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.
Walkability *is* having your cake and eating it too. Just the opposite of "making it a PITA to park without appearing to do so"--the idea is appearing to make it a PITA to park (by moving the storefront to the sidewalk edge, facilitating other modes of transit, mixed use) without having done so (by reducing minimums and relocating parking to back/side/shared lots, street parking, reduced need via density.)
My neighborhood lacks (much) parking. It's very cute.
And their customer base is limited to nearby neighbors. I think certain business should have min. parking like say an doctor's office, an restaurant that has seating, and any other things that is likely to tie up traffic as well as cause problems for the area. I have seen what happens when places lack parking and it ain't cute, it is ugly and annoying.
I've seen that, too, and found those places are often pleasant*. Restaurants often choose to be in the center of town and in commerical districts without parking, often those are the cuter area of town. A restaurant customer isn't going to double park. The drivers can be accommodated by a mix of private lots and street parking, especially when not everyone drivers, which I assume is the case in these discussion since the thread is about walkable places.
*Almost all of Brooklyn stores lack off street parking, it's never going to have pleasant traffic but driving is manageable (and the worst spots have little to do cars trying to find parking, it's at most a minor nuisance) it's easy to walk once you park somewhere. But the whole area is so congested, driving will always be somewhat of a pain. I've driven through No Park Slope
Walkability *is* having your cake and eating it too. Just the opposite of "making it a PITA to park without appearing to do so"--the idea is appearing to make it a PITA to park (by moving the storefront to the sidewalk edge, facilitating other modes of transit, mixed use) without having done so (by reducing minimums and relocating parking to back/side/shared lots, street parking, reduced need via density.)
To a certain extent. Past a certain point in the most walkable places, parking does become cumbersome. Take any San Francisco neighborhood except the outermost ones. There's plenty in walking distance but parking right next to your destination isn't usually possible. Of course, even a new neighborhood without any parking requirements would have a bit more available parking, it's hard to squeeze parking in old neighborhood. Since the neighborhoods are so walkable, I don't see why the lack of convenient parking is that big of an issue since it's so walkable and plenty still manage to drive around. I think expecting being able to park right next to your destination everywhere is an unreasonable level of convenience to expect everywhere. You can't expect maximum pedestrian convenience anywhere everywhere, either.
Well, maybe double talk wasn't the right word, but wburg wants to make parking somewhat of a PITA, but claims he doesn't want to eliminate parking, just wants to let businesses decide how much they need, etc. Have his cake and eat it too, in other words. Restrict parking w/o appearing to restrict parking. Make it a PITA to park without appearing to do so.
It would decrease parking availability, but those business that think it's worth the cost can still add it. Removing a mandate and calling a restriction is a bit of a stretch, IMO. His examples of "somewhat of a PITA" look worse than a typical suburb, but there's still a lot of parking around.
Throughout most of the US, you'd probably be right. But, that's because we've become auto-dependent. So, how can we break this cycle? (we continue to build infrastructure that is most convenient for automobile use, which requires everyone to drive, which encourages building more infrastructure convenient for automobile use, etc., etc.) One way, would be to eliminate minimum parking requirements, IMO.
It would decrease parking availability, but those business that think it's worth the cost can still add it. Removing a mandate and calling a restriction is a bit of a stretch, IMO. His examples of "somewhat of a PITA" look worse than a typical suburb, but there's still a lot of parking around.
How are they going to do that? I know Halloween is coming and all, but you don't really think they can conjure up parking where none exists? Many businesses rent their buildings. They don't have the option or the resources to tear down part of the building to make parking. Your solution sounds good, but it's unworkable.
To a certain extent. Past a certain point in the most walkable places, parking does become cumbersome. Take any San Francisco neighborhood except the outermost ones. There's plenty in walking distance but parking right next to your destination isn't usually possible. Of course, even a new neighborhood without any parking requirements would have a bit more available parking, it's hard to squeeze parking in old neighborhood. Since the neighborhoods are so walkable, I don't see why the lack of convenient parking is that big of an issue since it's so walkable and plenty still manage to drive around. I think expecting being able to park right next to your destination everywhere is an unreasonable level of convenience to expect everywhere. You can't expect maximum pedestrian convenience anywhere everywhere, either.
That's kind of the point--the loss of the parking isn't as big of an inconvenience once it is actually done, once you make the trip outside the car-centric comfort zone and get over the idea that there has to be a parking space for each possible car in front of each possible place they might want to visit, people realize it's really not that big of a pain after all. It's kind of like encouraging people to quit smoking or better dietary choices. Promote healthy habits, discourage unhealthy ones.
I don't expect maximum pedestrian convenience everywhere. Part of the joy of a walkable neighborhood is the entertaining dance on the street--which consists almost entirely of people who are walking to another place that isn't immediately next door. And for certain uses, car-centric design and larger parking lots is of course called for. But I do expect more pedestrian convenience.
Does that mean Boulder is a ghost town with no businesses because of the lack of parking? I am pretty sure Boulder is a pretty walkable town, that tends to come with being a college town.
That's kind of the point--the loss of the parking isn't as big of an inconvenience once it is actually done, once you make the trip outside the car-centric comfort zone and get over the idea that there has to be a parking space for each possible car in front of each possible place they might want to visit, people realize it's really not that big of a pain after all. It's kind of like encouraging people to quit smoking or better dietary choices. Promote healthy habits, discourage unhealthy ones.
I don't expect maximum pedestrian convenience everywhere. Part of the joy of a walkable neighborhood is the entertaining dance on the street--which consists almost entirely of people who are walking to another place that isn't immediately next door. And for certain uses, car-centric design and larger parking lots is of course called for. But I do expect more pedestrian convenience.
Exactly, my walkable neighborhood doesn't need to have parking for every business to have active businesses. In the neighborhood there are about 10,400 residents, and it is easy for people in other parts of the metro to street park and walk if they wish to go to any of the businesses.
Does that mean Boulder is a ghost town with no businesses because of the lack of parking? I am pretty sure Boulder is a pretty walkable town, that tends to come with being a college town.
No, she said a few businesses have moved out of the city center for the lack of parking. I can't judge how accurate that is, but I don't know how you get ghost town from that?
Does that mean Boulder is a ghost town with no businesses because of the lack of parking? I am pretty sure Boulder is a pretty walkable town, that tends to come with being a college town.
Boulder is very walkable partly because they have managed their parking really well.
Downtown there are three large structured parking lots paid for by a downtown improvement district, a very few public surface lots and street parking is managed for turnover. There is also good bus access from most of town. I also believe Boulder has the biggest Bike Share program in the country for a city of 100k.
I lived close enough to downtown for 30+ years that I did not need to find parking.
Most of the people I know that work downtown get bus passes or their employer provides parking.
Most locals know where to find parking even on Friday night, it seems to mostly be tourists that
complain about parking.
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.
