evandyk said:
I imagine that in a rental building that close to the subway, most residents will not own a car.
Click to expand...
"that close to the subway" are the condos right next to the Shopper's Drug Mart on Dupont.
Just because a subway is a 15 minute walk from there doesn't mean parking isn't needed. Where are visitors supposed to park?
They need more parking spaces. I lived in a building once where visitors had no place to park. They stopped visiting me. I had to visit them.
I don't own a car myself. If I were to live there, I would want the security of knowing that there is a parking space available for visitors.
Maybe Loblaws can start charging for parking for cars that are not actually shopping at Loblaws. Tons of parking there! lol (and fair walking distance also)
 
Last edited:
I don't know if 14 is the exact right number, but in the three buildings I've lived in, the parking lots sat about half empty at all times. That's a lot of money to spend on construction ($100k/spot?) for something that sits empty, especially when there are other parking options nearby, including on-street parking.
 
RGB_11 said:
"that close to the subway" are the condos right next to the Shopper's Drug Mart on Dupont.
Click to expand...
Living a 10 minute walk (800 metres) from the subway is absolutely close. Is this the way you frame other things this way in your area in your mind, restaurants, grocery stores, or other shops; you don't consider any of them close unless they're a 2 minute walk? Is that how you describe your area to other people?

RGB_11 said:
Just because subway is a 15 minute walk from there doesn't mean parking isn't needed. Where are visitors supposed to park?
They need more parking spaces. I lived in a building once where visitors had no place to park. They stopped visiting me. I had to visit them.
Click to expand...
There are side streets nearby (Melville, Clinton, Yarmouth) where parking is free between 7am and 12am, and there is Green P street parking on Christie just 3 properties away from 287. From what I'm seeing in the architectural plans the parking isn't a surface lot regardless, it's underground stacked parking. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the proposed automated stacked parking was never going to accommodate visitors.

RGB_11 said:
Maybe Loblaws can start charging for parking for cars that are not actually shopping at Loblaws. Tons of parking there! lol (and fair walking distance also)
Click to expand...
The Loblaws on Dupont does already offer paid parking in their lot.

People are being asked to park like they do at the Loblaws and walk into the store, and they don't complain about that like they do about visitor parking.
Here's roughly parking, going in and getting a loaf of bread, through the meat section, and picking up some eggs:
1748531319318.png


Parking on Yarmouth and walking to 287:
1748531485923.png


This place is near downtown in a city with no parking minimums, with a bus stop right outside, and just a 10-minute walk to the subway.

We desperately need people to stop driving everywhere when transit's available. I understand your experience with people who stopped visiting, but continuing to prioritize drivers isn't sustainable, especially as more homes are built without parking, like in this area on Dupont where people will rely on transit. We won’t shift people to transit if we keep making it easier to drive and park than it is to take transit, and we can't make TTC trips faster or more reliable with more people in cars.
 
I live in this neighbourhood, which if you look at the City's data, has one of the highest percentage of people walking or biking to work in the city.

But that's actually largely beside the point: people who own a car simply won't choose to live here. If your concern is vehicular traffic, your advocacy ought to be pointed at reducing or eliminating vehicular parking in new developments, not increasing it!
 
ADRM said:
I live in this neighbourhood, which if you look at the City's data, has one of the highest percentage of people walking or biking to work in the city.

But that's actually largely beside the point: people who own a car simply won't choose to live here. If your concern is vehicular traffic, your advocacy ought to be pointed at reducing or eliminating vehicular parking in new developments, not increasing it!
Click to expand...

While I broadly agree.....{and was very much involved in abolishing parking minimums) I do think it's important to understand the underlying concern.

Which, in this case, isn't about the resident themselves, at least in normal circumstances. It's about the ability to receive visitors from outside the immediate area who will drive, be that from across town or out of town.
As with concerns about moving, bulky furniture purchases or meeting someone's needs if have a temporary or permanent disability or a visitor with same...........there is a need to address this.

That doesn't necessarily mean on-site visitor parking. One reason I argue strongly for the need to make most side street parking in the core, certainly in MTSAs subject to Green P pricing, is the need to force turnover of spots for those
who need them. We also need to price overnight permit parking with an idea that the price should generally result in 20% of spaces being vacant on any given block.

These ideas go hand in hand with reducing or eliminating on-site parking requirements. Likewise, we need to make sure we provide loading zones for those who are moving, for businesses that receiving shipments on-street, and for delivery services.

The object of reducing demand, and in particular, personal care ownership, is laudable; but must be paired with making that lifestyle more desirable to more people.
 
RGB_11 said:
"that close to the subway" are the condos right next to the Shopper's Drug Mart on Dupont.
Just because a subway is a 15 minute walk from there doesn't mean parking isn't needed. Where are visitors supposed to park?
They need more parking spaces. I lived in a building once where visitors had no place to park. They stopped visiting me. I had to visit them.
I don't own a car myself. If I were to live there, I would want the security of knowing that there is a parking space available for visitors.
Maybe Loblaws can start charging for parking for cars that are not actually shopping at Loblaws. Tons of parking there! lol (and fair walking distance also)
Click to expand...
I live in a building with barely any visitor parking despite being hundreds of units. My visitors just park on the street or find parking elsewhere.

It’s a non-issue.
 
Paclo said:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

SPA resubmission affirming the approved minor variances with the following additional changes:
  • Tenure confirmed as rentals
  • Unit mix redistribution
  • Total vehicular parking decreased from 21 to 14
  • 69m² of commercial GFA added
The proponent is requesting a "prompt review" of the SPA file in order to begin construction with a conditional foundation permit in September 2025. Currently only a demolition permit for 287 Christie has been publicly applied for.
View attachment 654532

One additional drawing of the proposed building:
View attachment 654533
Click to expand...


This demolition permit was issued in June. Anyone been by the site recently?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top