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)
 
Old 04-09-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26646

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Who would be stupid enough to build a ten story building without any parking? An urban planner?
You can build the ten story building but you will probably have difficulty leasing spaces or selling the property if there is no parking.
You realize that there are lots of people (particularly in cities) who do not have or want cars because they can do most of what they want without one. And for those people that need a car occasionally, they just join car share.

In the circle of people I know, I can think of 2 dozen people, with middle income or higher, who would live there no problem and do not have cars by choice.

Many people do not want or need an individual car by choice. But it in a fairly dense neighborhood with good amenities and transit in walking distance and it works out fine.

Additionally the developer actually makes more profit, and can sell at a lower cost. Building a parking space costs $10k for a surface space and $30k for an underground space. So let's pretend there are 8 units on each floor, and they use a conservative parking ratio like 1.5 per unit, for 120 total parking spaces. They just saved $1.2M-$3.6M in fixed building cost. My numbers are pretty conservative here. You could easily have 200 units in a 10 story building.

So you tell me, why does a developer want to build parking. If they can get out if it, that's way more profit.

FYI: San Francisco and Portland and I assume NYC as well have buildings like these already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:44 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Who would be stupid enough to build a ten story building without any parking? An urban planner?
You can build the ten story building but you will probably have difficulty leasing spaces or selling the property if there is no parking.
Dense city centers. There are plenty of ten story buildings without parking in Manhattan, and a few in Boston. Not sure why you would have assumed it would be difficult everywhere.

Quote:
On the other hand, if you are in the city you will find that the "urban planners" have come up with all sorts of limitations on building envelope, including height limitations. I would guess there probably is a height limit below ten stories in the smaller cities although the larger cities would probably permit them in some areas.

Avoiding the city lets one avoid those kinds of restrictions.
Why do you think suburbs have less building restrictions? Maybe it's because you're from a different part of the country, some of the stuff you comment about development I have no idea where it comes from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 05:51 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,033 times
Reputation: 3030
Default No car, no service

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
You realize that there are lots of people (particularly in cities) who do not have or want cars because they can do most of what they want without one. And for those people that need a car occasionally, they just join car share.
Maybe there are enough of them to sell to their own kind - 'cause I see no sense in buying or renting in a ten story building where parking is unavailable either in the building or on the street. Make it 12 stories and provide parking. Car share also needs a place to park cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
In the circle of people I know, I can think of 2 dozen people, with middle income or higher, who would live there no problem and do not have cars by choice.
There was no indication whether these were "offices" or "residences". In any event, if offices the building owner needs to be able to lease them. The lessee will likely want parking for himself/herself, staff, and prospective customers. If residences, I think most would prefer at least one parking spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Many people do not want or need an individual car by choice. But it in a fairly dense neighborhood with good amenities and transit in walking distance and it works out fine.
That would probably have to be a downtown area. Such individuals are not just transit dependent they are also wholly dependent upon a particular array of stores and businesses being within short distance. Such a building in downtown will incur some of the highest per square foot cost in the entire city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Additionally the developer actually makes more profit, and can sell at a lower cost. Building a parking space costs $10k for a surface space and $30k for an underground space. So let's pretend there are 8 units on each floor, and they use a conservative parking ratio like 1.5 per unit, for 120 total parking spaces. They just saved $1.2M-$3.6M in fixed building cost. My numbers are pretty conservative here. You could easily have 200 units in a 10 story building.
Sure anytime someone can cinch on fundamentals there will be a cost savings - for the seller. That doesn't mean it's a good deal for the buyer. The seller could leave off plumbing or electrical to save money too but that doesn't mean the result is particularly useful to prospective purchasers. Increase the price/lease rate of the unit to cover the cost of the parking space.

You previously mentioned car share as a potential solution but all you have done is created another vendor you have to pay. The total cost of ownership for the unit has gone up because you have to pay for taxi, "car share", or other programs in lieu of the parking space plus you become wholly dependent upon taxi, car share, or other programs.
Car-sharing firms getting 900 S.F. street parking spaces - SFGate

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
So you tell me, why does a developer want to build parking. If they can get out if it, that's way more profit.
The use of the building was never indicated. Office lessees are going to want parking for themselves and prospective customers. Residential lessees/owners are likely to want parking spaces. You can't say what the profit is until you know the difference in sales price vs. cost. The developer would increase the price to cover the cost of the parking spaces. Not necessarily more profit and not necessarily less profit. A lack of parking will depress the price of the unit because of the lack of utility. Reasons to build parking: Marketability. Local government mandate. Price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
FYI: San Francisco and Portland and I assume NYC as well have buildings like these already.
Like I said, only an "urban planner" type would propose such a thing. San Francisco and NYC already have parking problems and I wouldn't expect them to improve so long as local government is approving buildings without adequate parking on street, on a lot, or in the building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:11 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Like I said, only an "urban planner" type would propose such a thing. San Francisco and NYC already have parking problems and I wouldn't expect them to improve so long as local government is approving buildings without adequate parking on street, on a lot, or in the building.
NYC has parking minimums in all but the general center city area. Developers find loopholes to go under the parking minimum, and when they cannot often build to the minimum. They get sold easily It's not only urban planners who propose such a thing. Obviously these buildings won't improve the parking situation, but the question was whether such buildings would sell in the free market. Developers don't get much gain from including parking.


Quote:
That would probably have to be a downtown area. Such individuals are not just transit dependent they are also wholly dependent upon a particular array of stores and businesses being within short distance. Such a building in downtown will incur some of the highest per square foot cost in the entire city.

You previously mentioned car share as a potential solution but all you have done is created another vendor you have to pay. The total cost of ownership for the unit has gone up because you have to pay for taxi, "car share", or other programs in lieu of the parking space plus you become wholly dependent upon taxi, car share, or other programs.
Car-sharing firms getting 900 S.F. street parking spaces - SFGate
One can use transit instead of taxi, and transit to get out of downtown.


Quote:
There was no indication whether these were "offices" or "residences". In any event, if offices the building owner needs to be able to lease them. The lessee will likely want parking for himself/herself, staff, and prospective customers. If residences, I think most would prefer at least one parking spot.
Offices can get away with much less parking than residences. Offices can rely on transit for most of the employees to arrive if in a good transit location. People use cars for things than going to work, and would like to have them.

Last edited by nei; 04-10-2014 at 06:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
It happened liked this: pedestrian walking in road learns physics of momentum when hit by car.



Perhaps she was strolling the baby around - not something that a car is needed for. From what you described it sounded like an accident not negligence.


Who would be stupid enough to build a ten story building without any parking? An urban planner?
You can build the ten story building but you will probably have difficulty leasing spaces or selling the property if there is no parking.

On the other hand, if you are in the city you will find that the "urban planners" have come up with all sorts of limitations on building envelope, including height limitations. I would guess there probably is a height limit below ten stories in the smaller cities although the larger cities would probably permit them in some areas.

Avoiding the city lets one avoid those kinds of restrictions.


Who complained? You claimed there were "more events" in an urban area. Who knows what you intended by that word. My only point was that the "events" planned by local government create more congestion, traffic, and therefore likelihood of accidents and deaths in urban areas.
We're they crossing in the crosswalk? My bet is the driver wasn't paying attention to their surroundings properly.

Also, I doubt I could build a 10 story building in your neighborhood with no parking because where you live probably has regulations against that, which are the regulations used to promote suburban development where you live. Do you not know your area's zoning codes?

Actually I have never mentioned events, that is something you keep bringing up. All places with people living there have events. Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.

Speaking of this thread, why do you use transit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:53 AM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,145,587 times
Reputation: 32409
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post

That would probably have to be a downtown area. Such individuals are not just transit dependent they are also wholly dependent upon a particular array of stores and businesses being within short distance. Such a building in downtown will incur some of the highest per square foot cost in the entire city.

Naw, I live far from a downtown area and don't have a car. Had one, got rid of it. Wasn't worth the costs. I take public transit to work and most places. Walk or bike others. And if I need a car, zip. I live in an area with really nothing over three stories (triple deckers) so not very urban at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:56 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
I don't why he assumed it would have to be a downtown area, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:20 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,033 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Dense city centers. There are plenty of ten story buildings without parking in Manhattan, and a few in Boston. Not sure why you would have assumed it would be difficult everywhere.
Not places I care to stay.
For most of the rest of the posters here - a distant pipe dream.

I see that "ample street parking" is one of the hidden messages in the promotional images for the Nathaniel in this article about Manhattan rentals and condos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/re...e-up.html?_r=0


Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Why do you think suburbs have less building restrictions? Maybe it's because you're from a different part of the country, some of the stuff you comment about development I have no idea where it comes from.
You throw around the term "suburb" without defining it. Are you referring to a subdivision of real property? Are you referring to smaller cities? Are you referring to subdivisions of real property within a city? By its etymology the term is city-centric and a bit condescending leading to the continued perception of urbanists as self-absorbed elitists.

Unless the "suburb" is "in the city" where ordinances apply throughout, why wouldn't a "suburb" have fewer restrictions? The term "city" is ubiquitous with "restrictions".

People that live places other than larger cities do not perceive themselves or their property as hierarchically lower than city residents, city property, nor are they "sub" anything. The complement from a non-city perspective would be referring to cities as "sub-rural" or perhaps "sub-unincorporated area" (because not all unincorporated areas are rural). As for development, most of the posters here are armchair quarterbacks trying to convince everyone else how things should be without having had any development experience whatsoever. They probably never will because they seek a life of dependency. Transit dependency, local government dependency, financial dependency - an entire infrastructure of planned dependencies.

I prefer unincorporated areas, period. Not in a city. There are far fewer restrictions, far fewer taxes, and much greater freedoms compared to what one has with sub-rural developments like cities. If you have to go to a big city, so be it but the trip will be to the areas that support parking.

By the way, how did transit fare for evacuating people out of the area during hurricane Sandy? What did the transit-dependent people do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:42 AM
 
35,324 posts, read 25,145,587 times
Reputation: 32409
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't why he assumed it would have to be a downtown area, either.

Me either, I've lived in three cities, never in the dense downtown area, and lived in them all quite well without a car. They're such a hassle!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:45 AM
 
1,997 posts, read 2,930,623 times
Reputation: 2150
"Areas that support parking" - so local government mandates that force property owners to provide a certain amount of parking?

The same kind of government dependency you hypocritically attack when it's not to promote the lifestyle you prefer.

I don't support mandates either way. I prefer the urban, transit-oriented lifestyle, but I don't support, and vote against, regulations and mandates for it.

Why don't anti-urbanists who claim suburban sprawl is the product of consumer demand oppose the height restrictions, minimum parking regulations, zoning rules, etc. that artificially suppress density?

To relate back to the topic of the thread, people will use transit when an urban area is allowed to grow dense enough that transit becomes convenient. But in most parts of the country, it is illegal to build that kind of density.

Last edited by stateofnature; 04-10-2014 at 07:56 AM..
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