Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: Three whole years! We've grown so much over the past three years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. To this point it has been funded out of my own pocket. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover all of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Circa 1877 - Brick Brewery Redevelopment | ?m | 20fl | Proposed
I'll definitely be interested to see how the parking plays out. Will they (smartly) choose not just to play host to the local Brick Brewing in their brewpub, but also the local Community Carshare as an option for those eschewing all (or some) cars? It will also be interesting to see what the per-stall cost of parking is, since they say it will be intended to reflect the true cost of parking. If it's $10/20,000/spot, it's definitely not a true cost reflection, but it'll also be a heck of a thing to see people dropping more on a parking spot than they dropped on the car to fill it. Then again, given the amenities here, it's almost as though they've set the table to have this first-ever in Waterloo Region low-parking/true-cost-parking building intended for the strata of customers most likely to have the highest car ownership. The amenities suggest that the cost of any kind of unit here, buy or rent, would be so high as to truly only attract choice non-car users, rather than anyone who doesn't drive due to any kind of cost concerns.
Reply
I think it would be great for this development to host a car share car but, even if not, there are three car share vehicles (one of which is a van) within a five minute walk of here.

As for who owns or doesn't own a car for which reasons, maybe there are some people who rationally take their residential and transportation decisions as related ones. If living somewhere means being able to avoid the very large costs associated with car ownership, maybe one can afford to pay a lot more to live in that place.
Reply
(02-27-2017, 09:49 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It will also be interesting to see what the per-stall cost of parking is, since they say it will be intended to reflect the true cost of parking. If it's $10/20,000/spot, it's definitely not a true cost reflection (...)

So what do you think is the true cost of a parking spot?
Reply
The most recent report I'd been able to find on structured parking costs across north america, a 2017 release, puts costs in the $20,000-35,000 range, with zero profit, so presuming that they are truly trying to fully separate the cost of parking, they'd also need to put equal profit margins on those costs, making it come in somewhere in the $35,000-50,000/spot range. More likely on the lower end, since this will not likely be an underground-heavy parking structure. But if it's lower than $30,000, you know they're having parking subsidized by owners who don't buy it. That said, I still appreciate very much that they're moving in this direction, but with such a costly luxury building, it'll be hard to parse out any true per-unit savings. While the most spartan of 1 bedroom condo units on the market will still top $220K, this building's units will be priced higher, likely so much higher that you would feel you were paying luxury prices even before being told that no parking was included. So I'm supportive but skeptical.
Reply
OK, so I went to look, and found two studies here, average construction costs US$19K and US$24K:
http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf

More relevant are the Canadian costs, though. Altus Group projects a range of C$65 to C$95 per square foot, or C$22K to C$32K. I expect Kitchener numbers will be closer to the low end, whereas Toronto or Vancouver will be at the high end.
http://www.altusgroup.com/media/1160/cos...14_web.pdf

So it's not too far from your cost numbers. But I don't know where you get a 30-45% margin assumption. I doubt that most developers would be making more than 10-20% on a condo project today. And in any case, even at cost, there is no "subsidy": building extra spaces at $25K each and selling them at the same price neither increases or decreases the developer's profit.
Reply
The Altus Group numbers are for free-standing parking garage structures, near as I can tell from your link, and it's absolutely cheaper to build the Sunlife structure at John and Caroline compared to the 144/155 integrated parking structures right next door. If you scroll to the next page and include a few more cities like Ottawa and St. John's, the cost range for those structures widens to $50 to $135 per square foot, or $17K to $45K for a much simpler structure than integrated parking.

The VTPI numbers are USD (so multiply by 1.33), and right below the costs they estimate that the design and other non-concrete costs to be 30-40% of the per-space cost (so multiply by 1.3-1.4), for a total CAD cost of 1.75-1.85 with no profit margin added.

A developer will not get financing for a project without an overall rate of return on all construction, from suites to add-on finishes to commercial units to parking. When you make the parking contribute nothing towards profit, it means everything else has to contribute more than it's fair share, so if there is a lesser profit margin on structured parking, it means that non-car users are paying more so as to still yield the same overall profit rate. Similar idea to how the cost of a store's free parking lot is paid for through increased prices, prices paid both by drivers who use the lot, as well as transit users, cyclists, taxi shoppers, and walking shoppers. You can agree or disagree that this is a problem, but it is absolutely a subsidization.

As for the profit margin, a quick glance around shows that different years and market competitiveness show profit margins as high as 25-35%, and as low as 5-10%. So to take the low end of the VTPI and add in profit margins and a good amount of unaccounted-for costs, the spot cost minimum goes to the $35-40K range.

A local example could be the Benton garage. $15,000,000 to finance the build, 500 spaces, or $30,000/space for a still-simpler-than-condo parking integration with zero profit margin.
Reply
I don't want to make this a big argument thread here, but I will point out that many costs are lower in Canada so you can't just multiply by 1.33 (let alone 1.4) to get Canadian prices.

Other than that, I will simply reiterate that I disagree with your 35-40% profit margin assumption (take a look at some TSX-traded property developers for a reality check: the returns are well below 10%), and the subsidy/financing link (the bank doesn't care how much money the developer makes, they just want to ensure that the financing is repaid).
Reply
I'd say there's almost nothing that's cheaper in Canada, and I'd also argue that it's the hottest markets where margins are thinnest and overall numbers (and thus profit weighting) of sales highest, representing more Toronto and Vancouver than Kitchener.

But I'll still leave it that it was $30,000/space to build the Benton garage without a cent of profit, half a decade ago, 100% above ground, and without the need to accommodate residences on top and the associated utilities and design stylings pushed through the parking design. So that's a pretty good floor or low-end estimate.
Reply
A large billboard went up on the Caroline side. The advertising looked different than what has been on the website, but I did not have a good look; will try for a better look tomorrow.

Interestingly the render was of a front perspective which was a bit confusing at first looking at the bill board from the "rear" of the property.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
Has a new name and website:
circa1877.ca

And tag line, "far from ordinary"

Higher resolution renders in the press kit.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
Did they get all their variances approved by the city? As in, is this likely to be built? I live nearby and am hoping this gets built. There's still a number of CORE (Conserve our Residential Environment) signs in the neighbourhoods on both signs of King so I hope their opposition wasn't strong enough.
Reply
(07-13-2017, 10:30 AM)Andy Wrote: Did they get all their variances approved by the city? As in, is this likely to be built? I live nearby and am hoping this gets built. There's still a number of CORE (Conserve our Residential Environment) signs in the neighbourhoods on both signs of King so I hope their opposition wasn't strong enough.

I thought those were mostly about hydro lines, not nimbying building projects.

(note: I’m also open to the possibility of principled opposition to specific characteristics of specific building projects but most of what actually I see looks pretty NIMBY)
Reply
I never realized the original purpose for the group, I just see the occasional signs around the neighbourhoods. To me, CORE = COPV (Conserve our Property Values). I did take a look through their facebook page and it seems like they are still an active group that seems to basically be NIMBY.

Even the original article regarding the Utility poles being taller than desired reveals their real motivations https://www.therecord.com/news-story/261...d-changes/:

"Wendell Schlumberger is a spokesperson for Conserving our Neighbourhood Environment.
“Residents will not stand for seeing the neighbourhood broken apart,” he said.
Schlumberger argued if the area isn’t protected, it will decay and attract unwanted elements such as rental housing."
Reply
Egads! Rental housing! Surely that must be kept away from any decent neighbourhood!

Sad
Reply
(07-13-2017, 01:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Egads! Rental housing! Surely that must be kept away from any decent neighbourhood!

Sad

I’m just amazed by the straightforward mention of rental housing as undesireable. It’s not that far from explicitly listing racial groups.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)