05-12-2016, 11:14 AM
(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.