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 10-03-2014, 02:13 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,560,099 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

Do people seriously think that "urbanists" are somehow angry at grass and trees?

Removing required parking minimums for businesses is not the same as "purposely trying to make it h3ll for people to park." Just the opposite--the idea is to leave it up to the business to decide how much parking they need (if any at all) instead of forcing them to comply with an arbitrary minimum number of spaces.

Here's a pharmacy that might be satisfactory to more than one type of visitor:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...9a7569!6m1!1e1

The entrance is right on the corner, visible and accessible from the street. Just behind the building on the left is a small parking lot. Just behind the building to the right is a residential neighborhood, people who live nearby can far more easily walk over than get in a car, drive, park, and drive home. Note the tree-lined shaded sidewalk and *gasp* grass! There is a bus stop right in front of the building. Also visible on the left is a light rail line, the station is two blocks away. Seniors who are still mobile but can't drive a car can reach this drugstore quite easily, as can people with cars. There is even a bike rack, although it's kind of small.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2014, 03:40 PM
 
358 posts, read 359,810 times
Reputation: 306
To me, a neighborhood is walkable if the buildings and streets are scaled in a way that walking to places is convenient, quick, and safe.

This can be done by having wide maintained sidewalks, narrow streets, and buildings close to the sidewalk and each other.

Sure, one could say that any place with a sidewalk is walkable, but if you don't see pedestrian traffic, it probably isn't
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 04:20 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Do people seriously think that "urbanists" are somehow angry at grass and trees?

Removing required parking minimums for businesses is not the same as "purposely trying to make it h3ll for people to park." Just the opposite--the idea is to leave it up to the business to decide how much parking they need (if any at all) instead of forcing them to comply with an arbitrary minimum number of spaces.

Here's a pharmacy that might be satisfactory to more than one type of visitor:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...9a7569!6m1!1e1

The entrance is right on the corner, visible and accessible from the street. Just behind the building on the left is a small parking lot. Just behind the building to the right is a residential neighborhood, people who live nearby can far more easily walk over than get in a car, drive, park, and drive home. Note the tree-lined shaded sidewalk and *gasp* grass! There is a bus stop right in front of the building. Also visible on the left is a light rail line, the station is two blocks away. Seniors who are still mobile but can't drive a car can reach this drugstore quite easily, as can people with cars. There is even a bike rack, although it's kind of small.
That's double talk. What if the pharmacy owner decided s/he needed the whole block for his/ her business? Why should a business owner, in this case probably a pharmacist, have to determine the number of parking spaces needed? Why are so many on here so sympathetic to developers? One purpose of requiring off street parking is to keep the streets passable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 04:31 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Any organic material will release CO2 when it decays. Cut grass will basically release 100% of the CO2 contained within it. If grass is consumed by a grazing animal a percentage of the available carbon will be used for metabolism, which will keep it trapped in biomass longer. But the only way to sequester it is burying it deep underground, eventually forming coal deposits.

This is one reason, just to give an example, why hydroelectric power isn't always "greener" than other forms of power. If a dam floods a forested area, the vegetation (and whatever animals were there) will all decay and ultimately release CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.



I never said they were only a British thing, but the cultural antecedents of the U.S. lawn originated in the English country manor. Other countries probably had parallel developments, since they were also used to estates having pastureland surrounding them, and thus flat expanses of grass around grand houses were considered to be desirable.

Of course, there's also the savanna hypothesis, which claims there are inborn genetic reasons humans across all cultures tend to prefer open grassland with scattered trees (at least in childhood - as adults preferences shift somewhat to whatever the local norm is).
You are greatly misrepresenting the savanna hypothesis. Here is a synopsis. There are many other articles about it to be found on Google. Savanna hypothesis - RationalWiki. Note there is much controversy about the hypothesis and it hasn't reached the "theory" level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 04:32 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's double talk. What if the pharmacy owner decided s/he needed the whole block for his/ her business? Why should a business owner, in this case probably a pharmacist, have to determine the number of parking spaces needed? Why are so many on here so sympathetic to developers? One purpose of requiring off street parking is to keep the streets passable.
How is that double talk? Parking takes up valuable land. Having lots of parking in a walkable will mean there's less to walk to, and inflate costs due to land acquisition, which might be impractical. If it worth it, businesses can pay to make sure to have it. If not, not. I haven't seen any impassable streets in areas with scarce parking. I'm not a libertarian, but I don't see why businesses shouldn't choose how much parking to provide. It has nothing to do with developers, people object to rules that make the type of neighborhood prefer from being built.

And how do you get much anything besides strip malls with high commercial parking requirements? In any case, wburg's example has parking.

Last edited by nei; 10-04-2014 at 04:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 04:47 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Do people seriously think that "urbanists" are somehow angry at grass and trees?

Removing required parking minimums for businesses is not the same as "purposely trying to make it h3ll for people to park." Just the opposite--the idea is to leave it up to the business to decide how much parking they need (if any at all) instead of forcing them to comply with an arbitrary minimum number of spaces.

Here's a pharmacy that might be satisfactory to more than one type of visitor:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...9a7569!6m1!1e1
And here's one that's not. Not a large town but it has no parking

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3193...usHqACJkVg!2e0

business decide it can manage without it. And it's convenient for those on foot. Sometimes businesses can survive on pedestrian traffic, though some can come and park inconveniently, they'd probably go elsewhere.

Your example "works for both" however probably (not familiar with the area) isn't in as heavily pedestrian-oriented area as one where the stores are mostly parking-less. It's a sliding scale, but I'd argue something like this is more walkable. Here enough businesses are a short distance away that going on foot for most doesn't eat up time compared to driving (though there's little parking, but even compared to driving time in a more spread out area)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6285...6DAJD_Cu6Q!2e0

Not much greenery, though, I'd prefer more myself. There's no requirement for parking at all, though where there's certain businesses will add it because it's good for business (supermarkets, for example)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 05:01 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You are greatly misrepresenting the savanna hypothesis. Here is a synopsis. There are many other articles about it to be found on Google. Savanna hypothesis - RationalWiki. Note there is much controversy about the hypothesis and it hasn't reached the "theory" level.
That hypothesis in your link appears to be something different from the described in escahton's link, which cites scientific papers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 05:39 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,066 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If not, not. I haven't seen any impassable streets in areas with scarce parking. I'm not a libertarian, but I don't see why businesses shouldn't choose how much parking to provide. It has nothing to do with developers, people object to rules that make the type of neighborhood prefer from being built.

And how do you get much anything besides strip malls with high commercial parking requirements? In any case, wburg's example has parking.
I have seen areas where lack of parking causes street traffic to slow to an crawl and it is not good for traffic that needs to go down that particular street. It also is an inconvenience to people who actually do intend to drive and shop on said street and they may go elsewhere to spend their cash rather than deal with the bad parking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 05:42 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
It also is an inconvenience to people who actually do intend to drive and shop on said street and they may go elsewhere to spend their cash rather than deal with the bad parking.
well that's why I wouldn't oppose any restriction on businesses having parking (except in certain cases). But if business think they're fine without it, let them choose so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2014, 05:51 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,066 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
well that's why I wouldn't oppose any restriction on businesses having parking (except in certain cases). But if business think they're fine without it, let them choose so.
That is the way that situation developed in the first place. The business in question had parking to the rear. The area became high crime and they disallowed use of said parking on grounds of security and now the street gets clogged with cars and cars that have double parked and should you actually want to buy something there at those(high priced, poor selection, small city stores) you find parking an problem.

Oh and in that link there is parking behind the buildings.

Last edited by chirack; 10-04-2014 at 06:23 PM..
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