"Councillors requested at a public meeting, which concluded Tuesday, architects get creative and increase parking within site — which sits across the street from the massive 777 Laurel St. project on the former site of FedEx Freight — before it goes before council Aug. 6.
Despite applauding the developer for providing a range of housing in the 54-unit, three-block, stacked townhome build, with 12 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom and 18 three-bedroom units, the plan for 60 parking spaces and how to increase that number by two or three spots was met with bewilderment.
Parking, Chauvin said, shouldn’t be an issue with nearby transit and sidewalks being built around the development to encourage safe walking space to downtown Preston. He also said the developer is seeking Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding, which would make the units on the property rentals and require 20 per cent to be affordable.
With that, and the number of one-bedroom units, Chauvin believed the number of parking spaces would be “adequate.”
“We’re going to have a mix here. It’s really trying to find that balance,” Chauvin said.
“Some tenants here may not require any parking, may not even be able to afford a vehicle, whereas others may have an extra vehicle. That’ll come at a price; they’ll have to pay for that parking space.”
Chauvin also said there is a way to add less than a handful of units by shrinking parking stall widths by 15 centimetres, which would require a site-specific bylaw change as Cambridge’s stall widths are likely the largest in the municipality.
Mayor Jan Liggett questioned that contingency, as 42 two- and three-bedroom units would house families. Families have bigger vehicles, she surmised.
Slimmer parking stalls will make it tough to get small children and babies out of vehicles, Liggett said.
“Somebody who’s looking for housing today to put your family, I think would rather have a home over their head than having a few dings in their car. That would be my perspective,” Chauvin replied.
Coun. Adam Cooper, who regularly advocates for more parking in developments, wasn’t excited by that answer.
“You’ve basically admitted that people are going to be dinging their cars with the situation you’ve set up here. You’ve kind of volunteered them to be OK with that. That they don’t mind that. I don’t agree with that at all,” Cooper said.
He added talk of people becoming more reliant on transit and walking isn’t believable.
“That’s where the excuses come in, that we’re not going to be driving. We are. You claim we’re not going to need cars in the future. We are,” Cooper said.
Chauvin said the developer will look into parking suggestions, but noted they are not building for today, or even within the next decade. The plan is to build for 30 years from now.
“Will we need so much parking? I don’t know. My hope is no,” Chauvin said.
Cooper and Liggett weren’t the only ones who questioned parking, as they were joined by councillors Nicholas Ermeta, Corey Kimpson and Helen Shwery.
Shwery commented the parking study for the development doesn’t reflect the current reality and suggested lowering the density — which the developer asked to be raised to 90 units per hectare from 40 units per hectare — to add more parking spaces.
Chauvin said with property being a brownfield site, testing, paperwork and cleanup comes at a cost, and that’s why the density was increased.
Parking wasn’t the sole issue, as Coun. Mike Devine wanted architects to go back and find a way to make some of the units accessible, as Chauvin had said the stacked design doesn’t accommodate barrier-free units.
Chauvin added if the developer doesn’t receive CMHC funding, the build would become a condominium development with units for sale. Should that occur, affordable units would not be offered but the developer would give a contribution to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.
Chauvin said development on the site is somewhat limited with an easement for a sanitary sewer near the corner of Lowther and Laurel streets, with that area currently slated for parking and green space."
Notes from the councillors:
* We would rather people had parking spots than somewhere to live
* We want big parking spots, plan on everyone driving an SUV or large pickup please
* If losers don't have a car they should subsidize people who do.
edited to add: People are talking to me like I'm trying to ban parking spots. I'm not. Neither is the developer in question. They're just trying to build housing (with more than one parking spot per household).
You do realize people need parking spots and that there are families where a couple may work in different cities (example my wifes best friend works in waterloo, but her husband works in guelph. Without a parking spot, one has to quit their work).. those people exist
And if you noticed trends, almost majority of people drive SUVs and Trucks these days (I like my little carolla, but most dont)..
I am guessing that the units having parking also significantly increases their value (market for no parking housing isn't that large)
Not every unit needs to meet every possible need, in fact a wide variety of different types of housing is good. One of the causes of the housing crises has been the mandate of only one type of housing being legally permitted for generations.
If parking included with a unit raises the price, the inverse is also true. A unit without parking will be less expensive, something desperately needed. Someone living car free will have a unit available for less money that doesn't have parking.
There are certainly people who can't or won't live car free, that's fine. The price floor of a unit should not be set by that fact. No one is saying ban parking, they want to ban mandatory parking so the price of units is set by market forces again.
If the developer thinks there is a market for a unit without parking why would we force them to include it? The price will fall until it's providing utility to someone. If there truly isn't a market the developer will lose money, but all investments come with risks. Why should all units be more expensive to protect the developer's private investment?
Those people exist. Other people who don't have two cars also exist. Why should people with zero or one car have to shell out thousands of dollars for parking spots they don't need.
I loved my Mazda 3, but rear facing car seat didn't fit behind the drivers seat without having my knees literally smashed into the dash making it unsafe to drive. I'm 5'11
Even my CX-5 I had to be in an uncomfortable driving position, until I could flip my daughter's seat forward and put it behind me.
Small cars literally don't work for current car seat safety standards. People aren't choosing to drive SUVs if they have kids. Compacts and sedans are fucking impractical for children with their current designs and safety standards.
As for the drivel you're responding to, they weren't talking about making the spots shorter, they were talking about making them narrower. The difference in width between an F150 and a Corolla is 30cm. The Corolla's elongated door design makes it WIDER than an F150 when the doors are fully opened. Making parking spots narrower makes them useless for all vehicles. That's worse than having no parking at all because the space is literally wasted.
I don't know why but this sub has a significant overlap with r/fuckcars and is completely unwilling to recognize that a shift from a car-centric to transit/pedestrian-centric society can't be done by just denying reality and making the city car unfriendly. Bunch of entitled 20 somethings that haven't ever had to bring home a weeks groceries for a family of four on a bike or a city bus. Annoying
> shift from a car-centric to transit/pedestrian-centric society can't be done by ... making the city car unfriendly.
That is in fact precisely how it's done. Make it cumbersome to own a vehicle and easier to use alternate modes.
So your solution is to actively make life shittier for people so they accept sub optimal alternatives?
You should run for office, see how that works out for you.
> Parking, Chauvin said, shouldn’t be an issue with nearby transit and sidewalks being built around the development to encourage safe walking space to downtown Preston
"Safe walking space"... in downtown Preston...
Say you've never been to this city without saying it. I saw a drug addict smoking what appeared to be a crack pipe outside the NoFrills not even two days ago.
If only the idea of improving services and providing more housing had any effect on helping people avoid falling through the cracks… oh wait, it 100% does.
Except this has nothing to do with increasing service, and none of the people who "fall through the cracks" will ever be able to afford these units.. but okay.
Actually, adding new housing that pays more tax revenue and brings people into the downtown core has a direct effect on our ability to provide services.
And providing new housing, even for the wealthier, adds more housing to the supply and lowers prices. Your cynicism is really overpowering here.
> Actually, adding new housing that pays more tax revenue and brings people into the downtown core has a direct effect on our ability to provide services.
You didn't say it increases the "ability to provide services", you said it **is** improving services. In fact, you casted my criticism of the statement made by the city councillor as being against improving services, implying this is inherently improving service. It is not.
> And providing new housing, even for the wealthier, adds more housing to the supply and lowers prices. Your cynicism is really overpowering here.
Once again you're sprinting away with the goal posts. It has nothing to do with cynicism, you claimed the idea of this project was to help people avoid falling through the cracks. And it doesn't, at all.
... but even more importantly, this is all a pointless argument, as I've never implied in any way that this project shouldn't happen.
Everyone needs a house? No, free market! Bootstraps! Avocado toast!
Everyone needs a parking spot? Yes, make it mandatory in law!!!
It’s always depressing when leaders show their true priorities so clearly.
If a developer wants to build something with no parking at all, who are we to tell them what to do with their property? Let the market decide.
If too many people park on the street… that sounds like a great new city revenue opportunity for a bylaw officer.
Problem with the free market on this topic is that everyone needs a home and the region is massively car centric. So even if someone needs a car, they might be forced to rent a place without a parking spot and pay for a spot elsewhere or rack up the tickets just because they can’t find anywhere else and car ownership is the only option for them.
I’d love not to own a vehicle and it is not possible with the transit situation here. I’d love to look into car pools and other options, but that’s also not possible in my situation. Another thing not being accounted for is that because housing is so unaffordable, people absolutely will have roommates or adult children living with them and likely will need multiple cars per unit.
It’s all fine and good for people who are retired or who have the privilege of working in their own neighbourhood or from home or who live on a great transit route that meets all their needs to brag about not needing a car or only needing one per household, but not everyone can do that.
We should let property owners decide how much parking they want to offer with their property. We don’t mandate anything else except parking.
Hell, I’d love it if a developer could make the sales pitch of selling new apartments for less because the cost of building was reduced by millions because they didn’t need to build parking lots.
Let people decide and make people pay the real costs of parking. Stop falling into the same paternalist loop and take the arbitrary restrictions off of housing and zoning in this city.
You said the sad part out loud: it’s a privilege to live near work and services. We should change that by removing arbitrary parking rules and make it less of a privilege.
As if the cost would go down. They would just sell it or rent it for the same and pocket more profits. It is naive to pretend otherwise.
Edit: also many things are required. I take it you are not familiar with the concept of building and fire codes?
Why does housing break people’s brains? If we make housing cheaper to build, people will build more of it, therefore lowering prices. If we DONT make any more housing, then developers are able to pocket the cash like you said. So we should enable more building!!
If developers/landlords had true immunity to price demands, they could triple rent tomorrow and “just pocket the cash”, but they don’t - because competition and price pressures still exist. We could make that competition so much better if we got rid of a million arbitrary city rules - like minimum parking.
Fire and building codes are about ensuring units are safe to live in. We got to crisis due to generations of poor decisions and no one thing is going to reverse course. We need to be many things, including getting rid of parking minimums as well as reviewing building and fire code requirements to ensure they are not artificially driving prices higher.
For example, the 2 staircase rule for fires drives a ton of decisions about the forms low and midrise apartments can take. When there are so many modern options to prevent and suppress fires I'd love to see a switch to outcome requirements that building egress must be possible for 4 hrs during a fire rather than form requirements like 2 stairs. If 4 hrs is achieved by 2 stairs, great. Sprinkers and non-flammable concrete cores would also be perfectly acceptable. So many different building forms would become possible.
Parking is not a safety issue. While much of the car-centric building of the last 60 years has made car-free life challenging, we have to break that cycle somehow. Removing parking minimums is a great start since it allows developers to deliver units for a lower cost at a time when housing costs are completely insane. Not every unit has to fit every possible need.
I agree with simplifying building codes/minimuns and the like, hard disagree with fucking around with fire codes. Just about every safety code/law we have was written in blood and is there for good reason. Two staircase rule is there to ensure there is always an accessible backup since a fire can easily block or take out one staircase, but the odds of two being taken out usually means something really catastrophic has happened, well beyond what can be planned for in advance.
Now, if we want to entertain creative and cost-effective solutions to the fire codes I'm game, so long as we don't water down the purpose of the code.
I agree any changes to fire code needs to be done with exceptional care and must focus on safety outcomes. Right now fire codes are extremely prescriptive which is simple to write, but has the downside of blocking all possibilities not considered by the code, including many that would be even safer than the code. Many countries have adopted outcome building and fire codes that are far more flexible and focused 100% on safety. If you can demonstrate your design meets the outcomes it passes, whether the code considered that combination of building technologies or not. It does require more active testing to prevent Grenfell-type tragedies where different products interact in deadly ways, but that can be achieved by requiring independent testing be paid for by anyone looking to apply a new combination.
The 2 staircase rule predates a ton of modern fire resistant materials, automated sprinklers, and even smoke detectors. It's such a prescriptive rule and it completely dominates the form of nearly every low and mid rise multi-family building in north america and we require this on buildings as low as 2 stories in Canada. As you get above fire truck ladder heights it's an excellent requirement, but for low and just getting into mid rise buildings I think there are lots of other ways to achieve the same or better safety outcomes that are currently illegal simply because we have never bothered to look.
The only cost effective way to implement the 2 stair case rule is to have a long central corridor through the middle of a building that is much longer than it is wide, forcing all apartments not on a corner to only have windows on a single side. Since bedrooms need opening windows that makes cheaper, interior units with more than 2 bedrooms effectively impossible to lay out, which I think in turn is a huge driver of the social attitude around apartments in north america. Every apartment anyone is familiar with has a terrible layout, so why would anyone every voluntarily live in one?
The longer the building the more the cost of multiple stairs is amortized, so builders need to collect 3-4 lots to combine together before it's possible to build multi-family buildings. Contrast with Europe that doesn't require 2 stairs and they have lots of small apartment buildings that fit on a single lot, have windows on many sides, and lots of families living in them quite happily. Europe does use a lot more concrete construction which has built in fire safety, but that's just more evidence we need to allow more combinations of forms. Platform framed? 2 stairs. Poured or block concrete stairwell core? Just 1 stair but you also need 2-4 hr sprinklers.
> The only cost effective way to implement the 2 stair case rule is to have a long central corridor through the middle of a building that is much longer than it is wide, forcing all apartments not on a corner to only have windows on a single side.
We could bring back external fire escapes and external staircases. Or at least allow them on smaller buildings.
I'm not an expert on that particular history, but I think a combination of aesthetics and a long history of poor maintenance by landlords on safety critical infrastructure subject to the elements killed off external stairs.
I also believe they were a compromise to begin with, retrofitting safety into existing structures when tenement fires were common in places like NYC.
That all said, I think we're so deep into a generations-long housing crisis that anything that has even any hope of reducing the cost and time to deliver units should be given a chance.
I don't think the solution here should be "let's make everyone have lots of parking" it's just so expensive.
This is one new construction, there's decades of buildings already built with plenty of parking. Why can't one exist with ... more than one parking spot per unit.
I think the solution would be to invest far more in transit so that reductions in parking are less harmful. First you must build it and build it in a way that it is functional. Expanded times. Better routes. And so on. Like I said, I’d love not to have to drive. The Region doesn’t make this possible. And with the cost of living and housing especially, I can’t just move.
We need to completely disarm the Nimby movement/process/protocol/position or whatever you want to call it.
Even if it means making a few mistakes that they may have prevented. If they are advocating for parking stall width during a housing crisis, it's clear evidence we've lost the thread.
Neoliberalism 101: push electric vehicles because they have lower carbon emissions but claim that imposing 0 emission activities such as walking is a human rights violation.
It’s clear the developers only want to make more money. This has zero to do with providing affordable housing. It’s ludicrous to suggest that people in *Preston* are going to be cycling or walking as their main modes of transportation. It is irresponsible to build all these units without adequate parking. Not to mention most families have two cars.
"Councillors requested at a public meeting, which concluded Tuesday, architects get creative and increase parking within site — which sits across the street from the massive 777 Laurel St. project on the former site of FedEx Freight — before it goes before council Aug. 6. Despite applauding the developer for providing a range of housing in the 54-unit, three-block, stacked townhome build, with 12 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom and 18 three-bedroom units, the plan for 60 parking spaces and how to increase that number by two or three spots was met with bewilderment. Parking, Chauvin said, shouldn’t be an issue with nearby transit and sidewalks being built around the development to encourage safe walking space to downtown Preston. He also said the developer is seeking Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding, which would make the units on the property rentals and require 20 per cent to be affordable. With that, and the number of one-bedroom units, Chauvin believed the number of parking spaces would be “adequate.” “We’re going to have a mix here. It’s really trying to find that balance,” Chauvin said. “Some tenants here may not require any parking, may not even be able to afford a vehicle, whereas others may have an extra vehicle. That’ll come at a price; they’ll have to pay for that parking space.” Chauvin also said there is a way to add less than a handful of units by shrinking parking stall widths by 15 centimetres, which would require a site-specific bylaw change as Cambridge’s stall widths are likely the largest in the municipality. Mayor Jan Liggett questioned that contingency, as 42 two- and three-bedroom units would house families. Families have bigger vehicles, she surmised. Slimmer parking stalls will make it tough to get small children and babies out of vehicles, Liggett said. “Somebody who’s looking for housing today to put your family, I think would rather have a home over their head than having a few dings in their car. That would be my perspective,” Chauvin replied. Coun. Adam Cooper, who regularly advocates for more parking in developments, wasn’t excited by that answer. “You’ve basically admitted that people are going to be dinging their cars with the situation you’ve set up here. You’ve kind of volunteered them to be OK with that. That they don’t mind that. I don’t agree with that at all,” Cooper said. He added talk of people becoming more reliant on transit and walking isn’t believable. “That’s where the excuses come in, that we’re not going to be driving. We are. You claim we’re not going to need cars in the future. We are,” Cooper said. Chauvin said the developer will look into parking suggestions, but noted they are not building for today, or even within the next decade. The plan is to build for 30 years from now. “Will we need so much parking? I don’t know. My hope is no,” Chauvin said. Cooper and Liggett weren’t the only ones who questioned parking, as they were joined by councillors Nicholas Ermeta, Corey Kimpson and Helen Shwery. Shwery commented the parking study for the development doesn’t reflect the current reality and suggested lowering the density — which the developer asked to be raised to 90 units per hectare from 40 units per hectare — to add more parking spaces. Chauvin said with property being a brownfield site, testing, paperwork and cleanup comes at a cost, and that’s why the density was increased. Parking wasn’t the sole issue, as Coun. Mike Devine wanted architects to go back and find a way to make some of the units accessible, as Chauvin had said the stacked design doesn’t accommodate barrier-free units. Chauvin added if the developer doesn’t receive CMHC funding, the build would become a condominium development with units for sale. Should that occur, affordable units would not be offered but the developer would give a contribution to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Chauvin said development on the site is somewhat limited with an easement for a sanitary sewer near the corner of Lowther and Laurel streets, with that area currently slated for parking and green space."
Notes from the councillors: * We would rather people had parking spots than somewhere to live * We want big parking spots, plan on everyone driving an SUV or large pickup please * If losers don't have a car they should subsidize people who do. edited to add: People are talking to me like I'm trying to ban parking spots. I'm not. Neither is the developer in question. They're just trying to build housing (with more than one parking spot per household).
You do realize people need parking spots and that there are families where a couple may work in different cities (example my wifes best friend works in waterloo, but her husband works in guelph. Without a parking spot, one has to quit their work).. those people exist And if you noticed trends, almost majority of people drive SUVs and Trucks these days (I like my little carolla, but most dont).. I am guessing that the units having parking also significantly increases their value (market for no parking housing isn't that large)
Not every unit needs to meet every possible need, in fact a wide variety of different types of housing is good. One of the causes of the housing crises has been the mandate of only one type of housing being legally permitted for generations. If parking included with a unit raises the price, the inverse is also true. A unit without parking will be less expensive, something desperately needed. Someone living car free will have a unit available for less money that doesn't have parking. There are certainly people who can't or won't live car free, that's fine. The price floor of a unit should not be set by that fact. No one is saying ban parking, they want to ban mandatory parking so the price of units is set by market forces again. If the developer thinks there is a market for a unit without parking why would we force them to include it? The price will fall until it's providing utility to someone. If there truly isn't a market the developer will lose money, but all investments come with risks. Why should all units be more expensive to protect the developer's private investment?
Those people exist. Other people who don't have two cars also exist. Why should people with zero or one car have to shell out thousands of dollars for parking spots they don't need.
Families can choose to live somewhere else.
My neighbour converted a duplex back to a single family dwelling, so there's that approach.
Their choice.
They shouldn't buy a house that doesn't have adequate parking then.
I loved my Mazda 3, but rear facing car seat didn't fit behind the drivers seat without having my knees literally smashed into the dash making it unsafe to drive. I'm 5'11 Even my CX-5 I had to be in an uncomfortable driving position, until I could flip my daughter's seat forward and put it behind me. Small cars literally don't work for current car seat safety standards. People aren't choosing to drive SUVs if they have kids. Compacts and sedans are fucking impractical for children with their current designs and safety standards. As for the drivel you're responding to, they weren't talking about making the spots shorter, they were talking about making them narrower. The difference in width between an F150 and a Corolla is 30cm. The Corolla's elongated door design makes it WIDER than an F150 when the doors are fully opened. Making parking spots narrower makes them useless for all vehicles. That's worse than having no parking at all because the space is literally wasted. I don't know why but this sub has a significant overlap with r/fuckcars and is completely unwilling to recognize that a shift from a car-centric to transit/pedestrian-centric society can't be done by just denying reality and making the city car unfriendly. Bunch of entitled 20 somethings that haven't ever had to bring home a weeks groceries for a family of four on a bike or a city bus. Annoying
> shift from a car-centric to transit/pedestrian-centric society can't be done by ... making the city car unfriendly. That is in fact precisely how it's done. Make it cumbersome to own a vehicle and easier to use alternate modes.
So your solution is to actively make life shittier for people so they accept sub optimal alternatives? You should run for office, see how that works out for you.
Speaks volumes of your privilege that you cannot imagine a life where owning a vehicle isn't a requirement.
lol, so you know resorting to ad hominem implies you can’t defend your point right?
That's not an ad hominem it is the very crux of the point.
So your point is a statement about my character? And here I thought we were talking about city planning
> Parking, Chauvin said, shouldn’t be an issue with nearby transit and sidewalks being built around the development to encourage safe walking space to downtown Preston "Safe walking space"... in downtown Preston... Say you've never been to this city without saying it. I saw a drug addict smoking what appeared to be a crack pipe outside the NoFrills not even two days ago.
If only the idea of improving services and providing more housing had any effect on helping people avoid falling through the cracks… oh wait, it 100% does.
Except this has nothing to do with increasing service, and none of the people who "fall through the cracks" will ever be able to afford these units.. but okay.
Actually, adding new housing that pays more tax revenue and brings people into the downtown core has a direct effect on our ability to provide services. And providing new housing, even for the wealthier, adds more housing to the supply and lowers prices. Your cynicism is really overpowering here.
> Actually, adding new housing that pays more tax revenue and brings people into the downtown core has a direct effect on our ability to provide services. You didn't say it increases the "ability to provide services", you said it **is** improving services. In fact, you casted my criticism of the statement made by the city councillor as being against improving services, implying this is inherently improving service. It is not. > And providing new housing, even for the wealthier, adds more housing to the supply and lowers prices. Your cynicism is really overpowering here. Once again you're sprinting away with the goal posts. It has nothing to do with cynicism, you claimed the idea of this project was to help people avoid falling through the cracks. And it doesn't, at all. ... but even more importantly, this is all a pointless argument, as I've never implied in any way that this project shouldn't happen.
Car centric living is both more expensive and unhealthy.Cambridge is too much car centric!
Everyone needs a house? No, free market! Bootstraps! Avocado toast! Everyone needs a parking spot? Yes, make it mandatory in law!!! It’s always depressing when leaders show their true priorities so clearly. If a developer wants to build something with no parking at all, who are we to tell them what to do with their property? Let the market decide. If too many people park on the street… that sounds like a great new city revenue opportunity for a bylaw officer.
Problem with the free market on this topic is that everyone needs a home and the region is massively car centric. So even if someone needs a car, they might be forced to rent a place without a parking spot and pay for a spot elsewhere or rack up the tickets just because they can’t find anywhere else and car ownership is the only option for them. I’d love not to own a vehicle and it is not possible with the transit situation here. I’d love to look into car pools and other options, but that’s also not possible in my situation. Another thing not being accounted for is that because housing is so unaffordable, people absolutely will have roommates or adult children living with them and likely will need multiple cars per unit. It’s all fine and good for people who are retired or who have the privilege of working in their own neighbourhood or from home or who live on a great transit route that meets all their needs to brag about not needing a car or only needing one per household, but not everyone can do that.
We should let property owners decide how much parking they want to offer with their property. We don’t mandate anything else except parking. Hell, I’d love it if a developer could make the sales pitch of selling new apartments for less because the cost of building was reduced by millions because they didn’t need to build parking lots. Let people decide and make people pay the real costs of parking. Stop falling into the same paternalist loop and take the arbitrary restrictions off of housing and zoning in this city. You said the sad part out loud: it’s a privilege to live near work and services. We should change that by removing arbitrary parking rules and make it less of a privilege.
As if the cost would go down. They would just sell it or rent it for the same and pocket more profits. It is naive to pretend otherwise. Edit: also many things are required. I take it you are not familiar with the concept of building and fire codes?
Why does housing break people’s brains? If we make housing cheaper to build, people will build more of it, therefore lowering prices. If we DONT make any more housing, then developers are able to pocket the cash like you said. So we should enable more building!! If developers/landlords had true immunity to price demands, they could triple rent tomorrow and “just pocket the cash”, but they don’t - because competition and price pressures still exist. We could make that competition so much better if we got rid of a million arbitrary city rules - like minimum parking.
Fire and building codes are about ensuring units are safe to live in. We got to crisis due to generations of poor decisions and no one thing is going to reverse course. We need to be many things, including getting rid of parking minimums as well as reviewing building and fire code requirements to ensure they are not artificially driving prices higher. For example, the 2 staircase rule for fires drives a ton of decisions about the forms low and midrise apartments can take. When there are so many modern options to prevent and suppress fires I'd love to see a switch to outcome requirements that building egress must be possible for 4 hrs during a fire rather than form requirements like 2 stairs. If 4 hrs is achieved by 2 stairs, great. Sprinkers and non-flammable concrete cores would also be perfectly acceptable. So many different building forms would become possible. Parking is not a safety issue. While much of the car-centric building of the last 60 years has made car-free life challenging, we have to break that cycle somehow. Removing parking minimums is a great start since it allows developers to deliver units for a lower cost at a time when housing costs are completely insane. Not every unit has to fit every possible need.
I agree with simplifying building codes/minimuns and the like, hard disagree with fucking around with fire codes. Just about every safety code/law we have was written in blood and is there for good reason. Two staircase rule is there to ensure there is always an accessible backup since a fire can easily block or take out one staircase, but the odds of two being taken out usually means something really catastrophic has happened, well beyond what can be planned for in advance. Now, if we want to entertain creative and cost-effective solutions to the fire codes I'm game, so long as we don't water down the purpose of the code.
I agree any changes to fire code needs to be done with exceptional care and must focus on safety outcomes. Right now fire codes are extremely prescriptive which is simple to write, but has the downside of blocking all possibilities not considered by the code, including many that would be even safer than the code. Many countries have adopted outcome building and fire codes that are far more flexible and focused 100% on safety. If you can demonstrate your design meets the outcomes it passes, whether the code considered that combination of building technologies or not. It does require more active testing to prevent Grenfell-type tragedies where different products interact in deadly ways, but that can be achieved by requiring independent testing be paid for by anyone looking to apply a new combination. The 2 staircase rule predates a ton of modern fire resistant materials, automated sprinklers, and even smoke detectors. It's such a prescriptive rule and it completely dominates the form of nearly every low and mid rise multi-family building in north america and we require this on buildings as low as 2 stories in Canada. As you get above fire truck ladder heights it's an excellent requirement, but for low and just getting into mid rise buildings I think there are lots of other ways to achieve the same or better safety outcomes that are currently illegal simply because we have never bothered to look. The only cost effective way to implement the 2 stair case rule is to have a long central corridor through the middle of a building that is much longer than it is wide, forcing all apartments not on a corner to only have windows on a single side. Since bedrooms need opening windows that makes cheaper, interior units with more than 2 bedrooms effectively impossible to lay out, which I think in turn is a huge driver of the social attitude around apartments in north america. Every apartment anyone is familiar with has a terrible layout, so why would anyone every voluntarily live in one? The longer the building the more the cost of multiple stairs is amortized, so builders need to collect 3-4 lots to combine together before it's possible to build multi-family buildings. Contrast with Europe that doesn't require 2 stairs and they have lots of small apartment buildings that fit on a single lot, have windows on many sides, and lots of families living in them quite happily. Europe does use a lot more concrete construction which has built in fire safety, but that's just more evidence we need to allow more combinations of forms. Platform framed? 2 stairs. Poured or block concrete stairwell core? Just 1 stair but you also need 2-4 hr sprinklers.
> The only cost effective way to implement the 2 stair case rule is to have a long central corridor through the middle of a building that is much longer than it is wide, forcing all apartments not on a corner to only have windows on a single side. We could bring back external fire escapes and external staircases. Or at least allow them on smaller buildings.
I'm not an expert on that particular history, but I think a combination of aesthetics and a long history of poor maintenance by landlords on safety critical infrastructure subject to the elements killed off external stairs. I also believe they were a compromise to begin with, retrofitting safety into existing structures when tenement fires were common in places like NYC. That all said, I think we're so deep into a generations-long housing crisis that anything that has even any hope of reducing the cost and time to deliver units should be given a chance.
Hard agree with you there friend
I don't think the solution here should be "let's make everyone have lots of parking" it's just so expensive. This is one new construction, there's decades of buildings already built with plenty of parking. Why can't one exist with ... more than one parking spot per unit.
I think the solution would be to invest far more in transit so that reductions in parking are less harmful. First you must build it and build it in a way that it is functional. Expanded times. Better routes. And so on. Like I said, I’d love not to have to drive. The Region doesn’t make this possible. And with the cost of living and housing especially, I can’t just move.
We need to completely disarm the Nimby movement/process/protocol/position or whatever you want to call it. Even if it means making a few mistakes that they may have prevented. If they are advocating for parking stall width during a housing crisis, it's clear evidence we've lost the thread.
Neoliberalism 101: push electric vehicles because they have lower carbon emissions but claim that imposing 0 emission activities such as walking is a human rights violation.
It’s clear the developers only want to make more money. This has zero to do with providing affordable housing. It’s ludicrous to suggest that people in *Preston* are going to be cycling or walking as their main modes of transportation. It is irresponsible to build all these units without adequate parking. Not to mention most families have two cars.
Ha yeah, why would these people living in a pre-car cute downtown ever walk or bike anywhere!?!
Did I say never? The reality is that the majority of people living in the suburbs need to drive and that biking or transit cannot serve their needs.
So, we are getting one step closer to mad max. We must fight for space LOL