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.
That law has been changed so there is a minimum parking requirement again and it is a low number, which is good because it still keeps costs down and the developer can charge for parking spots for those who need to have a spot rather than have a surplus of private parking.
I do think that apartments below a certain size should have an income limitation and a rent limitation to make it more for low income housing...though there is a such thing as a poor hipster in Portland, and they need housing too.
??? HowTF is a parking requirement good for people who can;t afford cars? Portland is ful of poor hipsters; several years ago the Tribune featured an article about an affordable housing building and a subsidized hipster who chose to work part time in order to keep living there with his housing subsidy. Sort of the same thing Pelosi says is great about Obamacare.
So OP, what we have here is a developer who says that if only government wouldnt dictate the size of the units he has to build, and he could build smaller housing, the cost would go down..
That law has been changed so there is a minimum parking requirement again and it is a low number, which is good because it still keeps costs down and the developer can charge for parking spots for those who need to have a spot rather than have a surplus of private parking.
I do think that apartments below a certain size should have an income limitation and a rent limitation to make it more for low income housing...though there is a such thing as a poor hipster in Portland, and they need housing too.
The limited parking spots is so the developer can OVER CHARGE for parking spots..
??? HowTF is a parking requirement good for people who can;t afford cars? Portland is ful of poor hipsters; several years ago the Tribune featured an article about an affordable housing building and a subsidized hipster who chose to work part time in order to keep living there with his housing subsidy. Sort of the same thing Pelosi says is great about Obamacare.
First you say lack of parking in these new buildings cause shortages and now you complain who can afford cars? Sounds like you are stuck in a contradiction. Let me know when you want to have a real conversation.
Before government entered the housing business through exclusionary zoning, developer set asides, rent control and other gimmicks the private market adequately met the housing demands across the class spectrum. Government simply makes things worse.
Are you serious? Tenements "adequately met the housing demands. . . ", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
It is very difficult in most cities to unbundle parking from units. And to greatly reduce the number of parking spaces. I support parking free developments. I have a car, but why on earth would I choose somewhere without a dedicated spot. That's stupid. I made my own bed when I have to spend 45 minutes looking for a spot.
A bunch of nothing. People making $100k in SF still need roommates to afford a place. SF isn't building any housing for any workers and now 1 bedrooms are like $3000.
Wake me up in 20 years.
Parking free developments make a mess of local streets. Spending 45 minutes driving around finding a parking space in a city is hardly "green".
Are you serious? Tenements "adequately met the housing demands. . . ", etc.
Parking free developments make a mess of local streets. Spending 45 minutes driving around finding a parking space in a city is hardly "green".
It is only green for those that use transit or bike, in Portland the zoning law recently changed from no parking required on major transit routes to something like one spot to every three units which makes it easier for those with cars to pay the fee to own a parking spot if they wish to own a car without having the development add too much extra cost in unneeded parking.
That is what you call "working poor" so that is what SF is doing for them.
The average home price in SF right now is just under $1 million. $100k is working poor (for a family of. 4) in SF. The average rent price is $3300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Are you serious? Tenements "adequately met the housing demands. . . ", etc. Parking free developments make a mess of local streets. Spending 45 minutes driving around finding a parking space in a city is hardly "green".
Of course it isn't green to circle the block. It is like death by a thousand cuts.
It is counterintuitive, but less parking leads to fewer people with cars. I am going back to SF again. Most people, who bring a car to SF (and don't have dedicated parking spots) ditch their cars after a few months. After dealing with parking tickets, street sweeping, and break-ins they realize it is too annoying and switch to car share, transit, bikes. Or move where they can have a parking spot (another neighborhood, or find a paid spot....). As a result, the neighborhoods where it is most annoying to find a parking spot have lower levels of car ownership.
This includes results of when SF redesigned one of their corridors to be a complete street and took out parking. It is way better than it used to be by far. (Valencia). Congestion decreased. I'll use anecdotal evidence. Before the street was redesigned, when visiting the area, all of my friends drove. Now most of them don't, they take transit (except for the ones who live super far). The level of car ownership in my small sample didn't change during the course of my 12 year period I am thinking about. The transit options didn't change either, but in the earlier part of the period, more people lived closer to transit than now. Oddly now more people use the transit, even though it is technically another stop for them. Now they park at the train stop along the way, and then use the tea into finish the trip to get to the neighborhood. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/do...california.pdf
De bundling the parking works. If you want a parking spot, you should have to pay for it (in areas where there are reasonable alternatives). Everyone in the building shouldn't have to pay, there are plenty of places that do it need 1 parking spot per unit. In my neighborhood, and the ones nearby, the parking policies vary by building. Some buildings charge a monthly fee for a spot, others don't. The ones that charge a fee tend to be closer to transit. The ones with out a fee tend to be further from transit. The people who don't need parking (and don't drive) have the opportunity to save money by not paying for something they don't need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
It is only green for those that use transit or bike, in Portland the zoning law recently changed from no parking required on major transit routes to something like one spot to every three units which makes it easier for those with cars to pay the fee to own a parking spot if they wish to own a car without having the development add too much extra cost in unneeded parking.
This is good policy. I saw a recent article about a development in downtown Chicago where the developer complained the parking minimums were too high. I think 800 units were planned and 600 spots were required. It was a mixed use development. There was another nearby similar development and also a parking garage. In each case those lots were rarely more than 50% full. The el stop was 2-3 blocks away and there was a grocery store etc within 1 block. He wanted to reduce parking to 400 or something and share the parking with the underutilized structure on the next block. Opponents companies the develop would add too much traffic, although the area was a pretty low car ownership area....
I remember reading something like 75% of people in San Francisco own a car, but the thing is everyone hunts for that perfect parking spot and doesn't use their car again until they desperately need to drive somewhere that they can't get to with public transportation.
I remember hearing a guy turn down a ride to the airport in SF because he didn't want his friend to lose the perfect parking spot that he had.
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.
