Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Edmonton restaurants could get a break on strict parking rule

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,856

    Default Edmonton restaurants could get a break on strict parking rule

    Edmonton restaurants could get a break on strict parking rules
    Edmonton’s requirement of one parking space for every 3.6 square metres of dining space is the second highest in the country, behind only Calgary and far higher than Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...ing-rules.html
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    What exactly was the reason for such a high requirement in the first place?

    Also why is it 2015 before this is even beginning to get remedied?

    Seems like small town thinking has truly infected every aspect of our civic departments.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ City informed itself with cutting edge ideas coming from people such as Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Robert Moses.

    In other words, their policies are car-centric and derived from thinking that has been uniformly rejected since the end of the 1960s. The fact that we have parking requirements at all, for any type of property, is outdated. Don't let people hear that though, Edmontonians are wild about their parking spots. "Don't take them away or else.. or else.... People will park on the street! That's right, they'll park on the street!"

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,221

    Default

    Even if parking is a problem in those neighborhoods (I'm most familiar with Whyte), what is required are large lots because those are walking neighborhoods. Except for the very few (any?) restaurants that depend on reservations, the restaurants rely on walk-by traffic. Some of that traffic arrives by transit, some lives near there and some just resign themselves to parking in a large lot and walking in. No need for individual parking for individual restaurants.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ I don't see why the City should be managing restaurant actions for business owners.

    If a business owner or homeowner wants to have a building with no parking, they should be allowed to. If a restaurant was truly going to go under if there is no parking, the business owner will build some out of their own pockets. Same goes for residential. If it is truly such an issue, people just won't buy homes without spots.

    Then the classic argument comes "but the streets will be crowded with parked cars!". Guess what, in the areas that this is a problem they already are. There is a finite supply of street parking. If it is truly needed, just limit parking to one pass per household in the area. Problem solved.

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,276

    Default

    Kinda how Cactus club on Jasper was deficient by something like 120 spots and had to justify through a parking study how it would not negatively impact the area...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #7

    Default

    ^So ridiculous
    www.decl.org

  8. #8
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,856

    Default

    I've never had trouble parking within 1-2 blocks of the Cactus Club
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  9. #9

    Default

    ^Regardless, there should not be the same parking requirements in the core as there are in the suburbs. Defeats the purpose of trying to repair our broken urban fabric and promote walkable streets.
    www.decl.org

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,856

    Default

    ^ Of course I agree. This is another good reason why the city bureaucracy needs an enema.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 03-09-2015 at 10:28 PM.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  11. #11
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,276

    Default

    No, it is why our zoning bylaws and appendices need constant review and updating.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ City informed itself with cutting edge ideas coming from people such as Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Robert Moses.

    In other words, their policies are car-centric and derived from thinking that has been uniformly rejected since the end of the 1960s. The fact that we have parking requirements at all, for any type of property, is outdated. Don't let people hear that though, Edmontonians are wild about their parking spots. "Don't take them away or else.. or else.... People will park on the street! That's right, they'll park on the street!"
    So you are saying that the city should provide parking for everyone?

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post

    So you are saying that the city should provide parking for everyone?

    No, the City should remove parking restrictions entirely on private properties and let the market determine how much parking it needs. Meanwhile, they should also carry out gradual parking spot and road diets that remove parking in the public domain.

    If properties truly require parking, the market will provide it within those properties. Setting parking requirements out in bylaws manipulates the market and reaffirms car dependence.

  14. #14
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Thanks for clarifying Jaerdo.

    I'm not sure requiring parking stalls reaffirms car dependence but at the other extreme I don't think the city should allow property owners to turn their front yards into wall to wall parking pads. Something letting the market determine might do.

  15. #15

    Default

    ^I thought letting the market decide, with minimal government input, results in, what Edmonton has, a lot of gravel lots in the core. There need to be some controls, but I agree that the onus shouldn't fall on downtown businesses to provide parking. I do think in the suburbs its reasonable to require.

  16. #16
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,276

    Default

    You should not require any parking for Downtown, urban centre retail or restaurant, ridiculous.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #17
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Or for any bars, anywhere. People go there to drink. Do you really want them to drive?

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I thought letting the market decide, with minimal government input, results in, what Edmonton has, a lot of gravel lots in the core. There need to be some controls, but I agree that the onus shouldn't fall on downtown businesses to provide parking. I do think in the suburbs its reasonable to require.
    That is the opposite issue. Intervention should happen for two reasons: ideally to correct or prevent market failures, and in limited cases for policy considerations.

    Currently one of the main policy considerations in the city is encouraging density. Requiring parking spots does the opposite of this, and in fact performs as a perverse incentive against the City's goals.

    An argument could be made that other interventions should be used to limit parking on otherwise empty surface lots, but I see that as a completely separate issue.

    The reason they require parking right now is due to the flawed idea that people will flood the streets and steal all the spots if property owners are not required to provide spots. Of course we know this to be false. There are a finite number of spots available in the public domain that are not sufficient to serve all demand. Only a highly irrational individual would drive to such a destination with the knowledge that they probably will not find a spot. Therefore, property owners will either choose to offer their own parking of their own volition, or make the informed choice to offer no parking.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •