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 10-13-2014, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,102 posts, read 16,171,032 times
Reputation: 12713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
You didn't say that they have parking maximums, which are unusual in American cities (Chicago has none, I'm not sure if Boston has one, if it does it's very limited, nowhere in Brooklyn does much of it being denser than anywhere in Seattle at least in the residential sense). I assumed you were referring to parking minimums as that was the subject of the conversation. You could have just mentioned they had them being insulting. Lack of a parking minimum isn't really artificially increasing the cost of driving, a parking minimum is artificially decreasing the cost of driving whatever its merits.
Hence why I explicitly said they aren't most of the city that have those anti-car policies designed to artificial increase the cost of driving. Reading comprehension is always helpful. Anyway, we've had this conversation about Seattle's parking maximums before.

Also, were you aware that downtown Seattle is roughly twice as dense as Brooklyn is? The residential parts of downtown Seattle peak at over 100,000 per square mile. That's at the Census Block Group level, not the tract level. It really wouldn't surprise me if Brooklyn had areas that were denser than that, but it's very clearly not "much of it." Just FYI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2014, 12:46 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
45,993 posts, read 42,190,847 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Hence why I explicitly said they aren't most of the city that have those anti-car policies designed to artificial increase the cost of driving. Reading comprehension is always helpful. Anyway, we've had this conversation about Seattle's parking maximums before.
It wasn't clear whether you were referring to parking maximums or no parking minimums as anti-car policies. Yea, I remembered the parking maximum conversation before, but I don't think escaton did or is aware parking maximums exist there.

Quote:
Also, were you aware that downtown Seattle is roughly twice as dense as Brooklyn is? The residential parts of downtown Seattle peak at over 100,000 per square mile. That's at the Census Block Group level, not the tract level. It really wouldn't surprise me if Brooklyn had areas that were denser than that, but it's very clearly not "much of it." Just FYI.
I was thinking of the neighborhood level. A block group is so tiny a few big apartment complexes in a block will give huge numbers. Brooklyn has a number of census tracts (don't know about block groups, which would obviously be higher) that are above 100,000 per square mile, maybe amounting to 5% of its population. A friend lived in a neighborhood that had a bunch: his tract was 82k / sq mile, surrounding ones to the east and south were 100k/sq mile. Not ever mentioned on the forum, wouldn't mention it since other Brooklyn neighborhoods are brought up, though I think I have posted streetview of it. East of 5th avenue is 115k / sq mile:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Su...a80df632?hl=en

Interesting part is it's no more structurally dense than Park Slope. Just mostly poor / working-class immigrant class families (mostly Mexican in the western half mixed with an older heavily Puerto Rican population, mostly Chinese in the eastern half). The pedestrian volume on 5th is obviously higher than Park Slope, reflecting the higher density. Parking isn't bad at all, probably because car ownership is lower than Park Slope (car commute % is about the same) because fewer locals own cars due to lack of income. The street parked cars will sometimes blast hispanic music on weekends. My friend eventually left Sunset Park for Park Slope mainly because he was tired of living in a place where English wasn't the native language.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 12:50 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
45,993 posts, read 42,190,847 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And put it in Kansas where all the residents would drive.
Of course, I never suggested that. But even without parking requirements, a neighborhood that car-unfriendly would never get built in Kansas. Market forces would build more parking than that, Park Slope's situation is from being built pre-automobile. And I doubt a neighborhood that dense would get built Kansas, or near that density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,494 posts, read 12,010,361 times
Reputation: 10581
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It wasn't clear whether you were referring to parking maximums or no parking minimums as anti-car policies. Yea, I remembered the parking maximum conversation before, but I don't think eschaton did or is aware parking maximums exist there.
I was not. To the best of my knowledge, I thought parking maximums only existed in the U.S. in New York City. And quite honestly, when I Google Seattle "parking maximum" or San Francisco "parking maximum" surprisingly little comes up - including absolutely nothing official on city planning and/or zoning sites for either city. Mostly what comes up are blog references and citations on nonprofit organization websites - many of which are dated, and none of which provide clear maps of the parking maximum areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,640,529 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Like street dances or something? The other uses you stated later are all motor vehicles except for bike lanes, and some "real" bicyclists don't like bike lanes. A bicyclist is not required to use a bike lane in Colorado.
Rules of the road: City of Fort Collins

I did not realize all urbanists thought alike on the subject of wide roads (or any subject).
And? More than one use doesn't mean more than just motor vehicles. I doubt you will see anyone driving their personal streetcar to work.

Yep, some bicyclists don't use bike lanes, does that mean we shouldn't have bike lanes for those that do use bike lanes? I prefer to ride in bike lanes when they are available because I feel it puts me in a place that is more noticeable to drivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,102 posts, read 16,171,032 times
Reputation: 12713
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I was not. To the best of my knowledge, I thought parking maximums only existed in the U.S. in New York City. And quite honestly, when I Google Seattle "parking maximum" or San Francisco "parking maximum" surprisingly little comes up - including absolutely nothing official on city planning and/or zoning sites for either city. Mostly what comes up are blog references and citations on nonprofit organization websites - many of which are dated, and none of which provide clear maps of the parking maximum areas.
Seattle Municipal Code

There you go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,121 posts, read 102,914,544 times
Reputation: 33171
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
They could charge for street parking or create some type of resident permit system. In any case, with more parking you'd likely get more driving overall there and why pave over more space? There's also something odd from your link:

In the survey, the average length of residents’ searches for parking was 27 minutes, though a lucky 40 percent said they found parking in 10 minutes or less.

40% is close to the median, but 27 minutes is much higher than 10 minutes.
Many cities have residential parking permits. Heck, I remember them from the early 80s back in Urbana, IL. Several neighborhoods in Denver have them. I should know. I got a ticket for parking in one once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I was not. To the best of my knowledge, I thought parking maximums only existed in the U.S. in New York City. And quite honestly, when I Google Seattle "parking maximum" or San Francisco "parking maximum" surprisingly little comes up - including absolutely nothing official on city planning and/or zoning sites for either city. Mostly what comes up are blog references and citations on nonprofit organization websites - many of which are dated, and none of which provide clear maps of the parking maximum areas.
Correct. What some cities do is merely make parking difficult, with no or inadequate off-street parking requirements and the like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 03:10 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
45,993 posts, read 42,190,847 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Many cities have residential parking permits. Heck, I remember them from the early 80s back in Urbana, IL. Several neighborhoods in Denver have them. I should know. I got a ticket for parking in one once.
I know. Boston or Philly has them in their neighborhoods where the streets are mostly full of residents' cars. know. London has them, too. I'm not sure why NYC doesn't, the city claim is it's too difficult to enforce. As for free residential parking in Manhattan, there's this Seinfeld quote:

George trying to find a parking space]
Elaine: Why don’t you park in a garage?
George Costanza: …Parking at a garage is like going to a prostitute. Why pay for it when you can apply yourself, and then may be you can get it for free.


George Costanza on Parking « Designing The P2P Carsharing Experience

Quote:
Correct. What some cities do is merely make parking difficult, with no or inadequate off-street parking requirements and the like.
Most of the areas would be difficult to park in anyway, they were mostly built pre-mass car ownership, an off street parking requirement would only make a minor difference. Adequate is subjective, I found parking adequate when driving into Brooklyn, though others might disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 10:47 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,175,598 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And put it in Kansas where all the residents would drive.

Zoning isn't just about the neighborhood level. It's about how the city and region interacts. It's obviously perfectly acceptable to have half the traffic in Park Slope just be people aimlessly circling for parking and people obviously are willing to spend $80,000 and $240/mo for off-street parking in Park Slope. That doesn't mean it's a good model.

Heck hard to argue against parking minimums even somewhere like Park Slope where parking is so impacted. Of course, if they just priced parking appropriately that would help. But it's free street parking mostly so you obviously can never use the free market to allocate free.

I can argue against parking minimums as long as they impose a cost on residents without cars. \\

Heck, hard to argue in support of parking minimums until you stop soaking those wthout cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,102 posts, read 16,171,032 times
Reputation: 12713
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I can argue against parking minimums as long as they impose a cost on residents without cars. \\

Heck, hard to argue in support of parking minimums until you stop soaking those wthout cars.
You can argue against anything you want for whatever reason you want.

And, no, it isn't. I never use transit where I live. Plenty of people argue that we should support transit here even though most people never use it and non-transit users are just getting soaked with taxes.

Society - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Not the absence of: me, me, me, and more me. As a society, we fund transit, schools, parks, and so on even though not everyone uses them. Stop being completely self-centered. That doesn't mean you can't argue against them, of course. It just means it absolutely is not hard to argue for them despite it not benefiting you.
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