This will likely not end well.
The City of Duncan is facing a situation where a new development on Evans Street would only have to provide one parking spot for every two housing units in the building. This is because the development will be for people 55-plus, and under existing zoning bylaws that means they are entitled to lower parking requirements.
The proposed development is right where the city wants to increase housing density. It is well within walking distance to the many amenities of downtown Duncan, and close to public transit stops.
The idea behind requiring less parking for age-restricted buildings is the assumption that fewer people drive and own vehicles as they get older.
In theory, this is great. Parking is a problem in every urban area. It is an inefficient use of space and not aesthetically pleasing. Urban areas filled with shops and condos and parks are far more appealing than those filled with vast swathes of parking lots. Decreasing vehicle use in cities in favour of active transportation (cycling, walking) and public transit are goals in towns across the Cowichan Valley and beyond.
But the fact of the matter is that we're not there yet.
And pretending otherwise will just cause frustration, not positive change.
Realistically, 55 is not that old. Most 55-year-olds — and even 65-year-olds for that matter — are still working, and even possibly commuting. Many 70- to 80-year-olds and beyond are still driving. Almost all of these people will own at least one vehicle.
So the question becomes, where will the people who don't get a parking spot park their vehicles?
On the street of course.
The already vehicle-clogged street that serves as parking for the many businesses in the area (patrons and employees), residents, and their guests. A possible 27 units will not have an on-site parking spot. It's mind-boggling if you've ever seen the surrounding area during the daytime. And consider that some of the units may have more than one vehicle to accommodate, making it even worse.
It's also unlikely that any of the people involved will be persuaded to get rid of their car because parking is inconvenient.
While this example in Duncan is particularly pointed we've seen similar asks for reduced parking requirements from developers in communities across Cowichan.
From a liveability, aesthetic and space efficiency perspective, requiring underground parking would be ideal for large developments.
And even more ideal would be improving our public transit to the point that people didn't feel they have no choice but to own a personal vehicle.
But while we work towards that goal, we have to be practical, and that means we can't pretend to only need half as much parking as we do.
