Parking in Waterloo Region

[Canard]

Let's just hope the rapid transit network expands enough to accommodate this change. Ie, park and ride lots in the extremities of the line, so those who don't live downtown can still get down there somehow.

[MidTowner]

People who don’t live downtown could also take other types of transit, taxis or ridesharing, bicycles, their own feet…

That is a wonderful development. This could stand to make living downtown a lot more affordable, if it means that there might be developments without any parking at all where, if you choose not to have a car, you aren’t forced to subsidize the “free” parking of your neighbours whether you make use or parking or not.

It might be slowly, but we are moving in the right direction.

[danbrotherston]

Let's just hope the rapid transit network expands enough to accommodate this change. Ie, park and ride lots in the extremities of the line, so those who don't live downtown can still get down there somehow.

But the change itself will be gradual anyway, it's not like all parking is being removed when this passes, it will take many decades for more buildings to be built under these new requirements.  The transit system will grow naturally with the increasing demand.

Further, this doesn't prevent parking, it simply doesn't require it.  If there is demand for parking, the free market will build it.  It might not always be free though.

[tomh009]

Are they really, actually, going to permit, as of right, a parking-free, 99-unit apartment tower above a 10,000m2 retail/office?

If so, that's amazing.  It allows downtown to be built back up to its old pre-war form.  Projects no longer need to be massive lot-consolidations, just to be able to build the density to support the parking requirements.

Yes -- but FSR rules might still dictate the lot consolidations, unless the developer can take advantage of a lor of FSR bonusing.  I suspect that this would be more likely to benefit mid-rise developments that don't hit the FSR limits anyway.


This is indeed good, but I don't expect that completely parking-free residential buildings will become commonplace even so, at least not in the next decade or two.  But if it allows the average parking amount to start creeping down to 1.0, to 0.8, to 0.5, to ... it'll all be good.

[Markster]

Ie, park and ride lots in the extremities of the line, so those who don't live downtown can still get down there somehow.

For the price of 2 transit trips, you can already buy 4 hours of parking downtown. It might make sense to park-and-ride if you're doing the whole day, but not for a regular shopping trip.

It's interesting to note that a monthly downtown parking pass costs $150, while a monthly transit pass costs $79.

[Markster]

Yes -- but FSR rules might still dictate the lot consolidations, unless the developer can take advantage of a lor of FSR bonusing.  I suspect that this would be more likely to benefit mid-rise developments that don't hit the FSR limits anyway.

It does, however, mean that the thought-exercise redevelopment I did a few months ago is suddenly a lot more viable! Lot consolidation doesn't get you as much return, when you don't have to shoehorn in awkward parking lanes.

[Viewfromthe42]

So how much beyond the 3.0FSR could you go? If no parking is required, and very little open space is designed, would you be able to get much more than a 3-storey building in? That's not impressive, given how much I complain about the core of UpTown being limited to 3 storeys or less.

Also, is this "up to" or "first" 100 units? Because that's also a big difference.

[panamaniac]

So how much beyond the 3.0FSR could you go? If no parking is required, and very little open space is designed, would you be able to get much more than a 3-storey building in? That's not impressive, given how much I complain about the core of UpTown being limited to 3 storeys or less.

Also, is this "up to" or "first" 100 units? Because that's also a big difference.

The clause says "up to the first 100", so the meaning would be the latter, no?

[Markster]

So how much beyond the 3.0FSR could you go? If no parking is required, and very little open space is designed, would you be able to get much more than a 3-storey building in? That's not impressive, given how much I complain about the core of UpTown being limited to 3 storeys or less.

Also, is this "up to" or "first" 100 units? Because that's also a big difference.

The phrasing seems pretty clear to me that it's the first 100.

As for the FSR, well, the amount of parking doesn't change the FSR, though the building can be smaller, since you don't need a parking level (which would be exempt from the FSR).

On average, for an urban area, an FSR of 3.0 means you're looking at a 4 storey building with a little bit of space around the edges.
However, Kitchener also affords FSR bonusing... which...

hmm...

...only allows up to the maximum FSR as detailed in the bonusing section of the UGC zone, which for most is also 3.0, except for:

• UGC-2, the civic district, which is not exempt from parking requirements
  
• UGC-4, in the very specific area bounded by King-Cedar-Charles-Eby, which can be bonused up to 6.0
  

What the heck. Why the special treatment for that block? Why is that not the treatment for the rest of downtown?

[Viewfromthe42]

Because Kitchener is feeling the same as UpTown, in that we don't want to see towers, density, or people, just preservation and parking :-S

[Markster]

If that were purely the case, that block would also be 3.0 FSR. What I want to know is why it is not.

The existing zoning is D-2. And there's a special provision allowing retail in all buildings in that block, but nothing to explain the special FSR allowance.

[Viewfromthe42]

Probably because it serves the dual purpose of redeveloping an area the city has no allegiance to, while giving an area where you could actually, you know, build something, as a defense against nothing-but-3-storeys anywhere else.

I'm actually starting to wonder what the point of Tall Building Urban Design Guidelines are if the downtown area is going to be almost devoid of the ability to build them, unless they're in an oasis of flat land.

[tomh009]

Well, it is possible to build them. But the developer will need to apply for an FSR variance, which will be more hassle -- but will give the city more say over the buildings.

[Viewfromthe42]

It still makes it impossible to build a Tall Building without significant empty lot space, which I see as a problem. I'd hazard that even with maximum bonusing, you could never build 1Vic under the new rules. Makes me wonder what's even possible on the transit terminal site if these rules are in place.

[tomh009]

As I said above, it is still possible build tall, such as 1 Victoria. But you'll need to apply for an FSR variance in order to do it.