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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Circa 1877 (née Brick Brewery) | 20 fl | Complete
#76
I believe it's one parking space per unit at 144 and 155 and I know they don't have visitor parking up and running because they don't have the spaces. When it gets down to it, it's what the market will bear. Condos without parking are going to go for less, how much less is the question. Until the density climbs to a point where you can exist without a vehicle, you aren't going to get it. I moved to Waterloo for the chance to live in the city and went from two or three cars to one, as that is all I have parking for. I still visit Toronto to see my kids, and visit spots outside the city, as well as under serviced or non-serviced parts of KW. I'd love to be able to ditch the last car, but it isn't practical for me.
Reply


#77
(05-12-2016, 08:34 AM)schooner77 Wrote: I believe it's one parking space per unit at 144 and 155 and I know they don't have visitor parking up and running because they don't have the spaces.  When it gets down to it, it's what the market will bear. Condos without parking are going to go for less, how much less is the question. Until the density climbs to a point where you can exist without a vehicle, you aren't going to get it.  I moved to Waterloo for the chance to live in the city and went from two or three cars to one, as that is all I have parking for.  I still visit Toronto to see my kids, and visit spots outside the city, as well as under serviced or non-serviced parts of KW.  I'd love to be able to ditch the last car, but it isn't practical for me.

They won't know until they start somewhere. I've yet to see a building separate out the condo and the parking portions of the purchase price, and allowing people to buy even some units without parking, and with a price that is substantially lower due to giving up parking. It's great to be able to get down the number of cars you have, and it's important to take chances to inch closer to the mileposts, and if we're at 1 space per unit, the next milepost is to advertise one bedrooms from $140K, plus $60K for a parking spot, in a building where maybe only half a dozen units will wind up going without parking. I've managed to go several decades of life without owning a car, thanks to the ease of Community Carshare, Enterprise, flying from YKF, taking GO, VIA, and Greyhound, each as is appropriate, but I'd like to be able to consider purchasing a condo without the $40-60K cost of parking built into my purchase price.
Reply
#78
(05-11-2016, 08:35 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(05-11-2016, 06:12 PM)panamaniac Wrote: That seems bizarre.  Who manages the Bauer building?

If it was the property manager, most likely he was there by the request of the condo board.

(05-12-2016, 09:29 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote:
(05-12-2016, 08:34 AM)schooner77 Wrote: I believe it's one parking space per unit at 144 and 155 and I know they don't have visitor parking up and running because they don't have the spaces.  When it gets down to it, it's what the market will bear. Condos without parking are going to go for less, how much less is the question. Until the density climbs to a point where you can exist without a vehicle, you aren't going to get it.  I moved to Waterloo for the chance to live in the city and went from two or three cars to one, as that is all I have parking for.  I still visit Toronto to see my kids, and visit spots outside the city, as well as under serviced or non-serviced parts of KW.  I'd love to be able to ditch the last car, but it isn't practical for me.

They won't know until they start somewhere. I've yet to see a building separate out the condo and the parking portions of the purchase price, and allowing people to buy even some units without parking, and with a price that is substantially lower due to giving up parking. It's great to be able to get down the number of cars you have, and it's important to take chances to inch closer to the mileposts, and if we're at 1 space per unit, the next milepost is to advertise one bedrooms from $140K, plus $60K for a parking spot, in a building where maybe only half a dozen units will wind up going without parking. I've managed to go several decades of life without owning a car, thanks to the ease of Community Carshare, Enterprise, flying from YKF, taking GO, VIA, and Greyhound, each as is appropriate, but I'd like to be able to consider purchasing a condo without the $40-60K cost of parking built into my purchase price.

Built in to your purchase price AND your re-sale price. although I agree that it should be an option (foregoing a parking spot would not save you 60K, however.  More likely about a third of that, no?) .  I am perhaps too influenced by the Arrow Loft experience, where an annex to the parking garage had to be built to meet the demand for parking - one spot per unit is simply not going to cut it for many down-sizing boomers and working professional couples.
Reply
#79
(05-12-2016, 10:02 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Built in to your purchase price AND your re-sale price. although I agree that it should be an option (foregoing a parking spot would not save you 60K, however.  More likely about a third of that, no?) .  I am perhaps too influenced by the Arrow Loft experience, where an annex to the parking garage had to be built to meet the demand for parking - one spot per unit is simply not going to cut it for many down-sizing boomers and working professional couples.

A structured parking space is in the ballpark of $30-50K, along with opportunity cost as part of the site. 

The thing about looking at projects like Arrow Lofts is that they're expensive luxury condos - those kinds of purchasers are more likely to want to store their cars even if they don't plan to use them much. But our parking requirements force every development to build to that level, and that starts to matter a whole lot more if your condos could be in the $200-250K range (or rental equivalent). For more affordable housing in the city, it matters a great deal if people can save money by forgoing parking. The city's parking requirements say that whatever your choice of transportation, you cannot save money by not paying for a parking spot.
Reply
#80
(05-12-2016, 10:08 AM)mpd618 Wrote:
(05-12-2016, 10:02 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Built in to your purchase price AND your re-sale price. although I agree that it should be an option (foregoing a parking spot would not save you 60K, however.  More likely about a third of that, no?) .  I am perhaps too influenced by the Arrow Loft experience, where an annex to the parking garage had to be built to meet the demand for parking - one spot per unit is simply not going to cut it for many down-sizing boomers and working professional couples.

A structured parking space is in the ballpark of $30-50K, along with opportunity cost as part of the site. 

The thing about looking at projects like Arrow Lofts is that they're expensive luxury condos - those kinds of purchasers are more likely to want to store their cars even if they don't plan to use them much. But our parking requirements force every development to build to that level, and that starts to matter a whole lot more if your condos could be in the $200-250K range (or rental equivalent). For more affordable housing in the city, it matters a great deal if people can save money by forgoing parking. The city's parking requirements say that whatever your choice of transportation, you cannot save money by not paying for a parking spot.

This makes sense, but in the context of the Brick Brewing project, I'm assuming that we will be looking at another high-end project, no?  At least that has been my assumption.  The recent Downtown Kitchener rental renovation projects (The Chambers, 48 Weber, and, probably, the Corporation Square building) seem to rent well with no parking provided.
Reply
#81
(05-12-2016, 09:29 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: They won't know until they start somewhere. I've yet to see a building separate out the condo and the parking portions of the purchase price, and allowing people to buy even some units without parking, and with a price that is substantially lower due to giving up parking.

I actually asked about that at the City Centre show room once. Their price chart included 1 parking space, but they said that there was a discount to be had by declining a parking spot. But the fact was that more people buy parking than not, so the list prices included it for convenience. (It would be a negative experience to be drawn in by a price, only to learn that with parking it's 20K more, when most real estate in town continues to bundle parking.)
Reply
#82
(05-12-2016, 10:12 AM)Markster Wrote:
(05-12-2016, 09:29 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: They won't know until they start somewhere. I've yet to see a building separate out the condo and the parking portions of the purchase price, and allowing people to buy even some units without parking, and with a price that is substantially lower due to giving up parking.

I actually asked about that at the City Centre show room once.  Their price chart included 1 parking space, but they said that there was a discount to be had by declining a parking spot.  But the fact was that more people buy parking than not, so the list prices included it for convenience.  (It would be a negative experience to be drawn in by a price, only to learn that with parking it's 20K more, when most real estate in town continues to bundle parking.)

I don't think any local projects have sold parking separately yet, have they?  That seems to be the norm in larger cities like Toronto and Ottawa.
Reply


#83
I didn't know that about City Centre. I've never seen a development break out the cost of a parking spot, and I think it's a shame. It should be advertised clearly based on the real market value of the space.

There will of course be plenty of buyers who want two cars for their household, but I think that there will be plenty who would opt for none, if the choice was there and they were clearly compensated for taking it. In my neighbourhood not too far from this site, there are plenty of households without cars. I know single people and couples alike who simply don't own one. Some of them live in very nice (what might be called "higher-end") homes, and pay for them in part because of their savings on transportation. It's not just poor people and students any more who opt not to buy cars, even in Waterloo Region.
Reply
#84
(05-12-2016, 10:22 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I didn't know that about City Centre. I've never seen a development break out the cost of a parking spot, and I think it's a shame. It should be advertised clearly based on the real market value of the space.

Yeah, I haven't seen that either, yet. At City Centre, I had to ask pointedly.  None of their materials showed the discount.

Another issue is that, at the current parking minimums, parking is not yet a scarce commodity.  There's somewhere around "just enough" parking supplied on site and so no one has to think about it too hard.  At that availability, there isn't an incentive to the developer to charge the full cost of the parking space, nor is there much competition for them.  Until there is something of an open market for parking (which can't happen until after the City stops compelling a minimum supply, deflating market prices) we won't see parking broken out of condo pricing in an upfront manner.
Reply
#85
I like a spot like Brick because of its location more than anything; it's one of those places where non-car use is easiest. It doesn't make sense for a condo like the Westmount Grand to be car-free. Plus, with all the complaints about the current proposal, a pot-sweetener the developer could add would be to somewhat better define a term we lack in the region, the other version of affordable housing. We're used to thinking about it meaning being able to have a family rent a sufficient dwelling for $600-800. What I'm thinking of is the ability of condo purchase prices to be <$200K, affordable for those not working in a $75K household, to single purchasers, or to those who just don't want to tie up so much of their income (and retirement) in an illiquid asset.

We've already got it such that 155 caroline's parking façade along Caroline was approved with the caveat that should demand for retail be high enough, and for parking low enough, the parking spaces of the structure fronting Caroline could be converted into retail. I don't see why we couldn't have a building like Brick, where the floorplate seems to be perfectly square for every level, and start it with the 6 floors of parking they want, but allow purchasers to forego parking. Option one in that case would be to have a moveable internal garage door, which would be installed based on how many spots were purchased, and how many were left for visitors/retail/office use, letting the residential parking area shrink. The other option would be more interesting: say that each of the six floors of parking had 50 spots. If 60 purchasers abstained from getting parking, up front they'd save $20-60K on their purchase price. At the mark of 60 though, the 6th and final floor of parking would cease to be a duplicate of the 5th floor of parking, and would become a duplicate of the 7th (and lowest) floor of condo units. This would leave 10 empty spaces on the 5th floor of parking for the 6th floor units to take (or abstain from), and the profit from the extra floor of units would go to some combination of the developer (rewarding them for copying a different level in their autocad drawings), the no-parking purchasers (for making it possible in the first place, and as a reward for moving quickly, before so many parking spaces were sold that converting parking to condos became impossible), and to the parking-purchasing residents (for some notion of equality).
Reply
#86
(05-12-2016, 10:43 AM)Markster Wrote:
(05-12-2016, 10:22 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I didn't know that about City Centre. I've never seen a development break out the cost of a parking spot, and I think it's a shame. It should be advertised clearly based on the real market value of the space.

Yeah, I haven't seen that either, yet. At City Centre, I had to ask pointedly.  None of their materials showed the discount.

Another issue is that, at the current parking minimums, parking is not yet a scarce commodity.  There's somewhere around "just enough" parking supplied on site and so no one has to think about it too hard.  At that availability, there isn't an incentive to the developer to charge the full cost of the parking space, nor is there much competition for them.  Until there is something of an open market for parking (which can't happen until after the City stops compelling a minimum supply, deflating market prices) we won't see parking broken out of condo pricing in an upfront manner.

Did you get an actual cost comparison, e.g. a one-bedroom advertised as $220K went down $30K if parking was foregone?

These market issues are why, in my preceding post, I think parking stack/floorplate stack exchanges in condos and aggressive (and rewarded) upfront pushes for no-parking purchasers, all from the very first discussion with city staff, are key.
Reply
#87
(05-12-2016, 10:49 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I like a spot like Brick because of its location more than anything; it's one of those places where non-car use is easiest. It doesn't make sense for a condo like the Westmount Grand to be car-free. Plus, with all the complaints about the current proposal, a pot-sweetener the developer could add would be to somewhat better define a term we lack in the region, the other version of affordable housing. We're used to thinking about it meaning being able to have a family rent a sufficient dwelling for $600-800. What I'm thinking of is the ability of condo purchase prices to be <$200K, affordable for those not working in a $75K household, to single purchasers, or to those who just don't want to tie up so much of their income (and retirement) in an illiquid asset.

We've already got it such that 155 caroline's parking façade along Caroline was approved with the caveat that should demand for retail be high enough, and for parking low enough, the parking spaces of the structure fronting Caroline could be converted into retail. I don't see why we couldn't have a building like Brick, where the floorplate seems to be perfectly square for every level, and start it with the 6 floors of parking they want, but allow purchasers to forego parking. Option one in that case would be to have a moveable internal garage door, which would be installed based on how many spots were purchased, and how many were left for visitors/retail/office use, letting the residential parking area shrink. The other option would be more interesting: say that each of the six floors of parking had 50 spots. If 60 purchasers abstained from getting parking, up front they'd save $20-60K on their purchase price. At the mark of 60 though, the 6th and final floor of parking would cease to be a duplicate of the 5th floor of parking, and would become a duplicate of the 7th (and lowest) floor of condo units. This would leave 10 empty spaces on the 5th floor of parking for the 6th floor units to take (or abstain from), and the profit from the extra floor of units would go to some combination of the developer (rewarding them for copying a different level in their autocad drawings), the no-parking purchasers (for making it possible in the first place, and as a reward for moving quickly, before so many parking spaces were sold that converting parking to condos became impossible), and to the parking-purchasing residents (for some notion of equality).

Is that proviso related to the original 155, or to the version now proposed?  At the new price points, I'm guessing the parking uptake will be strong.
Reply
#88
(05-12-2016, 10:52 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Did you get an actual cost comparison, e.g. a one-bedroom advertised as $220K went down $30K if parking was foregone?

Correct, upon asking, I was given a number that the price would be discounted.  I recall that it wasn't a particularly large number.  Maybe 20K, certainly no higher.

Quote:These market issues are why, in my preceding post, I think parking stack/floorplate stack exchanges in condos and aggressive (and rewarded) upfront pushes for no-parking purchasers, all from the very first discussion with city staff, are key.

And convincing the city of that is an uphill battle. The city has a solution in place already: parking minimums. From their perspective, it's already a solved problem.
If we lower parking requirements, but don't facilitate the creation of an open parking market, then you end up with people demanding space for cars, but nowhere to put them, at any price.  This is a problem we're seeing crop up in Northdale now.
Reply


#89
(05-12-2016, 11:41 AM)Markster Wrote: And convincing the city of that is an uphill battle. The city has a solution in place already: parking minimums. From their perspective, it's already a solved problem.
If we lower parking requirements, but don't facilitate the creation of an open parking market, then you end up with people demanding space for cars, but nowhere to put them, at any price.  This is a problem we're seeing crop up in Northdale now.

You mean the municipal government should facilitate the creation of a market? I don't see that being necessary, and I would guess they wouldn't be very good at it.

There are a tonne of software solutions that have been developed to allow individuals with single parking spaces to try to rent them out. If the municipal government stops artificially inducing oversupply, a market will develop. What are the specific symptoms of the problem in Northdale?
Reply
#90
I agree that the free market will figure it out, eventually, once parking minimums go away.

The problem is that the transition period is going to be very rough. A lot of people who expect parking will be unable to find any when their building is full, and there are no discoverable daily spots. "An App Exists" is a nice thing to say, but it doesn't help visitors like a sign on the road saying "Public Parking". Apparently parents visiting their kids is becoming a pain point right now.

Convincing council/staff to lower parking requirements when people are complaining to them that they can't find parking is especially difficult.

Basically, there's a Catch-22 situation. Staff can't budge on parking requirements until there's an open market; there's no open market because there's too much mandatory parking to make it economically viable.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links