Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question from a non-Chicagoan who is very interested in this topic (and loves that city): How many of these surface parking lots exist, or at least exist in their current size/form because of minimum parking rules or other types of regulations?
I don't know about Chicago but in some cities you have many parking spaces (not necessarily all) that are there not because of market demand but because the city or whatever authority requires the developer to put them there. Often surface parking lots are the cheapest way to fulfill that requirement.
When it comes to parking in the Loop for offices the city really has never had any requirement for parking. Condos and apartments are a different matter -- there are a maze of shifting regulations that sometimes were driven by frustration over new buildings overwhelming existing parking but other times there have been activists that prefer minimal / no parking to enhance "transit oriented development". In either case, the degree to which alderman act as "final say so" often over the written regulations or advice of professional planners is one of the most dysfunctional aspects of Chicago zoning... http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...re-just-insane
Not only parking garages, but SURFACE PARKING? Imagine that in a city like NYC or any European city. I assume that if high rise buildings are built, then land values are very high. But if they're so high, how can surface parking lots still not be developed? I'm not saying that the loop needs to be like Manhattan, but it would certainly be less ugly if those parking lots were developed. "But what will happen to the drivers?", some might ask. They will use other means of transportation. When parking lots are built, more people drive, and when they are removed, less people drive. It's a simple case of induced demand, but in reverse. Chicago has extensive public transit already, so there are alternatives.
Chicago's transit system isn't as extensive as NYC's, and, unlike a majority of New Yorkers, a majority of Chicagoans own a car. Keep in mind though that the number of Chicagoans that own a car is declining, but then you still have to factor in all the suburbanites who work in the Loop/elsewhere in downtown. For what it's worth though things are getting better. This is what Millennium Park used to look like: http://www.cmrp.com/images/gallery/M...ark%205%20.jpg
Chicago's transit system isn't as extensive as NYC's, and, unlike a majority of New Yorkers, a majority of Chicagoans own a car. Keep in mind though that the number of Chicagoans that own a car is declining, but then you still have to factor in all the suburbanites who work in the Loop/elsewhere in downtown. For what it's worth though things are getting better. This is what Millennium Park used to look like:
YOU do know that there is now MORE parking on that site, it is just very costly UNDERGROUND parking that the City sold the rights to investment bankers -- Unloading Assets
Take parking. Chicago's four downtown garages, beneath Grant Park and Millennium Park, ..."why not see what the market would bear?"
In the case of the parking garages, the market bore $563 million. ... Chicago went with an offer from Morgan Stanley, which partnered with a parking manager that will run day-to-day operations at the garages.
So the "anti-car fans" are stuck with a private firm that ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES more cars into the Loop. The City is SCREWED out of the revenue. Fat cat insiders make out like bandits. Yep "things are getting better"
YOU do know that there is now MORE parking on that site, it is just very costly UNDERGROUND parking that the City sold the rights to investment bankers -- Unloading Assets
So the "anti-car fans" are stuck with a private firm that ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES more cars into the Loop. The City is SCREWED out of the revenue. Fat cat insiders make out like bandits. Yep "things are getting better"
And YOU do know that in terms of what the OP is talking about out of sight, which is underground parking in this case, would be preferred. Other cities that require parking actually bother to put theirs underground at higher rates.
I highly doubt he cares who gets the money, especially since Chicago loves screwing itself when it comes to parking one way or another. Downtown has the most expensive street parking in the country, but Chicago doesn't even own the damn meters anymore.
Yes, the cost is high AND there is no ability to change that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil
And YOU do know that in terms of what the OP is talking about out of sight, which is underground parking in this case, would be preferred. Other cities that require parking actually bother to put theirs underground at higher rates.
I highly doubt he cares who gets the money, especially since Chicago loves screwing itself when it comes to parking one way or another. Downtown has the most expensive street parking in the country, but Chicago doesn't even own the damn meters anymore.
By selling the rights to the parking Chicago has LOCKED in a situation that will only thwart efforts to expand things like transit or autonomous vehicles -- the firm that profits from parking has a vested interest in continuing to reap profits from PARKING and will actively make alternatives impossible. Big (sarcastic) thumbs up for the foresight ...
I don't even understand the purpose of this thread in all honesty. Some surface parking does exist within the downtown area, but there really aren't that many. ESPECIALLY compared to the urban areas further west or south. Chicago is more of a middle ground between old school, more European style cities (east coast) and sprawling American style cities (west coast and southern U.S.), although Chicago features a built environment much more similar to NYC/Boston/Philadelphia/DC. It's also worth adding that many of the surface parking lots in the south and west loops are succumbing to legitimate development.
As for Chicago's built environment, anyone who says Chicago developed pedestrian oriented neighborhoods by accident is misinformed. The city boomed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The automobile didn't become a staple of American society until the 1950's. By that point, Chicago had reached it's peak population. Any auto-centric development we see today most likely occurred as a result of urban renewal/reinvestment. Developers and politicians understood then, like they do now, that parking must be included in any modern development if said development is going to be competitive. How much parking should be included is difficult to say. It's probably best to handle the situation on a case by case basis or develop an algorithm that can accurately project the amount of automobiles a certain type of development generates.. If a new residential building is within 0.25 miles of the L, it's probably safe to say it doesn't need 2.0 stalls per unit. This isn't necessarily the case for a development further from the core.
Last edited by IrishIllini; 01-14-2016 at 01:02 PM..
I don't even understand the purpose of this thread in all honesty. Some surface parking does exist within the downtown area, but there really aren't that many. ESPECIALLY compared to the urban areas further west or south. Chicago is more of a middle ground between old school, more European style cities (east coast) and sprawling American style cities (west coast and southern U.S.), although Chicago features a built environment much more similar to NYC/Boston/Philadelphia/DC. It's also worth adding that many of the surface parking lots in the south and west loops are succumbing to legitimate development.
As for Chicago's built environment, anyone who says Chicago developed pedestrian oriented neighborhoods by accident is misinformed. The city boomed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The automobile didn't become a staple of American society until the 1950's. By that point, Chicago had reached it's peak population. Any auto-centric development we see today most likely occurred as a result of urban renewal/reinvestment. Developers and politicians understood then, like they do now, that parking must be included in any modern development if said development is going to be competitive. How much parking should be included is difficult to say. It's probably best to handle the situation on a case by case basis. If a new residential building is within 0.25 miles of the L, it's probably safe to say it doesn't need 2.0 stalls per unit. This isn't necessarily the case for a development further from the core.
The "accidental" aspect of some areas being more or less pedestrian friendly / hostile is more a function of what has happened over time. Many many years I could walk to Midway Airport. Central had only basic chain link fence and you could see the mostly idle airport. There was surface parking steps from the terminal, right on Cicero. It really was common for folks that had nothing to do other than keep their grandkids busy to stroll right in and watch a plane land or take off. The massive upgrades to security, precipitated by perceived terrorist threats, and the MUCH busier flight schedule that Southwest promotes to regional fliers have resulted in solid walls of noise baffles around the whole facility and a confusing layout of garages integrated with passenger pick-up / drop-off areas that are all absolutely hostile to pedestrians. Cicero is kind of wasteland now...
In a weird way one could say that the efforts to "channel" pedestrians through the Museum Campus has also influenced the whole periphery of the south Loop -- the various underpasses and bridges that now exist replaced the far more rickety / drippy conveyances, but they've also "sterilized" the area and made it seem utterly abandoned except when there is an active event in progress. I remember working in the Loop and being able to casually use the old tennis courts down there, it was very 'democratic' and not so stratified. Really makes me feel very old, like it was a lifetime ago compared to the Disney-like scene that has been created. Even the highly seasonal use of Northerly Island's prairie and pavilon seem foolishly isolated compared to at least having SOME all year use of Meigs Field. Sure, there is less parking now, but also more dramatic decrease in off season use of the Lakefront. The Lucas museum is going to make even worse, like some weird alien planet. I suspect that was not the main intent at all, and while I suppose it could be "anticipated" the degree to which the whole area really will be desolate / deserted for large parts of year certainly seems like a kind of accidental side effect that smarter land use might be able to avoid. I do lament the lost opportunity of not hosting the Olympics -- if that were perfectly pulled off I can imagine that the old Michael Reese Campus could have been a hub for renewed development in the area. Even when I see the efforts to rebuild the Malcolm X campus near United Center I can't help but thing it would have been better to site that in the area closer to McCormick Place to add some kind of more consistent activity to area that goes dormant for large parts of the year...
I don't think you've ever been to NYC. There are almost no surface parking lots. And "free"? LOL!
Even some random place like South Bend or Rockford or something doesn't have free parking lots right downtown. But according to you Manhattan has all these tons of free lots?
Back in the real world, NYC is probably the only U.S. city where parking is extremely limited, and is generally confined to private underground garages and short-term metered street parking. Boston and SF are parking-restricted too, not to the extent as NYC, but much moreso than in Chicago.
NYC is the only U.S. city where a majority of households don't own vehicles, so, not surprisingly, the built form is generally aligned towards the needs of pedestrians and transit.
I lived and drove in NYC for nearly ten years.
Perhaps I misunderstood the OP, who might be referring to parking lots. One can park on the street, too.
There is free parking on almost every street in NYC on both sides of the street. It's called street-parking, and it's free. Sure, they aren't big lots, but it's parking, and it's used by those who drive in from outside of the city and also those who live there. For the most part, it's not regulated or charged. So, yes, it's about as free as you can get.
For the percentage of people who own vehicles to the percent of space dedicated to parking, I'd argue that NYC has a lot of parking.
There is free parking on almost every street in NYC on both sides of the street. It's called street-parking, and it's free.
There's street parking in every single city on the planet. You cannot have a street with cars and then absolutely nowhere to operate them, obviously.
And they aren't "free". You really drove in NYC? I have never seen a commercial street anywhere in NYC with free or unregulated street parking. The entire city has rules on metered rates, overnight parking, alternate side parking, standing/drop off rules, etc. Most commercial streets have a byzantine array of parking signs. Of course many commercial streets don't allow any parking.
And no, that's obviously not what's under discussion, as then there would be no discussion. We're talking about off street parking, and specifically surface lots.
There's street parking in every single city on the planet. You cannot have a street with cars and then absolutely nowhere to operate them, obviously.
And they aren't "free". You really drove in NYC? I have never seen a commercial street anywhere in NYC with free or unregulated street parking. The entire city has rules on metered rates, overnight parking, alternate side parking, standing/drop off rules, etc. Most commercial streets have a byzantine array of parking signs. Of course many commercial streets don't allow any parking.
And no, that's obviously not what's under discussion, as then there would be no discussion. We're talking about off street parking, and specifically surface lots.
I concede that as far as parking lots, they aren't open surface lots in NYC.
However, there is a large amount of free parking, regardless of regulation (alternate side of the street parking). Perhaps this is off topic, but mixed-use residential/ commercial streets (most any non-major cross street in the city) has parking that is free, and only regulated for street-cleaning.
So, yes, they are "free" in the sense that you don't have to pay to use them. The entire city does NOT have rules on overnight parking. Take 15th street, for example, you can park on the north side any time besides Tu/Th from 9-11 am.
Anyway. Agreed on the surface lots, I misunderstood that. But I stand firm that there is a lot of parking in NYC for the % of people who own cars to the amount of space available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hard to call it "better"...
