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.
I'm pretty sure the poster was referencing tearing down buildings in the CBD to accomodate parking (a la every major city and probably most minor ones too, in the 60s) and not a built-from-the-ground-up, newer suburban development like Louisville. Perhaps not, but that's what I gathered.
Lack of a commercial district clearly hasn't stopped people from moving to the suburbs.
No, but as has been repeatedly said, many people desire neighborhoods with walkable commercial districts, it's just that they have other concerns (affordability, safety, schools), which often win out instead. Hence why every time there is a safe neighborhood with a commercial main street and good schools in a major MSA, it pretty quickly becomes unaffordable.
I'm pretty sure the poster was referencing tearing down buildings in the CBD to accomodate parking (a la every major city and probably most minor ones too, in the 60s) and not a built-from-the-ground-up, newer suburban development like Louisville. Perhaps not, but that's what I gathered.
Well, even though he says later that's what he means, I see nothing in the studies he presented that show that. In fact, one said no causal relationship was implied; Cambridge is just different. Not to mention, Louisville is not entirely new. In fact, there has been very little building here for the last 15 years or so. The period of biggest growth was probably 1980-2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Rather than assuming posters are dumb or making a baseless assertion, perhaps posters are referring to places different what you're thinking of?
My area doesn't have enough off street parking for everyone and only some have garages let alone 2 car garages (there are driveways). Sometimes when I park on the street I can't park right next to my house. The business district has some nearby but not directly adjacent to every store. The fact there's less parking means things are closer together, easier to walk to, more people on the street and generally feels like a livelier town. If parking built to accomodate everyone's convenience, the neighborhood would be destroyed and lose a lot of its character.
Look at the Edgware UK link I post previously. How on earth could that suburb fit enough parking?! Most houses had driveways to accommodate 1-2 cars as well as street parking, but there isn't a whole lot of parking in the center.
The grid system only has plenty of on-street parking if the area is not very dense. Otherwise street parking become scarce.
I did not say any poster was dumb. There are no posters on this thread who work as urban planners, to my knowledge. It is hard to respond to statements such as " If parking built to accomodate everyone's convenience, the neighborhood would be destroyed and lose a lot of its character." because, that's not how it is, and you don't know what it would be like if the parking sitution were different. As my daughter likes to say, "It is what it is". I can tell you, from my experience, that having adequate parking so that people do not have to waste gas driving around looking for a parking space; haul groceries for a family of four several blocks due to inability to park in front of one's house or in an attached garage; and deal with other inconveniences of having to park blocks away (safety, etc) does nothing to detract from a neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
From my own experiences, planned neighborhoods with little on-street parking tend to be friendlier to pedestrians than nearby neighborhoods with significant on-street parking. Psychologically, I think if people expect any kind of traffic on their street, they create a barrier to walking that not everyone can overcome.
Let's avoid that kind of sweeping generalization. It's not particularly helpful to discussing approaches to urban planning.
Also, people do a poor job of mentally balancing costs and benefits. Eg, people don't like taxes, but they like the things taxes provide; all the same, they might try to lower taxes while also complaining that the government is not doing enough of the things they like which were paid for by taxes. The same sometimes goes for urban planning.
Perhaps you could explain how the bold happens. What makes a neighborhood "friendly"?
I'm not sure what sweeping generalizations you're talking about. I have never, ever in my life ascribed to the belief that to put it quite bluntly (which I was trying to avoid, nei) "the masses are a****"; that people aren't intelligent enough to figure out what they want and/or what they want isn't really what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Don't let Katiana hear you claim that suburbs don't have commercial districts!
Well, I see we're well into the "let's bash Katiana" phase here!
However, I agree with you! Suburbs do have commercial districts.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-30-2012 at 02:42 PM..
I did not say any poster was dumb. There are no posters on this thread who work as urban planners, to my knowledge. It is hard to respond to statements such as " If parking built to accomodate everyone's convenience, the neighborhood would be destroyed and lose a lot of its character." because, that's not how it is, and you don't know what it would be like if the parking sitution were different. As my daughter likes to say, "It is what it is". I can tell you, from my experience, that having adequate parking so that people do not have to waste gas driving around looking for a parking space; haul groceries for a family of four several blocks due to inability to park in front of one's house or in an attached garage; and deal with other inconveniences of having to park blocks away (safety, etc) does nothing to detract from a neighborhood.
There is at least one poster who works as an urban planner, but he doesn't post all that frequently.
That's not how it is? Everywhere? Likely we have very different places in mind. There are some places where it is true, others not so much.
For some places, yes I do know what it would be like. For these places, adding more parking would require demolishing building and lower density. PNeither of these would help the neighborhood. It would also increase distance between stores and houses making walking less convenient. Your perspective on the cons of scarce parking is a driver's perspective, rather than the perspective of someone not driving, which is often mine.
Parking garages are a possible workaround but they're expensive. And in any case, I don't see the center of large city should fill itself with parking, a city center filled with parking is not very interesting.
Adding more parking does prevent people wasting gas looking for a space, but it also encourages more driving and more traffic. For example, the fact that I can't be assured a space next to wherever I'm going discourages me from driving into the center of town. If each business had its own space, buildings would be eliminated and more distant from each other. Pedestrian volume would also decrease. Instead most people park in one spot and then walk around.
I've never had to park say, 4 blocks from where I lived, the only time I've done that in a residential neighborhood was in New York City and Cambridge, both places where one doesn't need to use their car frequently (Cambridge a bit more complicated due to residential parking areas). But I've parked not in front of my house on the same block, I don't normally find that inconvenient.
Speaking of parking lots downtown, this page is an interesting comparsion of how much land surface parking takes up in different North American cities.
There is at least one poster who works as an urban planner, but he doesn't post all that frequently.
That's not how it is? Everywhere? Likely we have very different places in mind. There are some places where it is true, others not so much.
For some places, yes I do know what it would be like. For these places, adding more parking would require demolishing building and lower density. PNeither of these would help the neighborhood. It would also increase distance between stores and houses making walking less convenient. Your perspective on the cons of scarce parking is a driver's perspective, rather than the perspective of someone not driving, which is often mine.
Parking garages are a possible workaround but they're expensive. And in any case, I don't see the center of large city should fill itself with parking, a city center filled with parking is not very interesting.
Adding more parking does prevent people wasting gas looking for a space, but it also encourages more driving and more traffic. For example, the fact that I can't be assured a space next to wherever I'm going discourages me from driving into the center of town. If each business had its own space, buildings would be eliminated and more distant from each other. Pedestrian volume would also decrease. Instead most people park in one spot and then walk around.
I've never had to park say, 4 blocks from where I lived, the only time I've done that in a residential neighborhood was in New York City and Cambridge, both places where one doesn't need to use their car frequently (Cambridge a bit more complicated due to residential parking areas). But I've parked not in front of my house on the same block, I don't normally find that inconvenient.
In re: my comments about urban planners, I had mosty the planning staff and city council of Boulder, Colorado in mind. Since we're not talking about Boulder, that's all I'm going to say about that.
In re: my statement about parking, I should clarify we were talking about a hypothetical situation. You don't know what would happen should the parking situation in your neighborhood change.
You are correct that lack of parking discourages people from driving somewhere. Sometimes, it discourages them from going there at all. Before I had my hip surgery, I had a lot of pain when walking and I didn't walk many places; I avoided a lot of situations where I knew I'd have to do a lot of walking. Lack of convenient parking also discourages mothers with little children, and lots of other people. It's a double edged situation.
It is hard to respond to statements such as " If parking built to accommodate everyone's convenience, the neighborhood would be destroyed and lose a lot of its character." because, that's not how it is, and you don't know what it would be like if the parking situation were different. As my daughter likes to say, "It is what it is". I can tell you, from my experience, that having adequate parking so that people do not have to waste gas driving around looking for a parking space; haul groceries for a family of four several blocks due to inability to park in front of one's house or in an attached garage; and deal with other inconveniences of having to park blocks away (safety, etc) does nothing to detract from a neighborhood.
There's a difference between neighborhoods which grew up around driving, and those forced to accommodate it at a later time. While I personally find most suburbs distasteful, I recognize they work within their own car-oriented parameters.
In contrast, adding more parking to a developed city necessitates taking something out - often a portion of a commercial area, or residential housing, which lowers demand. Even if only blighted areas with little appeal are taken out, it removes the chance to restore something great when the city is in recovery - and it opens up huge gaps - "missing teeth" in city fabric which really take away from walkability.
I can give you two local examples here in Pittsburgh of how mid-century attempts to weld car culture into the city were dismal failures, Allegheny Center and East Liberty. Both were thriving commercial districts, which fell upon slightly harder times with the 1950s and 1960s due to suburban competition. In both cases, the City turned them into car-oriented shopping plazas with ample parking, in an attempt to compete with the suburbs. East Liberty failed almost immediately, while Allegheny Center saw no net improvement, with the shopping mall failing by the 1960s.
More recently, the reversal of these same trends is causing the revitalization. The "ring-road" around East Liberty has been eliminated, with the roads set up in a more gridlike fashion, and new residential and commercial development is creeping in. While Allegheny Center remains one of the shames of the Northside (along with how destroyed the area was for highways), the city is planning on connecting the main commercial thoroughfares through the adjoining neighborhoods to the East and West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I'm not sure what sweeping generalizations you're talking about. I have never, ever in my life ascribed to the belief that to put it quite bluntly (which I was trying to avoid, nei) "the masses are a****"; that people aren't intelligent enough to figure out what they want and/or what they want isn't really what they want.
Then you need to read more on the neuroscience of how the brain works. People, including smart people, are really lousy at figuring out what they really want, and especially why they want what they want. It's one reason why in terms of social planning it's more important to study behaviors than stated desires.
In re: my statement about parking, I should clarify we were talking about a hypothetical situation. You don't know what would happen should the parking situation in your neighborhood change.
Even with a hypothetical situation, if one is familiar with the area one can have a good idea what would happen. From my experience, I think the effects I gave are reasonable. As I said multiple times, also if it is clear the area has little extra room, adding more surface parking will involve demolishing parts of the current neighborhood. That's not too hard to figure out and requires little guesswork.
Quote:
You are correct that lack of parking discourages people from driving somewhere. Sometimes, it discourages them from going there at all. Before I had my hip surgery, I had a lot of pain when walking and I didn't walk many places; I avoided a lot of situations where I knew I'd have to do a lot of walking. Lack of convenient parking also discourages mothers with little children, and lots of other people. It's a double edged situation.
Deterring people with medical issues is definitely a downside, perhaps handicap stickers area a partial solution. For everyone else, most can walk 5-10 minutes.
For myself, I'm much more attracted to going to a place where I can park my car leave it, walk around in the area rather than drive everywhere from spot to spot. In fact, I avoid the latter places unless I really need to go there.
At the extremes of density when transit is very comprehensive and walkability is high, cities often find parking a detriment. Much of Manhattan is under a stringent parking maximum, partly to comply with the Clean Air Act in hope the parking maximum results in less driving. Briefly in the 60s before the parking max, New York considered the refer: requiring a minimum parking for office buildings in Manhattan, but it was rejected as being too disruptive to the urban fabric. DC has a parking maximum in parts for similar reasons. London has parking maximums and taxes parking in part of the city
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.
