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 04-10-2014, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,657,858 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The fact that you call it a "township" suggests some sort of government as opposed to an unincorporated area.
In Ohio, everyone lives in a township, a village, or a city. Villages and cities are incorporated municipalities. Any village that grows to more than 5000 people becomes a city. Any city that shrinks to less than 5000 people becomes a village. Townships are unincorporated, and are just subdivisions of counties, but do have their own government bodies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2014, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
County doesn't have zoning regulations. County does have control over development. What this means is you can plan your "dense" living arrangement and I can put my ten story concrete plant next door and smile every morning. The county will attempt to impose lot size minimums for safety and health only. Even then there are workarounds as twice previously explained.
I doubt your county doesn't have zoning regulations.


Quote:
Thus "transit" doesn't exclude cars. I ride transit - the form being a car. I do so to get from one place to another.
Yes, that is true, you do you PERSONAL transit. Then I guess by that definition we all use transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 12:17 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You find that in your precious city, not outside the city.
Almost all suburbs have zoning regulations and some parking regulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,169 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
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.
Exactly! You aren't the target market. If you need a parking spot, then you simply cross that building off your list. If you don't need a spot, then you don't need to subsidize the people that do in the building if there is no parking. Everyone incurs the true free market value of the parking spot.

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.
It doesn't have to be. In my city, the areas within 3 miles of downtown (at least in the favored quadrants) have plenty of stuff. You could feasibly never go downtown at all. In fact the people in these neighborhoods didn't even go downtown at all, until the past couple of years of redevelopment. I've lived in the same place for 10 years, and when I first moved in I never went downtown, other than occasionally at the waterfront to go to Barnes and Noble, and I live 1.25 miles from the center of downtown. We are also in an area that is about 20-25% transit-only people. And on the other side of my neighborhood, many buildings do not have parking in the building. Other buildings charge a monthly fee for the parking. Those apartments were even more expensive than mine, ironically, even though I have a parking space. As suspected, I decided not to move into the parking free building, because I wanted a dedicated parking spot. They also have a shorter walk to main street than I have (1-2 blocks vs 3-4 for me).

Quote:
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.
Actually it is useful to the residents too. Here is a low parking project in Berkeley that became way cheaper for the residents. They got free transit passes, and the developer saved money.
GreenTRIP projects take road not driven - San Francisco Business Times

Here is another similar one:
‘Innovative’ housing with rooftop farms set for southside | Berkeleyside

Quote:
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
Carshare is cheaper than owning a car. I have a few friends that use it pretty often. They spend approximately $50-60 a month on carshare, plus the membership fee of about $70. So that works out to be around $800 a year. Even if your car is paid off, It would be hard to spend that little just to insure the car. Forget about gas and maintenance. The thing is, that person has several transportation options: transit, walking, carshare etc. And they can choose what makes the most sense.

SF has a car ownership rate of about 50%. And limited space. Car sharing is already popular too, car sharing spaces are currently in private lots all over the city. The only new thing is that SF is opening up some metered spots in public lots to carshare.

Quote:
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.
Your assumptions are that everyone wants the same thing. And you also didn't comment on the parking scenario nearby. There was parking controversy in Chicago about a new development that reduced parking requirements. People said there wasn't enough. But on nearby blocks, the parking was rarely more than 40% full. There was actually a parking surplus in the neighborhood.

Buildings do not need a 1 to 1 parking ratio, all of this needs to be considered in the context of location. If you have a business district where 70% of the visitors travel by foot or transit, no one is going to be clamoring for parking spaces, since the primary customers do not need them.

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.
Building low or zero-parking buildings can be used as a strategy to decrease congestion, provided you have reasonable alternatives. NYC and SF don't really have parking problems, the problem is people don't really consider how much parking is actually worth to the city (or themselves). Everyone who complains about parking in Manhattan is complaining that there isn't free or cheap parking. There are plenty of $100 parking spots. When parking is "market based" people leave their cars at home. Parking in downtown SF is about $30 a day. As a result, 50% of the commuters to the downtown take transit. If they all drove congestion would be ridiculous. The same is true for Manhattan, people with reasonable alternatives just leave their hypothetical cars at home and use alternate modes. But we, as Americans, have an expectation that all parking should be free and readily available in all locations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 01:17 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
In Ohio, everyone lives in a township, a village, or a city. Villages and cities are incorporated municipalities. Any village that grows to more than 5000 people becomes a city. Any city that shrinks to less than 5000 people becomes a village. Townships are unincorporated, and are just subdivisions of counties, but do have their own government bodies.
We have additional possibilities: You can live in a geographic territory within a county without being subjected to rule by a lesser subdivision of the state or county.

This shouldn't be interpreted to mean that there aren't other types of local government one can be subjected to (e.g., school district, water district, utility district, etc.) however these types of districts are independent of whether one is in a city or not. In other words, the "management authority" of these districts is mutually exclusive of the management authority of other political subdivisions of the state in the same geographic territory.

Cities are political subdivisions of the state, not county. Within a county the county ordinances control unless you are in a city. In a city, depending upon the nature of the "thing" the city's ordinances may be controlling over the county's. This is particularly true with respect to platting authority which controls subdivisions and "lots". The counties here do not have zoning authority - and that is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 01:20 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,933,119 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You find that in your precious city, not outside the city.



Not sure where the government dependency claim/cause is being made. I'm not looking for the government to promote a "lifestyle". Private government is even worse. Many city subdivisions have both.



But you'll have to pay for it if you live within the taxing jurisdiction of the transit authority regardless of whether there is decent access for you. Perhaps more problematic with ad valorem taxatation as opposed to sales tax where the transit authority benefits from purchasers that don't live or commute in the area.



"anti-urbanists"? I live in an area to avoid the urbanists and all the problems, restrictions, taxes, crime, bad schools, etc. that tend to accompany the "urban lifestyle". We don't have those restrictions where I live. If they have them where you live why don't you either move to a place that doesn't have them or fight them where you are instead of arguing with me and expecting outsiders to solve your problem. I thought it was a democracy there, huh? Not so much - another reason to avoid the city.


There are work arounds that are easily employed. Perhaps the demand is simply not sufficient for the structures and legal regimes that are the product of the work around. Someone previously touted Dallas as having a fine transit system. What density do you believe is necessary? Cities may have an average density but the density can vary greatly within the city limits such that there is a significant standard deviation when the city is mapped on say 0.5 or 1.0 sq mile grids. Senselessly referring to "density" without recognizing the implications of significant variations is a downfall of the pro-mass-transit existence and routing arguments.
Untrue that minimum parking rules exist only in cities. Many counties have them as well, meaning there is no guarantee that you won't have them in any unincorporated area. Just because your unincorporated area doesn't have them doesn't mean all of them don't either.

If you're not looking for the government to promote a "lifestyle," do you also oppose the government planning roads? Who designed, built and maintains the roads in your community? Unless you live in one of the very few places with private roads, you are just as dependent on the government for your transportation when you drive on government-built roads as somebody riding government-built transit.

I have no idea how the fact that I disagree with some city policies means there is no democracy. That makes no sense.

Perhaps the demand is not sufficient for more density - but the only way to find out how much demand there really is is by lifting the regulations that artificially suppress density.
The specific amount of density that I personally believe is necessary is irrelevant because I am not saying planners should aim toward my own preferred number. I would prefer the price of a six pack of beer to be cheaper, but that doesn't mean I think the government should impose price controls to that effect.
The amount of density should be determined by the market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 02:06 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
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
We have additional possibilities: You can live in a geographic territory within a county without being subjected to rule by a lesser subdivision of the state or county.
There are large regional divisons in local government setup nation-wide. The possibilty you describe is does not exist in many states, and in some places counties do have zoning authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,169 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Btw, I've never lived in an area where unincorporated communities exist, evidently you're from another part of the country than me and you're generalizing.
We have some right in the middle of the Bay Area, I know there are many, but I used to drive through these often, they are in my county:
Cherryland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ashland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *I think this one is unincorporated
Castro Valley, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be perfectly honest, all 3 looked just like their neighbors. Well Castro Valley is a little more rural. At the edges, in the hills, there are cowboys and horse crossing on the streets. Other than in the CV hills around the county line, they all looked like generic California suburbs with ranch homes and 50s/60s era strip malls. And had similar zoning rules as well.

There are many more unincorporated places in the Bay Area. They are pretty hard to differentiate from the neighbors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 03:45 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Exactly! You aren't the target market. If you need a parking spot, then you simply cross that building off your list. If you don't need a spot, then you don't need to subsidize the people that do in the building if there is no parking. Everyone incurs the true free market value of the parking spot.
You're not subsidizing them if the parking spot conveys with the unit. Also in such a case it wouldn't matter to you whether they use it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It doesn't have to be. In my city, the areas within 3 miles of downtown (at least in the favored quadrants) have plenty of stuff. You could feasibly never go downtown at all. In fact the people in these neighborhoods didn't even go downtown at all, until the past couple of years of redevelopment. I've lived in the same place for 10 years, and when I first moved in I never went downtown, other than occasionally at the waterfront to go to Barnes and Noble, and I live 1.25 miles from the center of downtown. We are also in an area that is about 20-25% transit-only people. And on the other side of my neighborhood, many buildings do not have parking in the building. Other buildings charge a monthly fee for the parking. Those apartments were even more expensive than mine, ironically, even though I have a parking space. As suspected, I decided not to move into the parking free building, because I wanted a dedicated parking spot. They also have a shorter walk to main street than I have (1-2 blocks vs 3-4 for me).
Relatively speaking that is "downtown" from any area I would be coming from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Actually it is useful to the residents too. Here is a low parking project in Berkeley that became way cheaper for the residents. They got free transit passes, and the developer saved money.
GreenTRIP projects take road not driven - San Francisco Business Times

Here is another similar one:
‘Innovative’ housing with rooftop farms set for southside | Berkeleyside

Carshare is cheaper than owning a car. I have a few friends that use it pretty often. They spend approximately $50-60 a month on carshare, plus the membership fee of about $70. So that works out to be around $800 a year. Even if your car is paid off, It would be hard to spend that little just to insure the car. Forget about gas and maintenance. The thing is, that person has several transportation options: transit, walking, carshare etc. And they can choose what makes the most sense.
Yeah except you need to ensure the car will be there when you need it and you don't have that assurance with car share. You can't use car share effectively for commuting for example nor for a weekend in Tahoe or a trip down the coast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
SF has a car ownership rate of about 50%. And limited space. Car sharing is already popular too, car sharing spaces are currently in private lots all over the city. The only new thing is that SF is opening up some metered spots in public lots to carshare.
Apparently tipping the cars is new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Your assumptions are that everyone wants the same thing. And you also didn't comment on the parking scenario nearby. There was parking controversy in Chicago about a new development that reduced parking requirements. People said there wasn't enough. But on nearby blocks, the parking was rarely more than 40% full. There was actually a parking surplus in the neighborhood.
How far away? I already know that folks don't want the same things. Promoters on this list support hamster style living. No thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Buildings do not need a 1 to 1 parking ratio, all of this needs to be considered in the context of location. If you have a business district where 70% of the visitors travel by foot or transit, no one is going to be clamoring for parking spaces, since the primary customers do not need them.
If one "1" refers the parking space what does the other "1" refer to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Building low or zero-parking buildings can be used as a strategy to decrease congestion, provided you have reasonable alternatives. NYC and SF don't really have parking problems, the problem is people don't really consider how much parking is actually worth to the city (or themselves). Everyone who complains about parking in Manhattan is complaining that there isn't free or cheap parking. There are plenty of $100 parking spots. When parking is "market based" people leave their cars at home. Parking in downtown SF is about $30 a day. As a result, 50% of the commuters to the downtown take transit. If they all drove congestion would be ridiculous. The same is true for Manhattan, people with reasonable alternatives just leave their hypothetical cars at home and use alternate modes. But we, as Americans, have an expectation that all parking should be free and readily available in all locations.
If more parking spaces were available, the price would fall.
Your arguments are along the lines of the article promoted by urbanlife78 which supported promotion of transit by economic harm to car drivers. What you are saying is that transit can be promoted by eliminating the availability of parking in order to make it unaffordable for commuters.

We'll have to disagree on a few points here. Who is the city there for? Public employees? It's kind of like claiming the city collects $10/sf per year for office space and $1 for parking therefore the city should fill all space with office space and none on parking. Congestion already is ridiculous in the area and isn't going to be eliminated by failing to implement additional lanes or parking. I lived in San Jose for a while and though SF was highly overrated in virtually every category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 03:52 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
There are large regional divisons in local government setup nation-wide. The possibilty you describe is does not exist in many states, and in some places counties do have zoning authority.
Well try to change state law or be like the "anti-urbanists" accused of fleeing to a better locale and leave for a place that allows for such possibilities. The complaint I'm hearing is that folks aren't allowed to build a ten story building due to regulations they don't like.

I do not live in such an area and it's hard to have sympathy for those complaining they can't do that where they are, aren't active in lobbying to change the law or zoning classification, aren't willing to move to a location where it isn't a problem, and to top it off ridicule those who leave such areas as "fleeing rather than facing the problems".
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