Tag: no parking

Policy Born Out of Panic

April 26, 2024

It is astonishing how the federal and Ontario governments announced a fifteen billion dollar incentive to Honda to set up a car battery plant in Ontario yesterday while they encouraged the municipalities last week to eliminate the requirement for parking for multiple unit developments. So, the message is to make more cars but provide no parking! Let me describe what happened.

Camada’s three levels of government hastily introduced a cobbled together housing policy this month, a move that could have significant repercussions. Upon learning that our City Council, under pressure from senior government levels, is considering approving quadruplexes or four units on a residential lot and eliminating parking requirements for highrise or multiple-unit buildings, I couldn’t help but worry. These are just a couple of the many proposals aimed at addressing the severe housing shortage that has led to the emergence of tent cities in all metropolitan areas.

With all the recent announcements, the federal government promises to double housing starts for the next seven years from the current pace of 250,000 units per year, by pouring billions of dollars into municipal budgets, providing local city councils agree to change zoning codes, including the above two proposals.

While this could alleviate the housing shortage and provide more affordable housing options, it raises concerns about the quality of these new units and the impact on existing neighborhoods.

Yes, the recent surge in international migration created the housing shortage; statistics show that the Canadian fertility rate is way below the replacement rate, and the increase in population and the consequent surge in housing demand can be attributed directly and totally to immigration.

But wouldn’t it be more prudent for the federal government to address the demand for housing as well instead of focusing solely on the supply side? Would it not be faster and easier to restrict immigration in the short term than build housing that takes years to complete? A more balanced approach would be advisable in considering both supply and demand for housing.

A panic reaction is not a good incubator for developing thoughtful housing policy. For example, consider the proposal for building four housing units on a residential lot. A quarter-acre lot measures seventy by one hundred feet (excluding space for roads). Yes, one can build four units on such a lot; it could be two side by side units on the main level and the same upstairs, or one unit per floor in a four-storey building. It would be a dense development, especially considering the parking space for each unit.   But, oops! Are parking spots still required?

However, more recent developments have much smaller lot sizes; some are thirty-five by one hundred feet. To put four units in such a small lot would be a design challenge. And where would the parking be? On the neithborhood streets? As much as good public transit, which we do not have, may negate the need for cars, most individuals and families like to have a car to get around on weekends and at nights when public transit is sporadic at best.

In the suburbs, there are one-acre and larger lots where four units per residential lot are reasonably achievable, but would people desire it? They moved to the suburbs because they wanted bigger lots so why would they now build three additional units on their land? Not likely.

Although four units per residential lot is an attractive slogan, it behooves the government to specify what a “residential lot” means. For example, it would be helpful to identify a minimum lot size to utilize this concept fully.

While the first proposal for densification relates to the efficient use of an urban lot (four units on a lot), the second proposal to eliminate parking refers to cost; by not building garages, the government claims the cost savings would benefit renters/buyers. However, consider the potential impact of this idea on different demographic groups. For instance, families with children, the disabled or elderly individuals may still require parking spaces, and the lack of these amenities could disproportionately affect them.

Before believing government claims that eliminating parking spaces will reduce the cost to the buyer/renter, consider vacancy rates. With vacancy rates so low today that people immediately take up any vacant rental unit, why would developers not charge market rates even though their costs would be lower by not providing parking? And when people buy condominiums, they buy garage spaces in addition to the unit’s price. As a consequence, I do not see why multiple unit residential buildings with no parking would save money for renters/buyers.

To implement the no parking proposal, the City Council proposes to do away with the current policy of requiring parking as a ratio of the number of units in the building and let developers decide on the number of stalls provided based on market forces. While in some areas of the city, developers may choose to skimp on parking spaces, assuming that people could park on neighboring streets, it may not be the case downtown, where office towers dominate, and street parking is not available. I am concerned that not providing parking would exacerbate congestion on the streets and create a huge problem during the winter months when parking is prohibited on the streets for snow clearing.

What further concerns me and find astonishing is when I see that the two higher levels of government are actively pursuing car manufacturers to set up shop in Ontario.  They announced yesterday a multi-billion-dollar incentives package for Honda, after providing incentives for Volkswagen and Stellantis, last year. Is this not a huge contradiction: do not provide parking but encourage the manufacture of cars?

Quadruplexes on quarter-acre lots and highrise buildings without parking do not reflect what people want today; to me, it appears that governments are attempting to modify behavior to solve a housing shortage, without dealing with any of the basic issues that contributed to the problem – that is, an unprecedented increase in immigration levels, and the capacity of the country in both labor and supplies to accelerate any construction. Despite all good intentions and even beyond the questionable objectives of these ideas, the pace of housing construction cannot and will not double for the next few years due to the lack of skilled labor.

A Futile Assault on the Automobile

January 8, 2024

The Ottawa City Council approved a 4-storey, 18-unit residential building on a quarter-acre lot, in the middle of a residential area, without requiring parking. Yes, that is what they did, and I scratched my head, who is going to rent these units with no parking where there are no commercial facilities nearby? Oh yes, there is a bus, I think every half hour, that goes by the proposed development. But unless you are a hermit, happy to read books, and stay home, living without a car in this development will be a challenge.

What further upset me was that our local Councilor voted for the project and said in his newsletter that ‘we need more of this”. Does he not know that cars are part of the Canadian DNA? That cars are an integral part of our cities?

A key element of the official plan for the city is “densification” to permit population growth. Otherwise, the plan claims that “urban sprawl” will result. I guess, the planners never heard of “smart growth” or “planned growth” to alleviate the undesirable effects of urban sprawl (reduction of agricultural land, expensive infrastructure build, loss of wildlife, and pollution by increased car traffic).

A key justification for the approval was its location on a future “major transportation corridor”. The trouble is that the “corridor” has not been funded and the future may be decades away. These projects take decades to materialize while the construction of the building may take a year or two so the units would be rented without parking. Improved public transportation may be years away.

I cannot help thinking that the Council is also “social engineering” by encouraging the use of public transit.

But people have cars: statistics show that every 1000 people own 750 cars in Canada. And a building with 19 units will have at least 19 people living there or more likely, double, or triple that number. That translates into 14 or more cars. Since there is no parking on the major road fronting the proposed development, people renting there with cars will have to park on the side streets. I am sure neighbors will not like that and with the snowfall during the harsh Ottawa winters, it will create headaches for the snowplows. 

Canadians like their cars for the freedom they provide to go anywhere, anytime. Yes, mobility via the automobile does encourage urban sprawl. And yes, there are costs for this freedom (the public costs of infrastructure and private costs for fuel, insurance, etc.). However, Canadians decided that the costs are worth the freedom the car provides to get around (there are thirty million cars in Canada with a population of forty million).

As a result, the ubiquitous use of cars has left a huge imprint on the Canadian landscape. On a recent drive from Ottawa to Collingwood, we traveled on four-lane highways, the 401, and then north on the 400, crowded during the holiday travel season. We slowed down driving through Toronto, on six-lane highways in each direction. We saw a tremendous amount of pavement.

The number of highway construction projects indicates the huge public investments to improve the highway system. As well, governments attracted a fifteen-billion-dollar investment by Stellantis in Windsor and a similar investment by Volkswagen in St. Thomas, both in the EV battery business. Let’s face it, cars are not going away much as the Ottawa City Council would like to pretend.

The long drive allowed me to think that besides highways, the car industry includes innumerable gas stations and repair shops. And one cannot forget the outsized number of jobs the industry provides. Even with Amazon today, the retail industry thrives on huge shopping centers surrounded by mammoth parking lots for cars.

To my way of thinking, to assume that not providing parking will reduce the use of cars is illogical. Ottawa and other Canadian cities rely on cars for transportation. But the Ottawa City Council decided to not require any parking in a 19-unit residential building, rationalizing their decision on the availability of public transit—some system. OCTranspo, the Ottawa public transportation agency decided to cut service and increase fares given the financial losses suffered last year.