Raise the Hammer

It's interesting. I'd assume prices would lower accordingly (parking spot usually adds at least 20k in downtown Toronto) to the benefit of those that don't drive. I assume they completed sufficient market research that there is a significant market otherwise there could be issues with obtaining financing as they've effectively restricted purchasers to those without vehicles.

Ah, the benefits of reading the article.

nope. this wouldn't happen in Hamilton. We DEMAND one parking space per unit, even in new downtown highrises. It's crazy. We are trying to mandate suburbia in the core, plus all the social services of course.

From my time living in Toronto, most people I knew there who lived in condos or apartments didn't drive cars.

Maybe 15-20% of working people I knew who actually owned condos and worked in an average-paying office job (some of the jobs they had were graphic designer, programmer, customoer banking, administrator, and tattoo artist) that I knew owned cars - others rented or carshared as necessary and took transit/biked/walked elsewhere.

The condos with parking were more of a suburban North York/midtown thing, or the luxury condos that started at 700k+ downtown - not exactly my friends' market.

Downtown Hamilton is a highway bypass. No car is like no legs.

The article sidebar notes the walking distance to amenities:

"What does it take to live car-less-ly? Schlepping groceries and other stuff home on foot can take some effort, especially in a downtown area that's less residential than some.

From 426 University Ave., site of a proposed condo building with no parking, it is:

• 10 blocks to the nearest supermarket (Metro at Gould and Jarvis Sts.)

• 4 blocks to the nearest LCBO (595 Bay St.)

• 4 blocks to the nearest Canadian Tire (Bay and Dundas Sts.)

• 6 blocks to the nearest mall (Eaton Centre)

On the other hand, it's:

• A few steps to St. Patrick's subway station

• 2 blocks to the opera house

• 3 blocks to major hospitals

• 5 blocks to Queen's Park"

It can't happen here, not yet anyway. It'd be insane to try. Lousy development practices and poor transit network make it inevitable that one needs a vehicle of some sort even if it's to get safely to the nearest grocery store (how many of those are in the core).

there's not too many in the core. I think roughly zero.

"The article sidebar notes the walking distance to amenities:"

The sidebar is just silly. If you've ever lived in downtown Toronto, the very idea of starting up the car, driving four blocks, paying for parking, all to get to the Canadian Tire, when you could walk in 3 minutes, is crazy.

There is a 6 storey building proposed for aberdeen & dundern. 46 units, 37 parking spaces (or so)...

At a recent community meeting, the conversation was dominated by the parking/car concern (lack of). Hamiltonians need to let go of their attachment to parking.

As another example, bike lanes are proposed for Dundurn. Local businesses and residents are against them because they'll loose parking spots on Dundurn. Where else do you find people against bike lanes?!?

suburban Buffalo

You'd sorta think at least one entrepreneurial business type on Dundurn might see opportunity and build an off-street parking ramp, no? I mean, it's not like there's no vacant, boarded buildings on Dundurn St. S. to make way for more parking. I mean, if automobile parking spaces are so essential to business success, and everybody goes to the Dundurn St. liquor and beer stores for the easy parking access and given the Jackson Pollock movie proved that you can't get a 2-4 home on a bicycle, then financial success must be guaranteed to anyone who built a parking ramp nearby, right?

BTW, there WAS a grocery store on Dundurn S. near Aberdeen, and there WAS one in First Place on King St. W.

Nobody went there.

"Where else do you find people against bike lanes?!?" I love the business owner who claimed he's never seen a cyclist on Dundurn. Can we take ANYTHING he says seriously after that? Dundurn always has cyclists on it even though the bike lanes (big surprise) go across the one bridge and then stop. I guess cyclists are supposed to drop out of the sky (maybe where Scott Thompson will build the new bike lanes he agrees we need but that shouldn't take a lane away from traffic), ride across the bridge, and then get airlifted back up into the sky again.