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 03-14-2014, 02:43 PM
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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I posit that adding in on-street parking is disingenuous. It's for everybody. It's for your guests, the neighbor's guests, the delivery trucks, the workpeople who come to fix your refrigerator, the cop who comes to arrest you, everyone. Some subdivisions are built on curvy cul-de-sacs that don't have much room for on-street parking, no more than one car per house. The burbs are tightly built here in CO, there's not much room for on-street parking even on a straight street, maybe two cars per house, max. On my suburban street which I just drove down, there are few cars parked on-street. One neighbor has some old beater truck that's always on the street, and two cars in his driveway, which makes me think he's got too much crap in his garage to put the cars.
The street parking on my street is mostly used by residents, might depend on the time of day. In any case, it's space that's used for car storage by someone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2014, 03:05 PM
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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
One other thing I've wondered: talking about earlier cities (say, pre-1940 maybe even pre-1920), within the US were there large regional differences in urban density for neighborhoods other than big cities tended to denser. I imagine there was, but how much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,760,401 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
8 spaces per car was a worst-case scenario, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me considering how many places people have to park their cars. I live in a central-city area with a population of 30,000 people, but there are about 100,000 parking spaces, including parking structures, private lots, and on-street parking; and we're a high-density neighborhood where most of the residents don't have driveways or garages.

People forget that suburbs aren't islands unto themselves--if you're including all the parking spaces and space in the country, you also have to count all the other places where the folks driving from the suburbs park their cars--even though they don't like to and gripe about paying for it, they do park downtown, which is why so many downtowns have to devote so much space to parking space.
Yeah but Sacramento's urban core probably has a lot more jobs, retail and other ammenities than the average community of 30,000. That would probably account for the big difference in parking.

Anyways, in my estimate, I included the main places that a suburbanite would drive to and have parking for: their workplace and shopping... whether those are outside their suburb or not. Trying to find a source for 8 spaces per car, it looks like it was from Donald Shoup, in a 700 page book that I'd have to buy. I've also seen it mentioned as a somewhat unscientific estimate elsewhere and that 3 spaces per car is more likely. In the Chester report you linked, the 8 spaces pre car scenario had over half of those spaces as on-street parking while the lower estimates (ex 3 spaces per car) had most of the spaces as off-street parking.

I did see a summarized version of Donald Shoup's work saying that some workplaces had parking requirements in excess of how much parking was expected to be needed initially in case buildings with large 300sf offices for executives got converted into tightly packed cubicles. Not sure how common that is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 06:41 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Here you go: No Such Thing As Free Parking | Inside Science

And here's the study cited in the article. I think the last time I read it was about the same time it came out, 8 spaces per car is the worst-case scenario, but I figure people here use worst-case scenarios as a baseline.

http://chester.faculty.asu.edu/libra...39_parking.pdf
Ah, a citation that fails to support the claim. Surprise!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 10:45 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Yeah but Sacramento's urban core probably has a lot more jobs, retail and other ammenities than the average community of 30,000. That would probably account for the big difference in parking.
Actually most of the retail and entertainment amenities in Sacramento's urban core don't have their own parking lots--and a good chunk of the 50,000 or so people who ride light rail every day are commuters from the suburbs to downtown--the main purpose of light rail was so we didn't have to use half of our expensive downtown blocks as parking lots (in the 60s and 70s a lot of the blocks cleared by redevelopment or state expansion projects were just used for parking, a lot of those blocks now have office buildings or commercial uses on them now.) So we're actually kind of underparked--but still have a capacity of 3 times our population and probably at least 8 times the central city's number of automobiles, because we're the most walkable part of the region.

Quote:
Anyways, in my estimate, I included the main places that a suburbanite would drive to and have parking for: their workplace and shopping... whether those are outside their suburb or not. Trying to find a source for 8 spaces per car, it looks like it was from Donald Shoup, in a 700 page book that I'd have to buy. I've also seen it mentioned as a somewhat unscientific estimate elsewhere and that 3 spaces per car is more likely. In the Chester report you linked, the 8 spaces pre car scenario had over half of those spaces as on-street parking while the lower estimates (ex 3 spaces per car) had most of the spaces as off-street parking.

I did see a summarized version of Donald Shoup's work saying that some workplaces had parking requirements in excess of how much parking was expected to be needed initially in case buildings with large 300sf offices for executives got converted into tightly packed cubicles. Not sure how common that is.
And, as I said, it's the worst-case scenario. So much for an off-the-cuff remark from an article I read 3 years ago.

300 square feet is a large office? The "average" parking space is 275 square feet. So most offices probably require more square footage for cars than people, if they want to have enough parking for 100% of their workforce. http://www.ask.com/question/how-big-...-parking-space

Last edited by nei; 03-15-2014 at 10:50 AM.. Reason: bickering / trolling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 08:08 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
As an aside, the manhattan CBD (defined by the city as south of 59th street) has about the same number of parking spaces (but only counting off street spots) as the same number of parking spots as downtown Sacramento. A bit under half are used by residents. 600,000 residents, 2.3+ million weekday visitors in 8 square miles.

The high density of both residents and workers is only possible with lots of high rises, especially office skyscrapers. London's center doesn't fit in as many residents as the relative lack of skyscrapers means more had to be commercial only
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 10:52 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,558,119 times
Reputation: 4048
And requiring parking in those high rises reduces the potential density of workers or residents in buildings of the same size--if every car requires the equivalent of an executive office, your space left for workers is (at best) halved. Because suddenly every building has to be twice as big, you have to use more expensive and complex building methods for a modern high-rise office building, with a lower rate of return.

While residential high rise units are typically a lot bigger than offices, that 275 sf is what San Francisco is starting to build as "mini apartments" that don't come with parking, simply because the economics there mean you can sell those units for $300K or higher. A parking space, which still costs about $50K in a high-rise, doesn't provide that return on investment--so it chills the residential building market, resulting in under-building of residential units in urban cores. Why? To make room for cars.

Manhattan's CBD has such residential density and office density precisely because it is well served enough by transit, and because enough people live close by. Something like half a million people live within a mile of the CBD, close enough to walk, or bike, or take transit for just a couple of stops instead of the theoretical hour-plus ride from the suburbs.

Take a look at the Defining Downtown report, page 23: http://definingdowntown.org/wp-conte...townReport.pdf

Nearly a million jobs within the CBD, more like 1.3 million within a mile. The CBD itself has less residential, "only" about 78,000 people. But within a mile, there are nearly 600,000 people--and about half live and work within that same convenient radius. It's barely worth it to have the expense of a car, paying to park it at home and at work, for a one-mile commute that is probably slower than walking.

The report is pretty fascinating, it details "downtowns" big and small and their adjacent neighborhoods, showing that what is happening around the CBD is just as important as what happens at the core itself. Not all of the cities with the highest live/work quotients are gigantic cities: Rochester, Minnesota and Ann Arbor, Michigan, cities of 100,000 or so, have nearly the same ratio of people living and working within 1 mile of the CBD as downtown New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
My sister lives and works in Oakland (she only uses transit, no license). Her office is 2 miles from home and a straight shot on the bus that has 15-minute frequency for most of the day. There is another bus on a slightly more scenic route available as well. She has 3 or 4 coworkers that live within a few blocks of her as well. They all drive to work year round. I think one of them lived on the bike boulevard. They also live about 2 blocks from the train station (it is one stop and 2 blocks from her office) and during the commute a suitable train is every 5-7 minutes.

Downtown Oakland has decent transit mode share of about 20%. Bikes I believe are 3%. But I wonder how many people are like my sisters coworkers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 11:23 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Downtown Oakland has decent transit mode share of about 20%. Bikes I believe are 3%. But I wonder how many people are like my sisters coworkers.
That's still a lot less than San Francisco, which supports the idea primary downtowns get higher transit ridership. And for Oakland, BART access is just as good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 11:26 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And requiring parking in those high rises reduces the potential density of workers or residents in buildings of the same size--if every car requires the equivalent of an executive office, your space left for workers is (at best) halved. Because suddenly every building has to be twice as big, you have to use more expensive and complex building methods for a modern high-rise office building, with a lower rate of return.
Manhattan actually restricts the amount of parking that can built for both residential and especially office. The rest of the city has parking minimums, though there are loopholes that developers to get around the full requirements - build narrow and much or all the requirements may be waived. Having a lot of residential high rises with little or no off street parking creates an extreme disincentive to own a car, though it's only functional because walking and transit is so practical there.

Quote:
Manhattan's CBD has such residential density and office density precisely because it is well served enough by transit, and because enough people live close by. Something like half a million people live within a mile of the CBD, close enough to walk, or bike, or take transit for just a couple of stops instead of the theoretical hour-plus ride from the suburbs.



Take a look at the Defining Downtown report, page 23: http://definingdowntown.org/wp-conte...townReport.pdf
The report I used defined the CBD differently, perhaps you'd have to be familiar with the city to understand the difference. The Defining Downtown Report take the two "skyscraper districts" as the two CBD, where office jobs are disproportionately concentrated. But downtown can be more than just an office zone: the major center city shops aren't all concentrated in the skyscraper zone they're spread in a larger area (though outside of the skyscraper zone mostly near Broadway). Ditto with say, nightlife, restaurants, and other entertainment. And the job density is still high, just not as high as the skyscraper CBD, but closer to the [still high] residential density. It's just mixed use. This link shows job and residential density comparisons for a few large american cities:

Day vs. night population maps

This would be outside of the CBD according to defining downtown, maybe even above a mile:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union...,30.74,,0,6.64

A friend of mine was considering living in this "non-downtown" area according to the report, so he'd be walking distance to work, but decided against it:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Green...,208.72,,0,6.5

[not exact street]

Using the American-style downtown definition creates perhaps the most problems with NYC, but it also does with Philadelphia and a few other cities. Should the mixed use areas count as downtown or not? In contrast, London has a similar size center city area, but with office jobs more spread out due to the relative lack of skyscrapers, and a resulting fewer residents. The CBD definitions are from this report. I like it because it's from an actual city planning perspective:

Manhattan Core Public Parking Study - Department of City Planning

Quote:
The report is pretty fascinating, it details "downtowns" big and small and their adjacent neighborhoods, showing that what is happening around the CBD is just as important as what happens at the core itself. Not all of the cities with the highest live/work quotients are gigantic cities: Rochester, Minnesota and Ann Arbor, Michigan, cities of 100,000 or so, have nearly the same ratio of people living and working within 1 mile of the CBD as downtown New York.
Interesting for the latter two.
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
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