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 09-22-2014, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,313,950 times
Reputation: 3827

Advertisements

In some of the newer developments in Chicago, due to mandatory minimum parking requirements developers are forced to build more parking spaces than they might build otherwise in order to satisfy market demand. In some of these buildings, up to 50% of the parking spaces are going unsold/unrented as a result. Given that the cost of building a parking space in a parking deck can easily exceed $50,000 in a congested city like Chicago, that's a lot of extra construction costs that must be borne by the builder, which of course will be passed on to the buyers/tenants.

If there is market demand for parking, smart developers will include parking in their project. I don't really see a reason for government to step in and demand additional parking to be built above and beyond market demand, unless the government is in the business of subsidizing parking/driving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2014, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,635,222 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
: smack::s mack:

The developer, in turn, passes the cost to tenants in the form of jacked up rent. D'OH!

e.g. apartments that could rent for $1000 without any parking now rent $1100 because the required parking reduces the number of apartments that can be built. It is possible to allocate the entire set of costs (including the opportunity costs represented by foregone apartments and their rents) to the tenants with cars (e.g. charge those with cars $1200 while keeping the car-free at $1000) but that's unlikely to happen.
And?

I actually support city codes that allow an apartment building to have less parking available with buildings near major transit lines. This saves a developer money and makes it easier for them to get a building built.

But your argument is off base, basically all renters are paying what it cost a developer to build a building....the same can be said about owners. If a developer built a condo building, they would also pass those costs on to the buyer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 09:02 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
45,993 posts, read 42,180,376 times
Reputation: 14811
Taking the other side for a moment, I'll use the neighborhood I currently live in. Mostly older housing stocks with houses and 2-3 unit buildings. There are more cars than off street parking spaces (made worse by some have driveways where if multiple cars park they'd be blocked in). So they park on the street, most of the street parking spaces are used at any given time. Not perfectly convenient but everyone manages. And not everyone has cars, so it's unnecesary for a strict # of space = # of adult residents requirements. So far, so good. Now one street has an old, large non-residential building that got converted to apartments. If no off street parking spaces were built, the neighboring couple streets would no longer have any space left. A second such building would flood the neighborhood. In this particular instance, the building has enough space in it that a developer could easily create a surface lot, parking requirements might not have been needed. But very large buildings with no parking would be viewed as a nuisance by the neighborhood. Some smaller scale ones that don't quite have enough for every resident? That would be fine.

Now, if the area was a college student area or a dense urban area, the car ownership rate would be lower and the tenants attracted to a parking-less building would lean towards the car-less. It depends on the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,494 posts, read 12,006,720 times
Reputation: 10581
In general, I don't think parking minimums are needed in new development. A developer will, when constructing a new building of reasonable size, undertake a market study. This should estimate how many renters will have zero, one, or two cars, and how many spaces would be reasonably needed to attract renters at the desired rent level. Undoubtedly there will be some people who wouldn't want to pay the premium, and would try and make do with off-street spaces, but apartment buildings are frequently located in metered areas, rather than permit or free ares, meaning there are relatively few who would bother.

The only time it may be an issue is in situations where you have a reasonably large apartment building under consideration in a smaller-scale neighborhood. In most cities zoning precludes this for other reasons, for better or worse, as the new apartments are focused in the areas already high density (although I understand Portland is an exception here). In this case people might see that there is free (or almost free, if you buy a permit) parking in the neighborhood. Developers, particularly smaller-scale ones, may try to get away without having parking available, and certainly the on-street parking supply in the neighborhood will worsen.

Still, speaking as someone who has parked on-street in a neighborhood with tight parking for years, this is fine. I don't have a right to park in front of my house - it's a public right of way available to everyone. And in the longer run (although I'm leaving the neighborhood) I'm hoping the tight parking will change the neighborhood for the better, with more people locating here who want to live a car-free lifestyle, until some equilibrium is reached. Certainly I don't think that the City should try and freeze the neighborhood in its tracks just to please long-term residents. One of the great things about cities is how they are forever changing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 09:44 AM
 
15,690 posts, read 13,635,968 times
Reputation: 21589
There are buildings in Miami and the DC area without parking, and guess what, the rent is not any more or less than other equivalent buildings. Actually in Miami, the new building they built without parking, it cost more in rent than a few other buildings around it with parking.

The lack of parking also makes it more difficult to sell/rent because you just narrowed your market for the unit.

If you have a parking space you do not use, do what everyone else does, rent it out, it is not a difficult concept.

I do not use many amenities in my condo building; the pool, exercise room, valet, conference room, etc; I do not use none of those, yet I pay for them.

This is rather a trivial topic; OP, there are numerous low cost places to rent in any city, it is just I think you want to live in certain, high end areas that you cannot afford, thus lashing out at the world that the reason you cannot afford it is because of factors like parking. Sorry, but your "$100 extra" is not based on any facts, also, if you cannot afford the extra $100, you cannot afford to live their anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,805,128 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
In some of the newer developments in Chicago, due to mandatory minimum parking requirements developers are forced to build more parking spaces than they might build otherwise in order to satisfy market demand. In some of these buildings, up to 50% of the parking spaces are going unsold/unrented as a result. Given that the cost of building a parking space in a parking deck can easily exceed $50,000 in a congested city like Chicago, that's a lot of extra construction costs that must be borne by the builder, which of course will be passed on to the buyers/tenants.

If there is market demand for parking, smart developers will include parking in their project. I don't really see a reason for government to step in and demand additional parking to be built above and beyond market demand, unless the government is in the business of subsidizing parking/driving.
How can there not be market demand for parking? Chicago must be a strange place indeed. And yes, I am aware of Manhattan (New York City).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 09:59 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
45,993 posts, read 42,180,376 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
How can there not be market demand for parking? Chicago must be a strange place indeed. And yes, I am aware of Manhattan (New York City).
Dense urban places aren't strange; they're just different than what you're used to. Manhattan has plenty of market demand for parking, the price of an off street space is very high. However, there's more market for housing (or businesses, etc.) than additional parking in most cases. Parts of Chicago might be similar, even parts of Los Angeles likely has that situation. [The situation in Manhattan is confused because much of it is under a parking maximum, opposite of what's being discussed, inflating the value of off street parking]

Also, car ownership is still lower in Brooklyn and other parts of the outer boroughs than say, most of San Francisco. It's not just Manhattan.

As of oakparkdude's situation, that building is probably attracting disporationate numbers of non-car owners. But the legal requirement for parking is more than the number of cars the tenants have. Possibly the building might be able to rent out those spaces to others but why should the building have had to build those spaces in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 10:04 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,169,885 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
There are buildings in Miami and the DC area without parking, and guess what, the rent is not any more or less than other equivalent buildings. Actually in Miami, the new building they built without parking, it cost more in rent than a few other buildings around it with parking.

The lack of parking also makes it more difficult to sell/rent because you just narrowed your market for the unit.

If you have a parking space you do not use, do what everyone else does, rent it out, it is not a difficult concept.

I do not use many amenities in my condo building; the pool, exercise room, valet, conference room, etc; I do not use none of those, yet I pay for them.

This is rather a trivial topic; OP, there are numerous low cost places to rent in any city, it is just I you want to live in certain, high end areas that you cannot afford, thus lashing out at the world that the reason you cannot afford it is because of factors like parking. Sorry, but your "$100 extra" is not based on any facts, also, if you cannot afford the extra $100, you can'not afford to live their anyway.

??? I'm paying more than half my income to rent a room in a dysfunctional house of five in a crappy neighborhood which is not walkable and isn't remotely close to anything. I'm below 30% of median income for one person, and there is very little housing cheap enough to be considered affordable at 30 percent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,313,950 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
There are buildings in Miami and the DC area without parking, and guess what, the rent is not any more or less than other equivalent buildings. Actually in Miami, the new building they built without parking, it cost more in rent than a few other buildings around it with parking.

The lack of parking also makes it more difficult to sell/rent because you just narrowed your market for the unit.

If you have a parking space you do not use, do what everyone else does, rent it out, it is not a difficult concept.

I do not use many amenities in my condo building; the pool, exercise room, valet, conference room, etc; I do not use none of those, yet I pay for them.

This is rather a trivial topic; OP, there are numerous low cost places to rent in any city, it is just I think you want to live in certain, high end areas that you cannot afford, thus lashing out at the world that the reason you cannot afford it is because of factors like parking. Sorry, but your "$100 extra" is not based on any facts, also, if you cannot afford the extra $100, you cannot afford to live their anyway.
The difference is that there is generally no government regulation that mandates that builders must include a pool or valet. Presumably, the builder has made a decision that including these amenities makes sense because there is demand for it. If they guess wrong, they bear the financial consequences of that decision. With laws regulating parking minimums, even if they believe there is less parking demand than mandated, they still must build the legally mandated number of parking spaces.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 11:06 AM
 
9,846 posts, read 4,628,151 times
Reputation: 12830
I don't think a developer should be legally required to provide parking but neither should they be allowed to pass it off on others. If the apartment doesn't offer a parking space to a tenant then the tenant should have no place to park. Then tenants with cars will effectively be unable to rent there.

I think street parking should be banned completely. Streets were not built to be a parking lot, they were built to be driven on.
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