Nari | 24m | 6s | FAAS Architecture

[CallmeCatbread]

For me the parking stall ratio is dependent on the type of street parking. If there is permit parking on the street or it's a paid parking zone then the number of stalls don't matter. Those without a parking spot but owning a car will need to find parking somewhere where they won't get ticketed. If not permit parking on the street then it's a free for all, and I can see residents not being happy.

Yes I think this is key. When street parking is a free for all (in every sense of the word) then it really breeds controversy with projects like these, when really there shouldn't be. If street parking was permit-based it would be a non issue. Residents of this building would either need to get a permit or just don't have a car. It should be up to the developer and the residents they're building for to make that decision. But when street parking is free and everyone in a community expects that privilege to be available to them in perpetuity without conflict then it really hampers growth because they have a reason to throw a fit over any and every development.

 

[Cowtown]

Agreed. If you’re going yo have minimum or no parking in a development you need have permit parking or have it as a metered zone.The metre zone doesn’t work in this case because the residents have been enjoying the ability to park their vehicle near their home. If stuff like that happens everyone is going to turn against new developments. This is a simple case where the developer could add some more parking stalls or the city could do permit parking either would work..
If the developer wants to save money and not have to build as many parking stalls, and in turn offer that savings down to the people, who don’t have a car, then nobody should be concerned about permit parking

 

[BKha]

Residents not being happy because a publicly available good they have been using is now going to be used by others, just to be clear.

I wouldn’t say it’s exactly that case. It’s one thing to simply restrict people from the things you enjoy, but in this case, adding those extra units without parking will cause a parking issue for the people already there. Those people will be directly impacted so I can understand why they would be opposed to it.
I’m a heavy supporter i’ve developments with no parking requirements, but it only works in certain areas. An area that already has controlled parking, or an area right beside an LRT station where a car isn’t needed at all.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

little parking is going to immediately and directly affect the quality of life

As much as I want to make a joke about parking affecting quality of life. I do get that the unknown of anytime you come home circling the block looking for a stall would be frustrating. However, it begs the question why is that person not using off-street parking? Why are any of these existing residents not using off-street parking?

The ratio this development is requesting is far too little. Mostly because this isn't a rapid transit route. If the PTN existed then I could get onboard with it but it isn't and so for that reason, it is a no from me dog.

I use the barber shop in the building just off 14th here, I do not drive and instead walk because I know parking in the area is quite full. In looking at the overhead, I see one possible solution. 34th Ave is plenty wide enough along here for angled parking on both sides of the road. That would significantly increase parking capacity and I think would still leave room for the eventual buildout of the multi-use pathway.

 

[Dkeirle]

I personally would like to see parking minimums, relaxed, or disappeared altogether, but at the same time, parking requirements for developments over 20 units should be looked at on a site for site basis. Some sites are absolutely much better to have no parking requirements, and some aren’t.