City looking at removing parking minimums for businesses

[J-D]

As per usual I feel like they've made up their mind already with the way the survey is written

The City of Calgary is proposing the removal of minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses from the Land Use Bylaw in order to support the changing needs of society, create stronger alignment between the Bylaw and overarching city-wide policy documents, and to lay the foundation for Calgary’s comeback.

Presently, parking minimums in the Bylaw can result in an over supply of parking for different uses in varying locations throughout the city because the parking minimums required exceed the real demand for parking. Eliminating vehicle parking minimums for certain uses citywide will enable those who are most familiar with their own parking needs to determine the amount supplied. Known as “Open Option Parking”, this method of deregulating parking minimums for all uses was approved on a citywide basis by The City of Edmonton on 2020 June 23 (Charter Bylaw 19275).

This direction, given by members of Council at the July 15, 2020 Special Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Development, responds to a number of issues with minimum parking requirements:
Many parking minimums over-estimate the need for parking
Parking is costly, and that cost is indirectly passed onto consumers, businesses and tenants
Over-supply of parking can create an urban form that discourages walking, cycling and transit
Our spaces can end up being designed for vehicles rather than for people
Encourages driving over more active modes of transportation
Is not aligned with Calgary’s Climate Resilience Strategy
In light of these issues, The City of Calgary is proposing to allow businesses and developers to advise how much parking makes sense for their development, rather than relying on parking rates in the Land Use Bylaw. This change is expected to provide relief to businesses, create walkable and attractive communities and support Calgary’s climate goals.

I get the whole supply-demand will work itself out aspect, but then you get stuck with a building for 50 years even if the market doesn't like it...

https://engage.calgary.ca/parking

[Nufy]

The war on cars continues...

[ercchry]

Haven’t they essentially done that already with the BS in the east village? Hey! How are those free car2go memberships treating everyone??

[J-D]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haven’t they essentially done that already with the BS in the east village? Hey! How are those free car2go memberships treating everyone??

I completely forgot about that, the city is even building an above ground parkade nearby. I'm assuming this is priced higher than it's worth but I cannot believe anyone would ever live in this? Less than 500 square feet,no parking, and $518/mo condo fees? Yikes.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...n-east-village

[flipstah]

lmao oh yeah that was a thing!

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haven’t they essentially done that already with the BS in the east village? Hey! How are those free car2go memberships treating everyone??

[ZenOps]

Yup, LA and NY both turning into places where only the poor are in the center.

Calgary and urban sprawl = Correct move. Plenty of room to put up solar panels.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Haven’t they essentially done that already with the BS in the east village? Hey! How are those free car2go memberships treating everyone??

Mine is working out awesome. $200 a month for 21 more months, lol.

[dirtsniffer]

What a garbage survey. Written to justify a decision already made. It's almost impossible to answer it in a way that would disagree with their approach.

[Masked Bandit]

I used the "other" option on several of those questions. What a bullshit survey.

[kertejud2]

With more North American cities going this route it was an inevitability they’d have to do it here. Developer lobbying is too strong, now the ability to stay competitive looms its head and we can finally end the government interference in the market.

An argument for parking minimums is an argument against capitalism.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

An argument for parking minimums is an argument against capitalism.

I hate agreeing with you, but absolutely. If developers build an undesirable building, that's not the city's fault. In fact, I'd argue that decoupling the cost of housing from the cost of parking is actually really smart, and allows urban residents more flexibility.

[R-Audi]

Developers want this as it is way cheaper for them.. and they can put higher use buildings in areas that otherwise cant support the traffic. (Medical, Restaurants etc)

A prime example is Britannia plaza. The newer building closest to Elbow Dr (Elbow Room, Monogram etc) has a parking relaxation of 50 stalls which was unheard of at the time. It has created a giant clusterfvck when trying to shop there. (When everything is open) To complicate matters, one of the owners of the surrounding buildings also owns the parking lot on 50th which is is super stingy on allowing others to park there.

[ExtraSlow]

Old, but relevant article: Why Free Parking is Bad for Everyone

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Old, but relevant article: Why Free Parking is Bad for Everyone

One thing the article misses on fuel taxes is that municipal governments don't control them, but are responsible for their own road maintenance, construction etc. In Canada, and Calgary specifically, the operational costs of roads int he city are funded by property taxes because that's the only funding source available to the city. The U.S. has a lot of different jurisdictions with taxation powers (like how a small city like Glendale, Arizona can impose sales taxes and other levies to fund hockey arenas and football stadiums), but fuel taxes are still dominated by the federal and state governments.

In Alberta the fuel taxes just go into general provincial revenue, not the city. So a city designed around the car where you're forced into building more and bigger roads will need more property tax revenue to pay for and maintain them.

[killramos]

Only the City of Calgary could interpret calgaries sky high parking costs as evidence that people don’t want more parking in this city.

Should developers be forced? Probably not. But their train of flawed logic is astounding even for the low bar I expect from CoC.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

One thing the article misses on fuel taxes is that municipal governments don't control them, but are responsible for their own road maintenance, construction etc. In Canada, and Calgary specifically, the operational costs of roads int he city are funded by property taxes because that's the only funding source available to the city. The U.S. has a lot of different jurisdictions with taxation powers (like how a small city like Glendale, Arizona can impose sales taxes and other levies to fund hockey arenas and football stadiums), but fuel taxes are still dominated by the federal and state governments.

Every city is a small city in the US, and mostly because of how taxation works. Think of every community in Calgary being it's own city, with their own powers of near unlimited taxation. It expands even further than that, as all the "local" taxes pays for everything including schools. It's bad in a sense because it creates a huge divide based on wealth. You have poor undesirable communities with way shittier schooling than a community with say Silicon Valley execs. If you want good schooling for your kids, you literally have to stretch and buy the cheapest place possible in a nice community, and be subject to much higher cost of living. California is the most fucked, since even someone making 200k a year can only afford to live in the poorer areas.

I'm not sure how fuel taxes work, so if they're indeed federal, it's such a small piece of the taxation pie.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Every city is a small city in the US, and mostly because of how taxation works. Think of every community in Calgary being it's own city, with their own powers of near unlimited taxation. It expands even further than that, as all the "local" taxes pays for everything including schools. It's bad in a sense because it creates a huge divide based on wealth. You have poor undesirable communities with way shittier schooling than a community with say Silicon Valley execs. If you want good schooling for your kids, you literally have to stretch and buy the cheapest place possible in a nice community, and be subject to much higher cost of living. California is the most fucked, since even someone making 200k a year can only afford to live in the poorer areas.

I'm not sure how fuel taxes work, so if they're indeed federal, it's such a small piece of the taxation pie.

Oh I don't like the U.S. setup in any way, but having the taxation powers they do is the biggest reason why it's set up like it is. When any community can incorporate and start charging their wide array of tax options, it is just asking for division. The Phoenix metro area alone has more governments that can (and do) charge sales taxes than all of Canada does.

I'm not sure how fuel taxes work, so if they're indeed federal, it's such a small piece of the taxation pie.

They've got federal and state ones, just like we do. But the main kicker is that all those levels of government still get sales taxes off fuel sales whether they also have an excise tax on top of it or not.

Some municipalities in Canada were able to charge additional tax for themselves. Vancouver (via Translink, since it has a much wider area of control) can add their 12.5 cents/L as the most notable one of these. But you have to be a city or region strong and willing enough to band together to push the provincial government around to get it(which the Lower Mainland and Montreal are willing to do).

[dirtsniffer]

The feds disburse about $250 million each year to AB from the gas tax fund. The province distributes to municipalities from there. I don't know what portion Calgary receives.. Maybe $100 million? Looks like Calgary spent $270 million on roads in 2019, so the federal portion of the gas tax does contribute quite a bit to roads.

https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/gtf-fte-eng.html
https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/alt...-fte-AB-EN.pdf
https://www.calgary.ca/cfod/finance/...eport-2019.pdf

[cam_wmh]

This is good news. Strip Clubs have the most obscene bylaw requirement for parking allotment.

Relax that, MOAR STRIPPERS.

[R-Audi]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Only the City of Calgary could interpret calgaries sky high parking costs as evidence that people don’t want more parking in this city.

Should developers be forced? Probably not. But their train of flawed logic is astounding even for the low bar I expect from CoC.

This is actually the complete opposite! The sky high downtown parking is a direct result of rules the city put in place.

The city put a limit on how much parking downtown developers could build with their buildings, as they didnt want to create too much competition for street parking and city owned lots. While the downtown building owners have also been benefiting from the high rates, the city is the one who is a large beneficiary with the street parking and city owned lots and parkades. (But hopefully the tide is changing, but its tough when basically dealing with a monopoly) And the most ridiculous thing ever is the new office building/parkade they are building in the East Village. Complete Effing waste of taxpayer money!


IMO removing parking requirements from commercial buildings will be a disaster and eventually the building tenants will be the ones to pay the price. Im sure we have all been in the same situation, if it is tough to park, you find somewhere else to go. The only ones to benefit will be the initial developer and the city if they add on other requirements to push transit.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is good news. Strip Clubs have the most obscene bylaw requirement for parking allotment.

Relax that, MOAR STRIPPERS.

I believe they fall in the restaurant/bar category.. and based on size of the establishment.