CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Scrapping Parking Rules for New Apartments

Halbrook councillors are debating scrapping minimum parking requirements for new apartment buildings within 800 metres of a rapid-transit station. The current bylaw obliges developers to provide at least one stall per unit, whether or not tenants own cars. Critics contend the rule inflates rents and devours land that could hold homes; defenders regard it as the only barrier between established neighbourhoods and streets choked with parked vehicles.

“An underground stall can cost tens of thousands of dollars to build, and that’s folded into every unit,” says Councillor Amara Delgado, who tabled the motion. Tenants who take the bus, she points out, effectively subsidize parking they never use. She is careful to clarify one thing: “Nothing’s being prohibited. Builders can still include as many spaces as they believe the market demands.”

Rajiv Sethi, whose firm has three mid-rise projects in the planning stage, welcomes the flexibility but tempers expectations. “Lenders still insist on parking before they’ll finance a building, and many buyers won’t consider a unit without a stall,” he explains. On some sites his firm might eliminate half the spaces; on others, none. Forecasts of a fixed drop in rents strike him as premature.

Margaret Fennimore, who chairs the Eastgate Residents’ Association near Eastgate station, anticipates newcomers without designated spaces commandeering residential roads. “We’ve got no quarrel with apartments,” she insists. “But seniors, shift workers and tradespeople hauling equipment will keep driving whether or not their building has a garage.” She would endorse the reform only alongside a residential permit system, which council has so far declined to fund.

Dr. Lionel Achterberg, who teaches urban planning at the local university, considers both camps partly correct. Cities that abandon parking minimums rarely experience the spillover residents dread, he observes, but only because they simultaneously manage on-street parking firmly. “Removing the requirement without pricing or permitting curb space is like opening a tap without a drain.” Nor does he anticipate housing becoming cheaper across the board, since any savings hinge on whether builders actually omit stalls, which will vary considerably from site to site.

As a renter without a car, I pay every month for a stall I never use, so I was glad to see Councillor Delgado 6. Choose…promise that rents would fallexpose what tenants subsidizepropose banning stalls near stationsdemand permits for residents. Still, Mr. Sethi’s remarks were sobering. As long as 7. Choose…council keeps postponing the voteresidents keep fighting the plantransit service remains patchyfinancing hinges on stalls, buildings near our stations will look much like the old ones, and the savings will be modest.

I also sympathize with Ms. Fennimore more than I expected: she is right that 8. Choose…apartments don’t belong on quiet streetsseniors deserve the curb firstcars don’t vanish with garagesthe station is poorly placed, and a resident circling her own block has every reason to be annoyed. Dr. Achterberg’s 9. Choose…plumbing metaphorsite-by-site caveatverdict on both campsforecast for rents made the danger vivid.

My advice to council is simple: 10. Choose…let the market sort it outhold the vote until buyers adaptexempt Eastgate from the reformput its money where its motion is. Done properly, this reform could give renters a fairer deal without turning Eastgate’s streets into one long parking lot.