Calgary parking changes, is this right? What do people do?

[photon]

I wasn't aware of this until now, but apparently the rules about getting parking permit changed?

https://www.calgary.ca/roads/residen...ing-zones.html



What is the alternative?

I just found out about this, this is making it very difficult to rent out my condo since it's big enough that it's probably not going to be rented by a single person, pretty much everyone that I showed it to today has two vehicles.

What do people do that have lived there for years? Move because you can't park your car anymore?!

Or am I missing something?

[CaptainYooh]

There are tons of cheap parking options in all of the City-owned and privately-owned parkades. Downtown is 30% vacant. My guess is that they want them generating more revenue to cover operating expenses.

[photon]

I didn't think about private lots, good suggestion!

But there's nothing near my condo from what I can tell.. near 4th street would be about the closest, not very convenient. I guess it is an option though.

EDIT: Still seems harsh though, parking somewhere for a decade then suddenly you have to park across the river and walk blocks to your car. That's why I was trying to see if I'm missing something, seems to be such a drastic change.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

You aren’t missing anything. Other than it’s a bizarre and stupid decision by the city.

Think about it. Who does this actually help? Old people who own century homes in the belt line find parking easier? People from the suburbs find parking when they want to go for supper in mission?

It’s one of those moves that punishes people for owning a vehicle in a city where owning a vehicle is almost an absolute necessity.

[photon]

I could see if there was a capacity problem, and in some areas there probably is, but isn't that the point of the permit process to start with? If an area has too many people then limit the # of permits.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Think about it. Who does this actually help?

People from the suburbs find parking when they want to go for supper in mission?

You came so close! It helps the restaurants that depend on the suburban customers. Very few of Calgary's entertainment districts have enough density nearby to self-sustain.

It's a catch 22, we need to make the city more livable without owning multiple cars for many reasons, but you can't take away people's cars before this is made more possible.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You came so close! It helps the restaurants that depend on the suburban customers. Very few of Calgary's entertainment districts have enough density nearby to self-sustain.

It's a catch 22, we need to make the city more livable without owning multiple cars for many reasons, but you can't take away people's cars before this is made more possible.

Maybe they should be the ones who take transit or and Uber or use a parkade then. Making residents bear those costs is stupid.

I actually doubt this is the reason for the change though since restaurants aren’t hurting because of a lack of parking.

With increased density due to new developments in the belt line, parking will be increasingly at a premium. This allows the more wealthy infill and century home owners to maintain a monopoly on parking and all the new condo residents to get ####ed. They do donate and vote more than the young people that tend to live in condos.

But I’m sure the city did it under the guise of thinking “green” and encouraging households to go to 1 car.

[AFireInside]

I've never understood why the city didn't require condos to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit. If we truly want to increase density, parking is going to be a massive problem, especially in a city with subpar public transportation.

Even in neighbourhoods where they are putting up 4 plex infills it's a big problem. I have yet to see many that provide an actual parking spot. Most provide single garage spots that are about the size of a small storage unit. They are essentially adding 16 cars to the street for each 4 plex. It's going to be a problem.

I don't know what a good solution would be.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I've never understood why the city didn't require condos to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit. If we truly want to increase density, parking is going to be a massive problem, especially in a city with subpar public transportation.

Even in neighbourhoods where they are putting up 4 plex infills it's a big problem. I have yet to see many that provide an actual parking spot. Most provide single garage spots that are about the size of a small storage unit. They are essentially adding 16 cars to the street for each 4 plex. It's going to be a problem.

I don't know what a good solution would be.

I’m actually in favour of limiting permits but it should be the same rules for everyone.

In conjunction with that, they should require all condo devs to have sufficient parking, which I don’t think is a huge problem at most new or old developments, be it underground or outdoor parking. Although imo that’s one space each, not two.

I don’t have a ton of sympathy for anyone who lives in a belt line condo and owns two cars and complains about parking. You live in a high density area, parking will always be at a premium. One spot per unit is and always will be the standard number of parking spaces in condos.

The issue here for me is that people who live in homes or infills having an advantage to access parking is ridiculous and completely classist policy. If they’re going to grandfather certain dwellings, it should apply to all existing buildings, regardless of type or size. Or they should just make one rule across the board. Punishing people that live in high density units to benefit those that live in single family or low/med density is absurd.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’m actually in favour of limiting permits but it should be the same rules for everyone.

In conjunction with that, they should require all condo devs to have sufficient parking, which I don’t think is a huge problem at most new or old developments, be it underground or outdoor parking. Although imo that’s one space each, not two.

I don’t have a ton of sympathy for anyone who lives in a belt line condo and owns two cars and complains about parking. You live in a high density area, parking will always be at a premium. One spot per unit is and always will be the standard number of parking spaces in condos.

The issue here for me is that people who live in homes or infills having an advantage to access parking is ridiculous and completely classist policy. If they’re going to grandfather certain dwellings, it should apply to all existing buildings, regardless of type or size. Or they should just make one rule across the board. Punishing people that live in high density units to benefit those that live in single family or low/med density is absurd.

I don't disagree with most of your points but with many units being purchased by two people and poor public transportation 2 spots seem necessary to me.

Instead of increasing density they are going to push more people to the suburbs.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Punishing people that live in high density units to benefit those that live in single family or low/med density is absurd.

Yeah, if we want to encourage densification this seems like a bad way to go about it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

You aren’t missing anything. Other than it’s a bizarre and stupid decision by the city.

Think about it. Who does this actually help? Old people who own century homes in the belt line find parking easier? People from the suburbs find parking when they want to go for supper in mission?

It’s one of those moves that punishes people for owning a vehicle in a city where owning a vehicle is almost an absolute necessity.

Kind of like implementing policies that make basic necessities like Groceries, Fuel and Utilities more expensive?

I think you're giving Government far too much credit.

[powderjunkie]

This should be 100% managed by pricing. Street parking is a public good that belongs to all of us. Worst of all, the vast majority of residents entitled to these permits have garages or laneway parking.

1st permit = $__ ($120-180?)
Vehicle length under ~180 inches = -25%
Vehicle over ~210 inches = +25%
2nd permit = double

For the very few neighbourhoods that don't have laneways at all, then the a lower base rate could apply, or maybe just no penalty for 2nd vehicle.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Honestly I avoid planning dinners or nights out in areas where it's going to be a pain in the ass to park more and more, so I at least get the sentiment. I'm assuming the thinking is that if you live in a condo in the inner city you likely either have no car at all (surprising how many people in their early 20s now seem to fall into this category) or one at most.

It's a weird conflict where yes, the city wants density and this works against that, but also the city wants fewer cars on the road, especially in the inner city... I suspect they're assuming that over a 5 year time frame this will impact people's transportation choices?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This should be 100% managed by pricing. Street parking is a public good that belongs to all of us. Worst of all, the vast majority of residents entitled to these permits have garages or laneway parking.

1st permit = $__ ($120-180?)
Vehicle length under ~180 inches = -25%
Vehicle over ~210 inches = +25%
2nd permit = double

For the very few neighbourhoods that don't have laneways at all, then the a lower base rate could apply, or maybe just no penalty for 2nd vehicle.

This would work well, imo. People are really price sensitive- we have a condo in a 33 unit building in the inner city, but no parking placards on our street. The underground parkade has one stall for every unit plus 4 extra, which are $25/month and aren't full. The people with 2 vehicles mostly choose free street parking for the second, even though its often full and requires walking a couple of blocks.

[timun]

Originally Posted by photon

I could see if there was a capacity problem, and in some areas there probably is, but isn't that the point of the permit process to start with? If an area has too many people then limit the # of permits.

They did limit the number of permits given out: by no longer giving them to residents of apartment buildings 4+ storeys tall and/or 20+ units.

What they sought to prevent is residents of those larger buildings completely overwhelming the street parking in the area. Say you have a block in the Beltline with three, 20-unit apartment buildings and residents of every unit apply for a permit. That's 60 cars occupying street parking. Average length of a city block is about 145 m and assuming a very conservative 5.5 m for every parked car, that's only space for 52 parked cars on that block: those three apartment buildings' worth of people have thus not only consumed all of the parking in the street on their block, but now they're spilling over onto other blocks. It's absurd that we not only used to encourage this situation by allowing them to apply for the parking permits, but we gave it to them for free.

So now residents of bigger buildings can't apply for the permits, and others who are still eligible will have to pay for it, and so they should.

I think people misrepresent the reason why we have the RPP program in the first place. A lot of people say it's about ensuring people have a place on the street to park their car near their home, but no: it's really meant to ensure people who don't live in the area aren't allowed to park their car on those streets. It's about keeping other people out. Until now those residents have been getting this privilege for free; frankly I think it's high time they started paying for it.

[Sr. Mints]

Before I sold my condo, I had rented out one of my parking spaces for good money ($400/month). I saw a flyer in the lobby by someone looking for a spot, and they said $400 was what they paid the last person. It was a total no brainer, I just parked my motorcycle and scooters at my mom's.

Then I was in an accident and rented out the second spot for a few years for another $400/month, and it was frankly obscene that I could rent two parking spaces for that much. But I guess that's what happens when the majority of the units came with one parking space, and little to no street parking. This wasn't even downtown, but west by Shaganappi golf course.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly I avoid planning dinners or nights out in areas where it's going to be a pain in the ass to park more and more, so I at least get the sentiment. I'm assuming the thinking is that if you live in a condo in the inner city you likely either have no car at all (surprising how many people in their early 20s now seem to fall into this category) or one at most.

Ditto. It's one thing if it's just one party and one vehicle, but adding any additional parties to the equation just makes it too big of pain in my ass - especially if whomever I'm going with is older, has young kids, suburbanites, or anyone who's unaccustomed to not being able to park a stone's throw away from the door.

I have noticed Inglewood is more friendly for this. There's a large parking lot just south of the Bow (across 12th from Rouge) that always has ample parking. I'm honestly surprised its still free.

[PaperBagger'14]

If I was a landlord downtown or in the beltline, I think I would buy an e scooter or 2 and loan it to tenants as an incentive to rent through me. I'd ask for an additional damage deposit if they opted to take me up on the scooter offer. Depending on your tenants at least that would give them the option of not having to own a 2nd car while still giving them mobility without the ~$1300 cost. It would also be cheaper for them to charge and cut out insurance/car payments.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I've never understood why the city didn't require condos to provide 2 parking spaces for each unit. If we truly want to increase density, parking is going to be a massive problem, especially in a city with subpar public transportation.

Even in neighbourhoods where they are putting up 4 plex infills it's a big problem. I have yet to see many that provide an actual parking spot. Most provide single garage spots that are about the size of a small storage unit. They are essentially adding 16 cars to the street for each 4 plex. It's going to be a problem.

I don't know what a good solution would be.

Underground parking costs about $80,000 each spot to build, so 2 spots per unit translates to about $160,000 on the cost of a unit. For the average condo in Calgary, that doesn't pencil out. So if you mandated two per unit, the more likely outcome is far fewer units would be built, affecting choice and affordability.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

Before I sold my condo, I had rented out one of my parking spaces for good money ($400/month). I saw a flyer in the lobby by someone looking for a spot, and they said $400 was what they paid the last person. It was a total no brainer, I just parked my motorcycle and scooters at my mom's.

Then I was in an accident and rented out the second spot for a few years for another $400/month, and it was frankly obscene that I could rent two parking spaces for that much. But I guess that's what happens when the majority of the units came with one parking space, and little to no street parking. This wasn't even downtown, but west by Shaganappi golf course.



Ditto. It's one thing if it's just one party and one vehicle, but adding any additional parties to the equation just makes it too big of pain in my ass - especially if whomever I'm going with is older, has young kids, suburbanites, or anyone who's unaccustomed to not being able to park a stone's throw away from the door.

I have noticed Inglewood is more friendly for this. There's a large parking lot just south of the Bow (across 12th from Rouge) that always has ample parking. I'm honestly surprised its still free.

And Mission has multiple above and below ground pay lots that are relatively inexpensive. I’m curious what areas have such a bad parking crunch for outings. Kensington and Bridgeland? Certainly nowhere downtown.

Are people really not gonna go for dinner because they have to pay $3 for parking? It’s not like there will actually be any more available spaces on a Friday or Saturday night just because of this rule. Its still going to be dominated by people with permits.