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.
^^Totally disagree. Let's look at the post you quoted.
What's wrong with wide, long streets? Many people on here advocate for little to no off street parking, certainly none required, so where are people supposed to park? People will not get rid of their cars, they'll just clog up the streets with them. And long streets? What's wrong with that? We have the world's longest street, Colfax Avenue, and it goes through the most urban parts of Aurora and Denver, as well as through the more "semi-urban" areas this thread is talking about of Lakewood, then on into Golden. Cookie cutter homes? This is something we have discussed many times. There are loads of cookie cutter homes in the cities.
People will get rid of some of their cars, or at least buy fewer new ones as the old ones break down. But I agree there will still be some car use. In the case of the examples I gave, the main roads are mostly wide to accommodate additional traffic lanes, and on-street parking is banned.
In terms on how I would do it, it depends on the street.
Local/low traffic streets (ex typical residential streets)
On these kinds of suburban streets, the need for on-street parking is relatively low. Parking demand is largely satisfied by off-street parking, and on-street parking is mostly just for when you're holding a big party and there's no room on the driveway for all the guests' cars. In that case the guests can just park within a block or two on the street. With Seaside's approach, the "shoulder" which is used for on-street parking will have some trees in it, which is nice and helps keep the street narrow and discourage speeding when the on-street parking is unused. If traffic is not only infrequent but also slow moving, you don't really need sidewalks, walking on the street is safe. It also uses the land more efficiently, now you just need about 30-35ft of ROW instead of 60-70ft if you want street trees, on-street parking and a safe place to walk. Having a row of trees only about 25 ft apart also means that in most climates, once they mature a little, you'll have a nice canopy arching over the street, instead of having the row of trees separated by about 60ft, with a wide expanse of empty payment in between.
I agree that the areas I listed are not as appealing as the ones you listed, but when I listed them, it wasn't as examples of exemplary urbanism in the suburbs... It was as an example of places that don't fit very well into either category of urban or suburban. North York Centre is outright urban imo, not much suburban about it, at least if we're going by US/Canada standards, even though it's outside of Old Toronto in an area where the first phase of development was mostly in the 40s and early 50s.
In terms of the characteristics of the high-rise neighbourhoods I listed.
Suburban Characteristics
-retail centred on wide, high-volume, high-speed roads
-large setbacks containing surface parking and private grass lawns
-looping side streets/residential streets with lower connectivity
Urban Characteristics
-high density
-high transit mode share and frequent bus service
-relatively high amount of amenities within walking distance and relatively high number of pedestrians
The suburban characteristics mean that while these areas are somewhat functional for pedestrians and transit users, they're not especially pleasant for them and still not as functional as more urban neighbourhoods. Still, they're definitely more functional for pedestrians and transit users than more typical suburban neighbourhoods, like Dunbarton in Pickering, ON.
The high-rise neighbourhoods do have potential though, because good urban environments are valuable to pedestrians and transit users, and having a lot of transit and pedestrians is important to good urban environments. So do some road diets, maybe replace some of the busier bus routes with trams/light rail, redevelop the strip malls with mixed use development... and I think it can work. The amount of "sprawl retrofit" that would be required to make these urban is definitely still less than in the more thoroughly suburban areas which are probably better off staying the way they are.
Maybe, though right now these Scarborough etc. examples are pretty much the worst of both worlds when it comes to being not quite urban, not quite suburban. I think the Bathurst-Lawrence area and the Etobicoke Lakeshore are actually pretty good examples of combing both, of urbanity functioning a suburban setting.
People will get rid of some of their cars, or at least buy fewer new ones as the old ones break down. But I agree there will still be some car use. In the case of the examples I gave, the main roads are mostly wide to accommodate additional traffic lanes, and on-street parking is banned.
In terms on how I would do it, it depends on the street.
Local/low traffic streets (ex typical residential streets)
On these kinds of suburban streets, the need for on-street parking is relatively low. Parking demand is largely satisfied by off-street parking, and on-street parking is mostly just for when you're holding a big party and there's no room on the driveway for all the guests' cars. In that case the guests can just park within a block or two on the street. With Seaside's approach, the "shoulder" which is used for on-street parking will have some trees in it, which is nice and helps keep the street narrow and discourage speeding when the on-street parking is unused. If traffic is not only infrequent but also slow moving, you don't really need sidewalks, walking on the street is safe. It also uses the land more efficiently, now you just need about 30-35ft of ROW instead of 60-70ft if you want street trees, on-street parking and a safe place to walk. Having a row of trees only about 25 ft apart also means that in most climates, once they mature a little, you'll have a nice canopy arching over the street, instead of having the row of trees separated by about 60ft, with a wide expanse of empty payment in between.
As you know, as a regular participant on this forum, some people here favor no requirements for off-street parking whatsoever, which leaves the streets as city-provided parking. I personally think each owner/developer should provide at least one off-street spot per unit. I also favor sidewalks, everywhere in an urban area.
As you know, as a regular participant on this forum, some people here favor no requirements for off-street parking whatsoever, which leaves the streets as city-provided parking. I personally think each owner/developer should provide at least one off-street spot per unit. I also favor sidewalks, everywhere in an urban area.
Just because there are no requirements for off-street parking, that doesn't mean it won't get built in some form or another. Plenty of neighbourhoods will still have some form of off-street parking, even if there's no front-loaded attached garages, you might have a driveway, maybe leading to a detached garage in the backyard, or parking off of back alleys. The typical older American neighbourhood will have one of those, it's usually only the most dense neighbourhoods that have no-offstreet parking, in New York or Philadelphia, a few neighbourhoods of Boston... Even DC and Chicago have alleys with parking, and SF has a lot of basement and ground level garages.
No because there is too much overlap between city and suburban styles of development. Large parking lots aroun malls? Many central cities have places like that. Rapid transit stations? Many suburbs have that. Housing styles definitely variable. Almost all cities have low density Single Family housing. And some suburbs have high rises. Since there is no clear delineation, aside from the City Limits sign, you can't really define an intermediate style.
Just because there are no requirements for off-street parking, that doesn't mean it won't get built in some form or another. Plenty of neighbourhoods will still have some form of off-street parking, even if there's no front-loaded attached garages, you might have a driveway, maybe leading to a detached garage in the backyard, or parking off of back alleys. The typical older American neighbourhood will have one of those, it's usually only the most dense neighbourhoods that have no-offstreet parking, in New York or Philadelphia, a few neighbourhoods of Boston... Even DC and Chicago have alleys with parking, and SF has a lot of basement and ground level garages.
My daughter and her partner live in an old neighborhood in St. Paul MN and have to park their cars on the street. While there is an alley, it's not very wide, and I'm guessing parking is prohibited, b/c no one parks there. There is no driveway with this house. Both of their cars were hit (hit and run) within months of their moving there.
I never cease to be amazed at the people on this forum who just want to leave it up to real-estate developers to "do the right thing" with providing off street parking, of which driveway parking is a part, IMO. That is a very libertarian idea, and sadly it doesn't work. Developers want to develop as much of the available land as possible. The other thing that doesn't work is to try to get people out of their cars, or even more drastic, to get them to get rid of their cars. Boulder, CO has been doing that for at least 40 years, and the results are not promising. While it's true that Boulder is supposedly one of the most bike-friendly places in the US (as is St. Paul but I rarely see anyone biking there), 70+% of people still commute by car. And Boulder is a university town, where there are lots of students to ride bikes and walk to work. At regular workplaces, the biking rate is far less than the 10% stated in this article below.
My daughter and her partner live in an old neighborhood in St. Paul MN and have to park their cars on the street. While there is an alley, it's not very wide, and I'm guessing parking is prohibited, b/c no one parks there. There is no driveway with this house. Both of their cars were hit (hit and run) within months of their moving there.
That anecdote doesn't negate the point that some developers build more parking than required or some homes are retrofitted. Nor does the rest of the post argue with that.
Quote:
I never cease to be amazed at the people on this forum who just want to leave it up to real-estate developers to "do the right thing" with providing off street parking, of which driveway parking is a part, IMO. That is a very libertarian idea, and sadly it doesn't work. Developers want to develop as much of the available land as possible.
I don't consider developers adding extra parking "doing the right thing" —*I suspect other posters who don't support minimum parking requirements. I don't consider "the wrong thing", either. Developers can also sell a home with off-street parking at a higher price than one without, so there's some market incentive. I've seen off-street parking spaces sold by themselves in cities, there's clearly a market and incentive to build them, but the amount created would be less than requirements would be. So yes, more parking than minimum required does happen.
We've argued this endlessly and don't think there's much point in repeating, those posters on the forum generally don't see off-street parking as an important need while you and others do.
Developing more land for say, housing is also a positive in an area with limited housing supply — those oppose to minimum parking requirements often consider. A neighboring apartment building to mine had more parking than required — but it paved over the entire back lot. I would rather had more greenery next to me and more street parked cars on my street.
Quote:
The other thing that doesn't work is to try to get people out of their cars, or even more drastic, to get them to get rid of their cars.
It certainly does work in very high density areas. The inconvenience of keeping a car is one of the reasons for the low car ownership rates in New York City, and to a lesser extent, cities like Boston or San Francisco. It wouldn't have much of an impact in lower densities such as Boulder.
As you know, as a regular participant on this forum, some people here favor no requirements for off-street parking whatsoever, which leaves the streets as city-provided parking. I personally think each owner/developer should provide at least one off-street spot per unit. I also favor sidewalks, everywhere in an urban area.
I think it would be more fun to discuss the examples memph chose instead of re-arguing off-street parking. Did you find those narrow streets more attractive than wide residential ones, for example?
I'm getting a little tired of being told I'm wrong, and that what I have to say is just "anecdotal" and therefore useless. I have no interest in discussing street width.
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.
