U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:27 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post

That said, this stuff can be handled with natural churn. Our second car was such a hassle for us (it was seldom driven, and I got a lot of tickets on street cleaning days) we got rid of it. As the neighborhood grows in desirability, more people are moving here who are one car families. And there are plans to add both commuter rail and a streetcar, which would provide other transit options besides the (heavily utilized) bus routes. Eventually I see the parking issues plateauing, with the neighborhood population growing, pedestrian amenities increasing, and the neighborhood attracting more people who don't mind solely walking and using mass transit.
You may be retired by then. See this:
Reason Foundation - Denver's RTD Weighing Options for Northwest Corridor
Denver’s Regional Transportation District’s (RTD) estimated completion date stands at 2042, unless voters approve another tax increase bringing the cost up to $1.7 billion for completion by 2024.
We call it the "ghost train". A new tax will likely fail, as the RTD has lost its cred up here in Boulder County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:29 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Aren't there a number of other trains that will be opened by the RTD in the next few years? That's only one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 09:34 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 29 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,037 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Aren't there a number of other trains that will be opened by the RTD in the next few years? That's only one of them.
God only knows. The big problem is the northwest corridor. Now they're proposing a statewide tax to get enough money for this boondoggle. I hate to use absolutes, but I think it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Sen. Matt Jones: U.S. 36 mobility hinges on potential transportation sales tax - Boulder Daily Camera
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 10:07 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,197,946 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Aren't there a number of other trains that will be opened by the RTD in the next few years? That's only one of them.
The west line to Lakewood and Golden opened this year.
The east line to the airport will open in 2016.
The Gold Line to Arvada and Wheat Ridgewill open in 2016.
The north commuter rail to Westminster will open in 2016?
The BRT and HOV lanes to Boulder will be done in 2015.

It is not all doom and gloom in Colorado.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,131,257 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I still have not heard of a single example where a commercial district (or any other portion of a city, for that matter) has floundered and failed due to lack of adequate parking. Indeed, every successful neighborhood seems to develop a parking problem, whereas downtowns which have ample parking in surface lots and free garages are often dead, if not outright blighted.
Old Town Pasadena in the middle of the 20th century is one I can think of. Interestingly enough, it was parking reform that played a huge part in its revitalization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 01:45 PM
 
15,601 posts, read 13,573,912 times
Reputation: 21425
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
I was on the Miami forum on Skyscraperpage.com last week, and this will be a first for Miami: a 40 story condo building in the Brickell area with no parking provided for the residents or guests! A little extreme, wouldn't you say?

One of the pluses of seeing acres of all this empty parking spots today, in commercial centers, is the land is cleared now, making it possible to quickly build some housing, when that time comes! No demolition of buildings necessary!
Yes, the condo, MyBrickell is the name, will not have parking. It is next to another condo building which MyBrickell has purchased spaces from, and will have parking for the one and two bedroom apartments, but not for studios.

So while it is advertised as not having parking, it actually does through an agreement with the condo next door to use their spaces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 02:05 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Yes, the condo, MyBrickell is the name, will not have parking. It is next to another condo building which MyBrickell has purchased spaces from, and will have parking for the one and two bedroom apartments, but not for studios.

So while it is advertised as not having parking, it actually does through an agreement with the condo next door to use their spaces.
That information makes a big difference. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,426 posts, read 59,932,247 times
Reputation: 54090
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I got autocorrected, but we have a couple of "parklets" aka mini parking space sized public spaces:
Thank you! Now I understand what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,086,507 times
Reputation: 1208
City zoning should specify the maximum "horizontal footprint" allowed for parking, not the minimum parking spots per business. Businesses and developers know the minimum that a particular business needs. Let the free market decide how much parking is actually built. If developers don't build enough, businesses won't rent their space. If they build too much parking, they don't get as much income from retail space as they could. But you'd still have the maximum specified by zoning measures so that you couldn't build a Walmart surface lot in the middle of Downtown. Of course, if Walmart wants to build a garage conforming to the maximum horizontal footprint, and other zoning regulations allow it, so be it.

The thing with the "minimum spots per business" zoning is it encourages oversized, sprawling surface parking lots. This may be fine if you're out in the country or in an outer suburb, but shouldn't be the default in all cases. Of course, if the City has a garage or ample street parking or if you have lots of people riding transit, the maximum allowed parking footprint in that part of town should be less. If the city doesn't allow enough parking, developers and businesses simply won't come in to the city, and the regulations can be adjusted in the same standard way that zoning regulations change with time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,088 posts, read 16,117,190 times
Reputation: 12673
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
City zoning should specify the maximum "horizontal footprint" allowed for parking, not the minimum parking spots per business. Businesses and developers know the minimum that a particular business needs. Let the free market decide how much parking is actually built. If developers don't build enough, businesses won't rent their space. If they build too much parking, they don't get as much income from retail space as they could. But you'd still have the maximum specified by zoning measures so that you couldn't build a Walmart surface lot in the middle of Downtown. Of course, if Walmart wants to build a garage conforming to the maximum horizontal footprint, and other zoning regulations allow it, so be it.

The thing with the "minimum spots per business" zoning is it encourages oversized, sprawling surface parking lots. This may be fine if you're out in the country or in an outer suburb, but shouldn't be the default in all cases. Of course, if the City has a garage or ample street parking or if you have lots of people riding transit, the maximum allowed parking footprint in that part of town should be less. If the city doesn't allow enough parking, developers and businesses simply won't come in to the city, and the regulations can be adjusted in the same standard way that zoning regulations change with time.
No, they'll just build with none and rely on neighbors/city to cover the cost. That's why minimum parking requires are used. Look at the micro housing in Seattle. One of the legitimate criticisms is they don't include any parking. You've got 30-40 unit apartment complexes going up without a parking space where a couple houses used to be. The parking was bad before in those neighborhoods. Most of the houses don't have garages since they were built before cars were common place. Partly that was a learning curve. The Calhoun properties mostly do have parking included. Partly because they can make $ off it, partly because of the backlash and potential to change zoning laws. But that's fairly rare. Most developers don't have any vested interest in a neighborhood. They usually develop it and sell it off, not build it and then manage it as a landlord.

And the bolded works exactly the same way in reverse. It's not like the city can't change the zoning or there's a one-size fits all approach. My own extremely auto-centric suburb has areas where the minimum parking requirement is zero. We're conventional and backwards thinking to a fault here. It's not controversial at all to not require minimum parking. It just depends on what and where.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top