As is often the case in planning policy, there has been a lot of discussion about parking rules in the draft Zoning By-law.
In this draft, City staff are recommending no minimum parking requirements for new developments citywide. That’s a shift from the current Zoning By-law – especially in the outer urban and suburban areas – where a minimum 1.0 spaces per unit is usually required.
Our current Zoning By-laws are a bit of a mess when it comes to parking. Minimum parking required is usually determined by building use and building form, but the rules often contradict and work against more important goals, especially affordability. The cost of building a parking spot can be tens of thousands of dollars, which gets passed on to new buyers or tenants – whether they need the parking spot(s) or not.
A very small example of where these rules don’t make sense: stacked townhomes in suburban Ottawa require 1.2 parking spaces per unit, whereas back-to-back townhomes require 1.0 parking spaces per unit. This is regardless of their size or number of bedrooms or any other factor that might suggest a higher level of car ownership, or neighbourhood walkability scores. Nobody knows why these rates were set differently.
Most cities (including Ottawa) have carried over parking requirements from one by-law update to another, without examining whether the underlying assumptions make sense. A lot of the planning standards for parking minimums stem from engineering guidelines in the 1970s. So we’re making decisions on parking today that are based on travel patterns (and planning objectives) from 50 years ago.
Many cities in North America have eliminated minimum parking requirements, including Edmonton. The idea is to have the market decide the right number of parking spaces. In other words, let developers decide how much parking will be needed by the new residents, in the context of their neighbourhood.
For apartments, there would still be requirements for visitor parking and delivery parking. The City would also need to update its on-street parking rules. There might even be a need for a parking permit system for some neighbourhoods, to better manage street parking.
I brought forward a motion to the March 31st joint Planning and Housing and Agricultural and Rural Affairs Meeting asking staff to review the communal parking provisions in Draft 2 and develop a transect approach to permitting privately owned “communal parking lots” and consider car sharing provisions. I am curious to see what they come back with in the fall and am interested to hear your thoughts too.
Overall, I’m supportive of this change. It would remove a layer of regulation and allow the market to decide what’s the appropriate number of parking spaces. In some neighbourhoods, builders will still voluntarily provide one or more spaces for cars because buyers will demand this, although car ownership continues to decline. But if there’s a development aimed at seniors, or lower income residents, or another demographic that doesn’t necessarily need all those parking spots, they’ll be able to save on that cost and make the housing more affordable.
Your feedback
I’m interested to hear from College Ward residents on this proposed parking policy. Contact me at [email protected]. You can also email [email protected] to reach City planners who are working on this project.
Algonquin College has been hard hit financially on two fronts: an 11 year tuition freeze and a sharp reduction in the number of foreign student visas. Both of these factors have made Algonquin's finances untenable, and the college's response has been to cut some of their most successful programs: