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 just don't believe that the government should be able to dictate how much parking a business owner needs to provide.
Parking is a make or break for many projects.
The last ground up building project I was involved was for a new medical center... 5 spaces per 1000 square feet... no exceptions... I did point out this was excessive based on actual usage.
Anyway... not all that long after the building was completed... the city decided 3.5 spaces per 1000 is sufficient... and had this been the standard at the time of approval... I would have had configured the building differently.
The new planner implemented a relaxed parking because data proved parking stats from the 70's and 80's were no longer accurate.
There are many projects that are what they are simply because it was the only viable option due to cost and zoning.
The Bay Area has had several nasty transit strikes last year... those without cars were left without a means to go to work... really very sad and leaves one feeling very vulnerable.
Two of my friends that had given up their cars years ago both bought cars... one a Honda Fit and the other a Prius...
All the planning goes out the window when infrastructure fails.
Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what concern are suburban strip malls to urban city dwellers. If you don't want to see them, don't live there.
As one urbanite said, does it make sense for cities to compete with the suburbs by becoming carbon copies of them?
I just don't believe that the government should be able to dictate how much parking a business owner needs to provide.
I do. I do think that the requirements have to be reasonable but a business without parking is going to spill over into the neighborhoods making problems for the people who live there. I.E. Come home from work and have no where to park or be forced to park far from your house or apartment all of the time due to lack of parking.
This is why there is restricted parking in some neighborhoods and why some business are required to produce a certain amount of parking in some areas.
Here in Charleston, SC, there was a strip mall with a huge parking lot that was recently redeveloped. Several detached buildings were constructed along the sidewalk where previously there was only a view of a vast parking lot from the road. These detached buildings helped the aesthetics of the strip mall considerably and were at least a gesture toward walkability in that part of town. Unfortunately most strip malls do not have a vast parking lot to redevelop.
Here in Charleston, SC, there was a strip mall with a huge parking lot that was recently redeveloped. Several detached buildings were constructed along the sidewalk where previously there was only a view of a vast parking lot from the road. These detached buildings helped the aesthetics of the strip mall considerably and were at least a gesture toward walkability in that part of town. Unfortunately most strip malls do not have a vast parking lot to redevelop.
Do you have the location on Google Maps for street view? I'd like to take a look at this, it sounds interesting.
You're using your ideology to defend strip malls, parking lots, and car-oriented design. All in the name of property rights.
But you seem to forget your ideology when it comes to street-facing buildings, sidewalks, and pedestrian design. Setback laws and parking minimums go against an owner's property rights.
The simple fact is that you prefer car-oriented design to pedestrian-oriented design. Your faux-libertarian argument is inconsistent.
To "defend" strip malls, parking lots, and, ahem "car-oriented" design? So have you declared war on these inanimate objects?
I did not defend or promote setbacks in the post you refer to. I merely rebutted another poster's claim as to the purpose of setbacks.
As far as characterizing me as preferring "car-oriented" to "pedestrian-oriented", the post you refer to is hardly a basis for making such a claim.
"Pedestrian-oriented" is your term, not mine. You clearly intend different meanings for "oriented". Getting from car to store is pedestrian activity. Getting around in the store is pedestrian activity. Getting from the store back to the car is pedestrian activity. None of this activity excludes other pedestrians. Whatever you mean by "car-oriented" includes pedestrians since the store obviously accommodates pedestrians including those that arrive by car and those that arrive by other means. Suggesting that these businesses don't accommodate pedestrians is silly.
But you have a different meaning for "oriented" in your "pedestrian-oriented" phrase. What you really mean with "pedestrian-oriented" is "anti-car" and "exclusively pedestrian". You don't like the fact that these businesses are open to pedestrians that arrive by car. You promote pedestrian exclusivity - the "me, me, me" frame of the self-proclaimed urbanists. Keep jousting at windmills - you never know when you need to be ready to attack another parking lot.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 02-17-2014 at 04:35 AM..
Here in Charleston, SC, there was a strip mall with a huge parking lot that was recently redeveloped. Several detached buildings were constructed along the sidewalk where previously there was only a view of a vast parking lot from the road. These detached buildings helped the aesthetics of the strip mall considerably and were at least a gesture toward walkability in that part of town. Unfortunately most strip malls do not have a vast parking lot to redevelop.
So there's that term "walkability" again. The detached buildings didn't shorten your trip, change the walking surface, remove any obstacles, nor were the new buildings your destination. This has nothing to do with "walkability".
So there's that term "walkability" again. The detached buildings didn't shorten your trip, change the walking surface, remove any obstacles, nor were the new buildings your destination. This has nothing to do with "walkability".
I agree that sometimes the change is largely cosmetic. Yet if you can walk into the front door of a business from the sidewalk rather than walk across a huge parking lot, I think that improves walkability somewhat. It also makes people feel like they are not out of place for walking in that area. The doors on the sidewalk invite pedestrians in, whereas a large parking lot makes them feel out of place.
The city of Charleston originally wanted all the buildings in the back torn down and new ones built along the sidewalk with the parking lot hidden in the back. The developers protested, so what you see in the photograph was the compromise the two sides hammered out.
After I posted my first comment, I realized that this "strip mall" would probably be called a shopping center by most people. I never really thought of the difference, but I suppose there is one. Shopping centers usually have giant parking lots that can be redeveloped. Strip malls don't have as much parking space to work with. Anyway, for what it's worth, here it is.
And Google street view would be: 975 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29407
Suggesting that these businesses don't accommodate pedestrians is silly.
But you have a different meaning for "oriented" in your "pedestrian-oriented" phrase. What you really mean with "pedestrian-oriented" is "anti-car" and "exclusively pedestrian".
No, that's not true. And saying that businesses 'accomodate pedestrians' by allowing them to walk through a store is just silly. It would be very easy to put the buildings up against the street (accomodating pedestrians) while still having giant parking lots in the back for cars. Or put in a parking garage in the back.
And that strip mall is the sign of making something slightly better out of something terrible. I count ~ 150 (about 24 spots per row) or so spots in front of the Tuesday Morning/Dollar Tree strech - and none of those stores are designed or staffed to reasonably accomodate that many simultaneous shoppers. Who knows when that picture was taken, but it wouldn't suprise me that represents the average number of people at those shops, so you can see how much parking is wasted.
Native, you can't walk in the door of Petco from AT&T. It doesn't improve the walkability at all if you're going to Petco. Now, if you're going to AT&T and it's located there instead of in the back of a similar strip mall, sure. Looks like its common to add sidewalks into strip malls (just based on that example) where you live too. Most of the larger strip malls here have added those stores out front or were designed with them to begin with.
If there was any market demand for building on the street, those spots would come with a premium. Developers would all develop the street fronts for the extra rent. There just isn't a market demand for it.
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.
