Toronto’s First “Car-Free” Condo

Business

4 minute read

October 14, 2009

This article first appeared in The Toronto Star last month, but the idea behind the project is gaining some momentum.

Plans for a 42-storey condo with ZERO parking spaces are underway, and the cyclists must be coughing up lube-oil in excitement!

Hooray for planet earth!

 carfreecondo.jpg

‘Car-free’ condo: 42 storeys, no parking

University Ave. project with 315 bicycle spots touted as green model 

Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau

A controversial 42-storey condo building that will be built without permanent parking spots cleared a key hurdle yesterday.

The Toronto-East York community council overruled city staff skeptical about the dearth of parking to allow a plan that provides for only nine car-share rental spots, plus 315 spaces for bicycles.

The condominium would go up on the site of the century-old Royal Canadian Military Institute on University Ave. near Dundas St., which would be demolished, with elements of its facade preserved at the base and a thin tower above.

“If you look at the evidence of what sells downtown, the majority of units under 750 square feet in the downtown core sell without parking,” said Stephen Deveaux, a vice-president with the developer, Tribute Communities. Parking spots typically add $20,000 or more to the cost of a downtown condo.

Deveaux called the project, which still needs approval from full city council, an opportunity to design and market an “environmentally progressive building.” With so many jobs and handy transit nearby, the units will sell, Deveaux said.

A staff report on the condo plan in May gave it thumbs-down, citing, for one, the lack of parking. It stated the car-free plan “runs counter to expert study and experience.”

The idea materialized when Tribute realized the narrow site would provide “challenges” to constructing a parking garage.

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who represents the ward, called the car-free building “an interesting experiment and statement about the future of downtown living.”

It also won praise yesterday from Franz Hartmann, co-executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, who said such buildings are uncommon – if they exist at all. “In the past it was natural to allocate parking spots, but in 21st century Toronto, where we’re battling climate change, we don’t need that any more,” he said.

The few parking spots in the plan will be devoted to car-share arrangements, whereby residents can rent a car as needed by the hour.

The plan involves tearing down the decaying Royal Canadian Military Institute building, a private club constructed in 1907 that is on the city’s inventory of heritage properties, and replacing it with a 6 1/2-storey structure that maintains elements of the façade. Above would rise a 35 1/2-storey condo tower with about 315 units, mostly one-bedroom.

The $65 million project is the fruit of a partnership between Tribute and the 1,500-member club. Construction could begin as early as next year and be done by 2013.

The building will continue to provide space for the club, its library and its extensive archival collection of military artifacts – including the seat of Baron von Richthofen’s Fokker Triplane, its most famous item.

Though the institute’s board has approved the project, several members at large oppose it.

Member Brian Lawrie told the community council that in 2007 Vaughan had “enthusiastically endorsed” keeping the building intact, calling it a “rare remnant of University Avenue’s early days as a quiet boulevard dominated by trees, not highrises.” He noted that the councillor had done a “180-degree turn” the next year by endorsing the demolition and condo project.

Normally, building plans follow a formula for how much parking space should be allowed; current standards, if applied to the building, would provide approximately 140 parking spaces for residents.

“To assume a residential development of the project’s scale might be totally car-free runs counter to expert study and experience,” the staff report stated. “Although there are many households in the downtown (area) without cars, it would be highly unlikely to find 315 of them permanently concentrated in one building.”

It also stated that, “exempting the project from the city’s parking standards would create a negative precedent that undermines the integrity of the parking provisions of the zoning bylaw.”

But the project got the green light after Vaughan suggested a series of amendments to bring the building into what he later described as “better conformity” with the area.

The only way to save its museum and artifacts is to redevelop the site, Vaughan told the meeting.

The project goes to city council later this month for final approval.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My thoughts?

Um, well…..I certainly won’t be buying here!

Why?

Well, because like so many other people in this fine city of ours, I own a CAR.

I thought about getting rid of my car, and just walking everywhere, but I concluded that this could potentially take longer.

So, I considred buying a bicycle and joining forces with the spandex-clad gangsters who ride through rural Ontario every weekend and pretend that they didn’t DRIVE their cars up to Orangeville with their bicycles on the roof…

But I also determined that it would take me longer to bicycle everywhere than to drive, and I’m not sure how my clients would feel when I ask them to “hop on” the handlebars of my bike so I can “double them” around the city as we look at properties.

All jokes aside, this is a great initiative and I’m surprised that the developers would forego the $35,000 per parking space that the would otherwise be entitled to.

The ‘Green-Friendly’ movement is gaining momentum everyday, and even if you don’t make a concerned effort to take part, one day you’ll walk into Loblaws or Sobey’s and see that plastic bags have been OUTLAWED!!

If there are people out there that prefer to buy a condo with no parking spaces because they ride a bike and will never own a car, then more power to them.

There’s a building, an area, and a community for everyone in this city, and 426 University Avenue is exactly what somebody out there is looking for…

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

4 Comments

  1. Geoff

    at 8:11 am

    Why the snide commentary on what is in effect, a good idea? Fewer cars in this city is not, on the face of it, a bad thing. As a realtor, you should understand that the market will decide if it’s a bad idea or not. If it is, it won’t sell. It is however not comletely without precedent – many people who live in NYC do not have a car and if Toronto really wants to join the league of big time cities (and NYC is the biggest) this is the type of ideas that need to be tried out.

  2. Potato

    at 12:14 pm

    Even accepting the car-free resident premise, I can’t believe the lack of parking: no visitor parking mentioned, and only 9 car-share spots for 315+ people. But the thing that really blows my mind is that with 315 units, they only plan on building 315 bicycle spaces. Maybe they’ve got a formula telling them that for every person that has two bikes (or every couple with 2+), there’s someone else who doesn’t have one, but I find that hard to swallow, particularly for this special case of a building marketed to be car-free. Expect to see a lot of bikes going up the elevator!

  3. David Fleming

    at 12:52 pm

    @ Geoff

    I’m not so sure that “snide” defines me. I think I’m more “cynical,” but I guess it’s tomato-tommato.

    As I said after I was finished being snide – if there are buyers for this condo, then more power to them.

    My feeling is that the developers wouldn’t have been allowed to build such a tall building on such a small lot (not to mention the historical designation) unless they incorporated something to satisfy the city, such as this “green friendly” gimmick.

    There is money to be made here for the developers, so they don’t care if they have to call it a “car-free” building, or paint the building green…

    But as POTATO points out, there are only 315 bicycle spaces for 315 units. That makes no sense. If this really is going to be green-friendly, AND realistic, they’ll need 500 bicycle spaces, 50 visitor bicycle spaces, and more than 9 car-share spaces. Nice comment about taking bikes up the elevator!

    Quite often, my honest opinions come out in my cynicism, and I think this project is more of a gimmick than anything else. If the developer is truly interested in the green movement, and not just money, they would have come up with a better plan and a far more realistic one.

  4. Gen Marei

    at 3:41 am

    I’m an investor – nice blog by the way. My feeling is that, you should let the market decide. People make buying decisions with different criteria. If real estate appreciation isn’t your biggest concern and quality of life is – then good for you, make the purchase. Personally as a long term investor, I look for average street, average house and average neighbourhood. Then it goes up with the average.
    Anyone out there want to win their closing cost – check this out and vote for me. http://www.blogyourwayhome.com

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts