Lets buy out big lot home owners and replace it with high density (buildings, green)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katiana

You say you live in a row-house neighborhood, so basically a string of individual houses with common walls. You're talking about a condo development, with smaller units (presumably) which means more cars per linear foot street length. You're also talking about potential singles and young couples living there, almost all of whom have a car per person. The single takes a roommate(s) to help him/her with the mortgage (very common here in CO) and presto, you have 2-3 cars per unit.

There was an existing parking lot on site (it was a former church after all). The issue was the developer wanted to add an additional two stories of units onto the site, and the local NIMBYS stopped it. In retaliation, the developer chained up the abandoned parking lot, which used to be used by people in the neighborhood. The opposition of some of them definitely did have a racial element, because there was also concern about "section 8 renters" (which might have been legit ten years ago, but no one is going to put Section 8 new construction in a neighborhood this gentrified now).

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't know that that is so obvious. Some people, especially young people, the most likely buyers of almost all real estate, may have no experience with living in a "no parking supplied" area.

I'd say this is crazy, but then again, if people are from another part of the country, you may be right. I'm always surprised at the number of people who post relocation threads in the Pittsburgh forum looking for "apartment complexes" within the city center, as those are a suburban thing around here.

Originally Posted by Katiana

The city of Boulder has been trying to make driving more difficult for decades. It hasn't worked yet. Despite all the traffic lights, pay parking in the downtown area and for a block (at least) on each side of dt, etc, people still drive cars there. There are, I believe, more cars registered in Boulder than people living there. The motivation to get rid of a car has to come from within.

Again, to use my personal example. We didn't use our family's second car (my car). Since we had no off-street parking, it sat on the street for months unused, and we often got tickets on street cleaning days (spent a lot more on those tickets than gas). If I had an off-street place to park it, we might have kept the car around. I'm glad the layout of the neighborhood forced us to downsize. And that was back before the neighborhood got really hot and we could always find street spaces on our block.

Originally Posted by nei

A downtown is space limited, using up some of it for the resident's parking might not be the best use of space. It's also the location in the city (depending on the specific city) that may be the most convenient not to have a car. There's 90% of the city left for those who require convenient parking.

Downtown isn't perfect (it lacks a grocery store, which people who live there always gripe about), but generally car-free living is very plausible there.

Originally Posted by nei

I'm arguing because I don't see anything wrong with neighborhoods that use the street for parking and no, never heard of anyone complaining about a safety. I personally like them, and don't want them being prevented from being built. Usually right by the intersection street parking is banned for visibility reasons, I can't ever remember a street full of cars making it harder for me to drive (other than maybe making me slow down). All the cars on the street over from me make it harder for traffic to go fast, which is a plus.

There definitely are streets in my neighborhood where street parking is allowed where it shouldn't. Or at least, with people parking on both sides of the street, despite it nominally being a two-way road, there isn't really enough space to pass a car in the oncoming lane without risking knocking mirrors with a parked car. But this says to me the neighborhood needs less cars (e,g, only allow parking on one side of the street, or make the streets one way), since it will pretty much be impossible to retrofit it for more parking.

Originally Posted by Malloric

Except that downtown is usually also where a heavy concentration of people work. Downtown Sacramento has something like 100,000 working there. Only 6,000 of whom live there. Or actually not. The 6,000 people living in downtown Sacramento aren't the kind of people who work. They're drug addicts, mental health cases, and retirees on fixed incomes living in subsidized housing for the most part. There's a few units like the one Governor Jerry Brown lives in. A luxury loft building at the edge of Downtown (it's on the corner of 16th & J, most people call 16th the divider between Downtown and Midtown) build with -- irony of ironies -- Redevelopment dollars.

Downtown Pittsburgh has its share of institutional residents (many are in the dorms at Point Park University) but downtown living in condos and apartments is taking off. Regardless, if a condo or apartment was built without parking, I'm pretty sure it could market to people who don't have cars easily. Street parking downtown obviously isn't feasible, and standalone leases can be quite expensive. Honestly breaking out the parking lease from the rent makes sense - otherwise you have car-free people again paying for a service they don't need (or maybe too much of one, if they only have one car, but the lease has two).

Originally Posted by Katiana

You're young. You're male. You're not hauling kids around. Some people just don't like "non-convenient" day in and day out.

You know I'm a parent. My wife is actually eight years older than me, and in her 40s now. Our current house is going to be too small with two kids, and we don't know how we'll manage. I'm actually willing to consider living in a streetcar suburb part of the city, provided it's a nice old house. My wife has told me flat out she doesn't want to move anywhere unless we're somewhere within walking distance of a business district, and told me that a neighborhood which literally is a 15-minute rail ride into downtown (and built up in the 1910s) was too suburban for you. I don't think people flip on these things in general just because they get older and have kids.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There was an existing parking lot on site (it was a former church after all). The issue was the developer wanted to add an additional two stories of units onto the site, and the local NIMBYS stopped it. In retaliation, the developer chained up the abandoned parking lot, which used to be used by people in the neighborhood. The opposition of some of them definitely did have a racial element, because there was also concern about "section 8 renters" (which might have been legit ten years ago, but no one is going to put Section 8 new construction in a neighborhood this gentrified now).

Yeah, I thought a church, even in the city, would have parking for a few cars anyway. But if they want to have 3 stories of units, then yes, there ought to be parking for all those units. When I took psychiatric nursing, one of their mantras was "get the patient to face reality". J(This was at Pitt, mind you.) Urban dwellers have to face the reality that most people want a car for their own use, especially in rental situations with roommates. 2 cars per unit is reasonable.

Now, this may be due to my part of the country, but "Section 8" does not automatically say "minority" to me.

Again, to use my personal example. We didn't use our family's second car (my car). Since we had no off-street parking, it sat on the street for months unused, and we often got tickets on street cleaning days (spent a lot more on those tickets than gas). If I had an off-street place to park it, we might have kept the car around. I'm glad the layout of the neighborhood forced us to downsize. And that was back before the neighborhood got really hot and we could always find street spaces on our block.

Which supports what I said; the motivation has to come from within. All this traffic mitigation, encouraging people to ride the bus by businesses giving them free passes, etc, has not helped Boulder's traffic problems, and I'd wager has gotten darn few people out of their cars, let alone selling them.

Downtown isn't perfect (it lacks a grocery store, which people who live there always gripe about), but generally car-free living is very plausible there.

I'd gripe too if I didn't have a grocery store conveniently located. I mean, you can save up errands at Target, the mall, etc, but you have to eat three times a day. (Though lots of hipsters eat out about 80% of the time, so it seems.) It is the same in downtown Denver; no grocery store in downtown proper.

There definitely are streets in my neighborhood where street parking is allowed where it shouldn't. Or at least, with people parking on both sides of the street, despite it nominally being a two-way road, there isn't really enough space to pass a car in the oncoming lane without risking knocking mirrors with a parked car. But this says to me the neighborhood needs less cars (e,g, only allow parking on one side of the street, or make the streets one way), since it will pretty much be impossible to retrofit it for more parking.

Well, despite the NSA and all, it's still a free country, and people will have the number of cars they think they need. And they're probably right about what works for their situation.

Downtown Pittsburgh has its share of institutional residents (many are in the dorms at Point Park University) but downtown living in condos and apartments is taking off. Regardless, if a condo or apartment was built without parking, I'm pretty sure it could market to people who don't have cars easily. Street parking downtown obviously isn't feasible, and standalone leases can be quite expensive. Honestly breaking out the parking lease from the rent makes sense - otherwise you have car-free people again paying for a service they don't need (or maybe too much of one, if they only have one car, but the lease has two).

It seems to be a hard sell in Denver, from various anecdotes which I've posted before.

You know I'm a parent. My wife is actually eight years older than me, and in her 40s now. Our current house is going to be too small with two kids, and we don't know how we'll manage. I'm actually willing to consider living in a streetcar suburb part of the city, provided it's a nice old house. My wife has told me flat out she doesn't want to move anywhere unless we're somewhere within walking distance of a business district, and told me that a neighborhood which literally is a 15-minute rail ride into downtown (and built up in the 1910s) was too suburban for you. I don't think people flip on these things in general just because they get older and have kids.

I wasn't talking to you regarding young, male and childless. You also said upthread it's not too hard to find a close-in parking spot in your neighborhood. These people who talk like walking a few blocks is no biggie, in all kinds of weather including the gawd-awful Pittsburgh heat, humidity, snow, etc, with a couple of kids in tow, or late at night as a single woman, are not in touch with the situation for many people.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There definitely are streets in my neighborhood where street parking is allowed where it shouldn't. Or at least, with people parking on both sides of the street, despite it nominally being a two-way road, there isn't really enough space to pass a car in the oncoming lane without risking knocking mirrors with a parked car. But this says to me the neighborhood needs less cars (e,g, only allow parking on one side of the street, or make the streets one way), since it will pretty much be impossible to retrofit it for more parking.

In some official circles, that's a feature, not a bug. People have to use driveway curb-cuts to allow others to pass in the opposing direction, generally slowing traffic.

Originally Posted by Katiana

And once again, I have no problem with the builders having to bear the burden of providing parking.

The questions becomes how much required parking is appropriate and how was that conclusion reached?

More people own cars now, such that the examples (two to three cars per unit) you pose aren't unusual or unreasonable. That's a sign of the times. But, if we're willing to placate residents by providing ever more parking, what other signs of the times should we heed? Cars are getting ever larger. Sign of the times. Should we also build larger parking spaces? What I'm asking, under this, is how do we decide what characteristics should be accounted for?

Now, in regards to what developers would build, which you think is too few spaces, I say that they will build what they can get away with. Of course, they might build fewer spaces. Perhaps many fewer spaces. But, they have to get people to live there. If parking is impossibly bad, units might not sell (or rent), and land prices would be hurt as a result. I think developers are too self-interested for that.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Urban dwellers have to face the reality that most people want a car for their own use, especially in rental situations with roommates. 2 cars per unit is reasonable.

Depends on the city.

And how many people are in each unit? And if street parking is permissible, some can be accommodated without off street parking, and for many (such as eschaton and myself) within the same block.

2 cars per unit adds up to a lot of space, what works for one area could be destructive for another.

Originally Posted by Katiana

I wasn't talking to you regarding young, male and childless. You also said upthread it's not too hard to find a close-in parking spot in your neighborhood. These people who talk like walking a few blocks is no biggie, in all kinds of weather including the gawd-awful Pittsburgh heat, humidity, snow, etc, with a couple of kids in tow, or late at night as a single woman, are not in touch with the situation for many people.

Well, again from being used to parking in New York City, sometimes better than a few blocks is for many unrealistic. A friend who drove everyday said she could get parking almost always in less than 5 minutes (often better), which she thought = convenience. The locals deal, it's always been that way, and most have to walk from a transit stop anyway. The local shops don't have convenient parking, either, so with or without kids, you're likely walking. Boston is better, but still not always easy.

From the weather stats, I can't see what's so awful about Pittsburgh weather, it's not too much different from places I've lived, which is tolerable.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by eschaton

You know I'm a parent. My wife is actually eight years older than me, and in her 40s now. Our current house is going to be too small with two kids, and we don't know how we'll manage. I'm actually willing to consider living in a streetcar suburb part of the city, provided it's a nice old house. My wife has told me flat out she doesn't want to move anywhere unless we're somewhere within walking distance of a business district, and told me that a neighborhood which literally is a 15-minute rail ride into downtown (and built up in the 1910s) was too suburban for you. I don't think people flip on these things in general just because they get older and have kids.

Flip, probably not, but a lot do make some kind of compromise. Even beyond that though, a lot of people feel the suburbs are better-suited for families, including those who quite like the city, but many other peope, such as yourself, obviously think otherwise. If I stay on my current path, I'll probably be married with kids in 5-7 years--not terribly far off--and assuming I stay in the Philadelphia Area, I'll probably opt for the Main Line. If I were out in Pittsburgh, however, I'd most likely pick somewhere in the Squirrel Hill-Shadyside-Point Breeze corridor (the problem with Chestnut Hill and West Mt. Airy {Philly's rough equivalent areas} is that the neighborhood schools are sub-par for my liking).

People's priorities often shift. I could care less about having a lawn right now the same way I don't need a 4,000 square foot mid-century modern home to live in all by myself. But once I have a family.....

[nei]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I mean you can't see around the line of parked cars to know if it's safe to accelerate from a stop sign. You can't see if any cars are coming at you from the left or right, esp. the left, unless you pull halfway out into the intersection, at which point if there is a car coming, you'll be lucky to miss it by inches.

I haven't noticed that issue before. Though usually in my experience parking right next to the intersection is not allowed for that reason. The city signed my street and others saying no parking right by an intersection.

Why do you think there is "no parking" on some streets? They impede the traffic flow. When people traveled by horse, they didn't keep the horses on the street; they put them in a barn. Many city streets date from the horse and carriage days.

On some larger streets, yes. Not really on residential streets, where impeding traffic flow is less of an issue (you don't want your traffic to move quickly on residential streets). What I meant was I thought it was a normal for residents to keep their cars on the street.

Horses aren't car, the streets usually have space for cars.

[nei]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There was an existing parking lot on site (it was a former church after all). The issue was the developer wanted to add an additional two stories of units onto the site, and the local NIMBYS stopped it. In retaliation, the developer chained up the abandoned parking lot, which used to be used by people in the neighborhood. The opposition of some of them definitely did have a racial element, because there was also concern about "section 8 renters" (which might have been legit ten years ago, but no one is going to put Section 8 new construction in a neighborhood this gentrified now).

I remember there was a fuss about building townhouses in the town I grew up in (suburban Long Island). A compromise reached was to make the townhouses expensive enough to price poor people out. The townhouses already existing across the street, were relatively low-income and minority and were believed to be a source of crime (exaggerated in my opinion).

Another cluster of townhouses proposed for the area was scaled back due to protests it would make the area to crowded and add to congestion.

[pinetreecity]

Originally Posted by Socially Inept

What do you think of a developer buying out homeowners who live in a subdivision of large lot homes, tear the homes down, clear cut the site and replace it with apartments and townhouses?

Where I live in Fairfax County it is happening. The developer finds neighborhoods built in the 1950s and 60s when the area was semi rural and economically at that time they could build small homes on huge wooded lots and still make money. The developer realizing that the land is valuable and small homes on big lots are not a practical use of the land so close to major roads and employment center. The developer contacts all the owners in the subdivision and offers to buy their home and land for a good price and if successful will tear the homes down, clear cut the trees and work with the county to rezone the area for high density development. It's a win-win for the property owner, who makes a huge profit on his home, and the developer. If the community comes out ahead, that is yet to be determined.

Given the recent trend of investment groups, like hedge funds, buying up single family homes to rent, I think this type of development will become more common in the future. If the properties in a subdivision are owned by a relatively small number of investment groups, who are more likely to consider investment returns over more aesthetic concerns, then it will be easier to convince them to sell or take part in a subdivision redevelopment.

I think in five years time this type of thing will become more common. It will be interesting.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Yeah, I thought a church, even in the city, would have parking for a few cars anyway. But if they want to have 3 stories of units, then yes, there ought to be parking for all those units. When I took psychiatric nursing, one of their mantras was "get the patient to face reality". J(This was at Pitt, mind you.) Urban dwellers have to face the reality that most people want a car for their own use, especially in rental situations with roommates. 2 cars per unit is reasonable.

IIRC, there were already two stories in the attached rectory, they just wanted to put on another three stories. There was enough space in the lot for a bit over 1 space per unit.

Originally Posted by Katiana

Now, this may be due to my part of the country, but "Section 8" does not automatically say "minority" to me.

I've had enough experience with Pittsburgh that I know when people say "Section 8" here, they mean "black people." The opinions of some of the old-timers may have been colored (no pun intended) by the fact that the developer is an African immigrant.

Originally Posted by Katiana

Which supports what I said; the motivation has to come from within. All this traffic mitigation, encouraging people to ride the bus by businesses giving them free passes, etc, has not helped Boulder's traffic problems, and I'd wager has gotten darn few people out of their cars, let alone selling them.

Didn't you read what I said? The built form of the neighborhood incentivized me to give up my car. Due to not needing a second car for work (access to a good busline, plus commuting by bike in nice weather), it was essentially unused. But what made it not worth rusting in the street was the hassle of bimonthly tickets during street cleaning days. If I had off-street parking, there would have been no tickets whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Katiana

I'd gripe too if I didn't have a grocery store conveniently located. I mean, you can save up errands at Target, the mall, etc, but you have to eat three times a day. (Though lots of hipsters eat out about 80% of the time, so it seems.) It is the same in downtown Denver; no grocery store in downtown proper.

Yeah, a poll of people who live downtown found 80% thought having no grocery store was the biggest limitation. It's not an impossible walk from most of the condos to the Strip District (a local warehouse area with a lot of weekend markets), but it's not convenient either.

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, despite the NSA and all, it's still a free country, and people will have the number of cars they think they need. And they're probably right about what works for their situation.

The point is the roads literally cannot fit four cars (two parking lanes and two driving lanes) on them safely. Something should give. Personally, I think most should be made one-way.

Originally Posted by Katiana

I wasn't talking to you regarding young, male and childless. You also said upthread it's not too hard to find a close-in parking spot in your neighborhood. These people who talk like walking a few blocks is no biggie, in all kinds of weather including the gawd-awful Pittsburgh heat, humidity, snow, etc, with a couple of kids in tow, or late at night as a single woman, are not in touch with the situation for many people.

You basically implied that Nei will fill different once he's older and has a family. I provided an anecdotal data point that my wife (who is at this point middle aged, married, and has 1.5 kids) is still dead set against moving to the suburbs (probably more than I am honestly).

It is sort of funny in a way though. My wife has asthma which makes her not want to be outside in cold weather. And right now she's pregnant and often doesn't feel well. So even though we live in a walkable mixed-use neighborhood, she often wants to use the car to go somewhere only ten blocks away (which I gripe about on occasion, since I love walking and cycling places). She also works only 20 blocks from our house, but always insists upon driving there rather than walking or using the bus. I've raised the point with her it doesn't really matter if we move somewhere like a 5-10 minute ride away from a walkable business district, since she doesn't walk much anyway. She admits that she actually doesn't like walking that much, but likes having the option, and the general aesthetics of a walkable neighborhood, much more.

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Flip, probably not, but a lot do make some kind of compromise. Even beyond that though, a lot of people feel the suburbs are better-suited for families, including those who quite like the city, but many other peope, such as yourself, obviously think otherwise. If I stay on my current path, I'll probably be married with kids in 5-7 years--not terribly far off--and assuming I stay in the Philadelphia Area, I'll probably opt for the Main Line. If I were out in Pittsburgh, however, I'd most likely pick somewhere in the Squirrel Hill-Shadyside-Point Breeze corridor (the problem with Chestnut Hill and West Mt. Airy {Philly's rough equivalent areas} is that the neighborhood schools are sub-par for my liking).

People's priorities often shift. I could care less about having a lawn right now the same way I don't need a 4,000 square foot mid-century modern home to live in all by myself. But once I have a family.....

Absolutely. But you're already planning said shift. My point is that by the time most people reach 30 or so, they're pretty set in their ways, and they're not going to make a radical shift in their lifestyle willingly. Given young people delay having kids a long time these days (I felt like I was unusual for my cohort becoming a dad at 30), I think there's less chance for a 35-year old starting a family to veer into a different way of life than a 24-year old.

Originally Posted by nei

I remember there was a fuss about building townhouses in the town I grew up in (suburban Long Island). A compromise reached was to make the townhouses expensive enough to price poor people out. The townhouses already existing across the street, were relatively low-income and minority and were believed to be a source of crime (exaggerated in my opinion).

Another cluster of townhouses proposed for the area was scaled back due to protests it would make the area to crowded and add to congestion.

In the town I grew up in, there was a campaign to put affordable housing in some time in the 1990s. The First Selectman voiced his public disapproval, saying "If we build affordable housing, we can't keep out the Puerto Ricans!" Thankfully he lost the next election.

[Katarina Witt]

OK, I'm going to do some snipping here, be prepared.

Originally Posted by eschaton

IIRC, there were already two stories in the attached rectory, they just wanted to put on another three stories. There was enough space in the lot for a bit over 1 space per unit.

So a five story building in a rowhouse neighborhood? I've never been much of a NIMBY, but even I might think that doesn't quite fit. And if the neighbors are currently using the church lot (or were; I can't remember if you said the lot was chained off or will be), that means there's not a huge abundance of parking available. I think this fits with the "face reality" issue. Most residents of these condos will bring 2 cars to the area. You're going to need at least 2 spots per unit, plus a few for visitors. I've listened to these type of debates at my own city council meetings. The developer always asks for more than s/he thinks s/he'll get. Maybe just four floors of condos?

I've had enough experience with Pittsburgh that I know when people say "Section 8" here, they mean "black people." The opinions of some of the old-timers may have been colored (no pun intended) by the fact that the developer is an African immigrant.

You're probably right. I don't remember the Pgh area being a particular bastion of celebrating racial diversity. It just sounded odd to me.

Didn't you read what I said? The built form of the neighborhood incentivized me to give up my car. Due to not needing a second car for work (access to a good busline, plus commuting by bike in nice weather), it was essentially unused. But what made it not worth rusting in the street was the hassle of bimonthly tickets during street cleaning days. If I had off-street parking, there would have been no tickets whatsoever.

Yes, I read what you said. A combination of factors motivated you to sell the car. Motivation from within. I can tell you my DH would never sell a car, unless he was buying a replacement. He'd figure out some way to avoid tickets. (Maybe park at the church? )

The point is the roads literally cannot fit four cars (two parking lanes and two driving lanes) on them safely. Something should give. Personally, I think most should be made one-way.

Even on our wide streets (someone commented on them when I posted a map one time), it's hard to see the cars coming from your left at a stop sign when cars are parked bumper to bumper. So if a road is one way with the cars coming from your left, that wouldn't help. Maybe one parking spot should be eliminated right at the corner.

You basically implied that Nei will fill different once he's older and has a family. I provided an anecdotal data point that my wife (who is at this point middle aged, married, and has 1.5 kids) is still dead set against moving to the suburbs (probably more than I am honestly).

It is sort of funny in a way though. My wife has asthma which makes her not want to be outside in cold weather. And right now she's pregnant and often doesn't feel well. So even though we live in a walkable mixed-use neighborhood, she often wants to use the car to go somewhere only ten blocks away (which I gripe about on occasion, since I love walking and cycling places). She also works only 20 blocks from our house, but always insists upon driving there rather than walking or using the bus. I've raised the point with her it doesn't really matter if we move somewhere like a 5-10 minute ride away from a walkable business district, since she doesn't walk much anyway. She admits that she actually doesn't like walking that much, but likes having the option, and the general aesthetics of a walkable neighborhood, much more.

First of all, if I were your wife, I'd be loading up the AK-47 to shoot you, since you refer to her as "middle aged" as opposed to you being I guess young. Secondly, she's one person. And though she doesn't want to live in the burbs, she does want to drive.

And you may find that with two kids, you drive more too. Two adults with one kid is a breeze. (BTDT) Two kids with one adult, to extend the wind analogy, is a tornado. BTDT, too!

Absolutely. But you're already planning said shift. My point is that by the time most people reach 30 or so, they're pretty set in their ways, and they're not going to make a radical shift in their lifestyle willingly. Given young people delay having kids a long time these days (I felt like I was unusual for my cohort becoming a dad at 30), I think there's less chance for a 35-year old starting a family to veer into a different way of life than a 24-year old.

Ha, ha! Wait till I tell my future son-in-law! He just turned 30!