisted the developer replace those buildings with a parkade of similar or complementary design of the Tannery building(s). The lot they have 'created' isn't even paved and it looks like hell.

(11-21-2014, 09:35 AM)Drake Wrote:

(11-21-2014, 07:57 AM)Spokes Wrote: I 100% agree with you.  Also factor in the coming employment opportunities at the Bramm Street Yard and that need is increased.

Well seeing as the Tannery has already cleared out an inventory of historic buildings for parking, the city should have insisted the developer replace those buildings with a parkade of similar or complementary design of the Tannery building(s). The lot they have 'created' isn't even paved and it looks like hell.

(11-21-2014, 10:50 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Parking garages are expensive enough

(11-21-2014, 02:09 PM)BuildingScout Wrote:

(11-21-2014, 10:50 AM)mpd618 Wrote: Parking garages are expensive enough

Are they really? A steel car park has a carrying cost of about 2 dollars a day on a 20 year mortgage. Is that not something people are prepared to pay?

(11-21-2014, 06:37 PM)REnerd Wrote: This is threatening to go way off topic ... but BuildingScout, can you explain your comment?  What do you mean a carrying cost of 2 dollars per day?

(11-21-2014, 02:09 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Are they really? A steel car park has a carrying cost of about 2 dollars a day on a 20 year mortgage. Is that not something people are prepared to pay?

(11-21-2014, 06:58 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: If you get a loan and build a steel structure car park you need about $2 per car spot per day to pay the mortgage in 20 years. To this you need to add the cost of the land, but I'm assuming we are talking about building on city owned property.

(11-21-2014, 11:35 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Yes, that is something I never understood. In North America we tend to build expensive concrete parkades and then we complain bitterly about their cost. In Europe they build some rather nice steel parking structures that are so cheap they get built without a moment's thought. Is there any real reason why Kitchener prefers the more expensive option?

Quote:The average construction cost of a multistorey car park is about 5 000 euro per parking space. Using very economical construction methods, this figure can be reduced to 3 000 . The local conditions, the extent of the additional installations, improved comfort and aesthetic aspects can increase these amounts up to 10 000.