News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

General Infill Discussion

1764522123896.png
 
policyenthusiast said:
Infill good, an all-residential tax base bad. We need either stronger non-residential development in the City, or a cost-sharing agreement with surrounding municipalities, benefiting from Edmonton's services without contributing to the tax base.
Click to expand...
why would these other cities do a cost-sharing agreement? that would never happen.
 
policyenthusiast said:
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/council-parking-optional-infill-rage

Unsurprising pseudo-rhetoric from the Journal, I would be surprised if open option parking still existed in 2 years.
Click to expand...
I feel a bit torn on the best way the city should approach all of this for a few reasons:

1) removing parking minimums has a lot of benefits I support: free market dynamics, cost savings, diversity of choice
2) certain areas have had congested street parking for decades. Areas with lots of apartments, Uni, downtown. This is to be expected.
3) no one is entitled to free street parking and owners of cars should pay to store their own vehicle on their own property.
4) in suburbs, where everyone drives, many homes have driveways, rear parking pads, and visitor parking in condo/townhouse developments
5) in the carrot/stick equation of modal shift, making parking/driving less easy is part of the movement towards other modes
6) historically, places with less street parking have pretty good transit/biking options.
7) many of those living centrally in areas with less street parking, also have more of their social circles in central areas (students, YAs, urbanites)
8) the tension point now is areas with less/little transit/biking access now also seeing parking becoming limited. These areas often have more narrow roads, higher car use, less driveways, and more uncertainty about future needs as redevelopment happens.
9) resident parking isn't a concern of mine, but guests are. A healthy city needs a social fabric, that's supported by friends/family having access to each other. Especially in income groups where paid 3rd spaces aren't an option, or amongst families where an evening at a home is very preferable over a restaurant for socializing, will lack of street parking for guests be an issue? Also, less central areas now seeing infill are more likely to have social circles including a lot of suburbanites who cannot rely on transit/biking to get places, vs central areas it's at least possible.
10) If people were able to "choose", they might built a larger garage, or a bigger parking pad, but those are 50-100k decisions that can't easily be changed in the short term. But with some streets going from 30% utilization to over 100% in a few short years, it's understandable that there would be frustration.
11) long term, buyers and renters will select homes that suit their needs. But existing owners might feel bait-and-switched by the speed of change. And long term at a societal level, is it a problem to not support social connection through access to people's homes?
12) lots of people make the problem sound worse than it is. Often parking down the street is possible. Few areas have multiple blocks in a row all full.

Those are all the thoughts haha. Are permits the solution? Parking minimums that look like .5/unit for projects with 4+ units and 800m+ from mass transit?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top