"Car Free": The Oakridge Redevelopment Project

They're going to redevelop the mall near my home over the next 10 years.  It was first built in 1959 as Vancouver's first mall.  What is proposed is an eyesore, with at least one phallic building 45 stories tall in the middle of a flat calm sea of single family housing.  That is taller than buildings in downtown Vancouver.  It does not make any sense, especially considering the fact that Oakridge is located at the highest point in Vancouver, adding to the phallus effect.

The developers intend to provide less parking spaces per square foot of retail space and less parking for the proposed 2,800 new residential units than is normally provided.  Why?  To promote alternative modes of transportation.

About one third of the residential units will have parking.  There will be 6,694 parking spaces.  Currently retail area is 620,000 and they want to increase it to 1,430,600.  More than a doubling of retail space, but no doubling of retail parking.

Let's forget the fact that they're also saving $20,000 for each parking space they DON'T provide.  Yes, that's right, we believe you, developers, when you say that you're doing this for the environment, not to increase your profit.  After all, developers are environmentalists, aren't they?

WWF Canada commissioned a survey with some interesting findings:

The driving paradox: more than three-quarters (78 per cent) of Canadians know their driving has a negative environmental impact, but they are not likely to give up their vehicles even when they could easily use other forms of transportation (75 per cent). In fact, Canadians are more willing to give up their cell phones, TVs, Internet access, coffee, junk food, credit cards and for some, even sex, before they set aside their car keys.

It's interesting to look at an extreme example of car free development in a 42 storey condo development in downtown Toronto.

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."

The skeptic in me just doesn't buy the lines the developer is feeding us.  Less parking spaces does not mean less people will be using their cars.  It just means they will park elsewhere.  If I was a retailer at Oakridge now, I would be asking those questions, because parking hassles are bad for business.