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, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
354 posts, read 251,125 times
Reputation: 815

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
And if so, who should pay for it?
Yes. The developer.
Also, all new construction in excess of $1,000,000 that's not specifically low-income should be required to be built as an energy producer and not user...by using various energy generation devices like hydro-electric on the wastewater, solar on the roof and windows and various other energy generation methods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2014, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,779,038 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
I think street parking should be banned completely. Streets were not built to be a parking lot, they were built to be driven on.
What line of reasoning do you offer in support of your belief, other than an irrational hatred of cars?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,089,739 times
Reputation: 1208
Minimum parking requirements are wasteful and usually result in lots of unused spots. A "fee in lieu" option is better than an outright minimum requirement, especially if you're in the city where residential and commercial space are at a premium. And it is fair enough since almost every business or residence will generate some demand for parking, even if they don't need to provide all of it in the form of 24/7/365 dedicated spots.

The idea is that the city uses the fees to build and maintain municipal parking facilities and alternative local transportation as needed. Businesses and developers get to decide whether it's worth it to just pay the fee, or to include more parking spots. They have to account for their clientele too: for example, it makes good business sense for luxury apartments to have dedicated parking spots, but this is not so critical if your targeted clientele are mostly college students. In particular some businesses may prefer to make valet parking arrangements for their clients rather than have a large parking lot out in front.

The City has some flexibility in changing the fees for new development, in case there is a situation where there is a clear lack of (or a clear excess of...) parking. There's much more red tape involved in updating outright minimum parking requirements, since it is mixed in with zoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 12:18 PM
46H
 
967 posts, read 590,463 times
Reputation: 1874
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
??? 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.
Your problem isn't parking, its where you live. High demand equals high prices.

When builders want to build high density in suburban or established towns, there needs to be a place to put the cars. Unless you live and work in a city or area with great mass transit, a car is a necessity in most places in the US. Even in places with great mass transit you might not be able to get to your job without a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,476 posts, read 11,975,150 times
Reputation: 10577
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
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.
This should be possible with a modified permit system. Say you assign all existing residences tags (the kind you hang off your rear view mirror) which allow them to have a certain number street-side spaces. Then allow them to sell them to neighbors if they so desire. The market will then work out how much an on-street parking permit is worth. Renters could buy (at potentially a hefty price) the right to use an off-street parking permit. And the amount of cars within a neighborhood parking on a street would be capped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
I think street parking should be banned completely. Streets were not built to be a parking lot, they were built to be driven on.
If we're talking about older cities, the streets weren't even originally built to be driven on, but to be walked on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H View Post
When builders want to build high density in suburban or established towns, there needs to be a place to put the cars. Unless you live and work in a city or area with great mass transit, a car is a necessity in most places in the US. Even in places with great mass transit you might not be able to get to your job without a car.
In suburban-type areas, no developer would ever build a development without parking, because even most poor people drive, and need a place to put their cars. So parking minimums are effectively useless anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 12:46 PM
46H
 
967 posts, read 590,463 times
Reputation: 1874
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In suburban-type areas, no developer would ever build a development without parking, because even most poor people drive, and need a place to put their cars. So parking minimums are effectively useless anyway.
Around here, developers are always trying build properties without enough parking places. It is SOP.
Even with parking negotiated to try and accommodate demand there are many residential and commercial buildings with bad parking situations during normal high usage times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 01:01 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
45,992 posts, read 42,100,107 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In suburban-type areas, no developer would ever build a development without parking, because even most poor people drive, and need a place to put their cars. So parking minimums are effectively useless anyway.
The developer would build no parking and have the residents rely on street parking, which is ample in most suburbs. Fancier developments in suburbia would get off street parking as the additional cost for more parking is often small (land isn't that scarce) and it's still a positive selling point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
354 posts, read 251,125 times
Reputation: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Except that parking is a very expensive amenity in an apartment building which makes housing unaffordable, especially for those on the margin.

People who don't wannt to pay for a pool can find plenty of townhouses without a pool. Parking is usually required by government whether people want it or not. Huge difference.


If Portlanders hope to address the area’s growing housing affordability problem, maybe they should get over their aversion to apartments built without parking spaces.

(snip)

Ben Schonberger, a board member of Housing Land Advocates, a local nonprofit that promotes affordable housing, said developers usually will charge what the market will bear on rents, so there’s no guarantee they’ll pass on savings from parking to tenants. But on the macro level, he said, studies show mandatory parking requirements make rents higher.

Expert: Find a place to park affordable housing


Clearly you have a very specific opinion on this subject based in a very selfish mindset. This is the biggest problem with people like you, you only care about yourselves and you have no concept of the mass benefits that these things can bring.

We get it, you're poor and you don't have a car, boo-hoo. But guess who has cars...everyone else. Parking in urban areas is a very significant problem and it causes traffic, accidents, and leaves residents open to violence because they often have to walk alone at night through seedy areas because that's the only place to park. Plus, you have friends, right? I mean, maybe you do...the posts kinda suggest otherwise...but if you actually have friends they are likely to have cars. Well, coming over to visit you without any parking available is a hassle to them.

Part of that affordability problem is the fact that too much land space has to be taken up by parking lots. Let's say you take a parking lot, a flat piece of asphalt that covers a whole block and convert it into a high-rise with three levels of parking...hmm, wouldn't that drive down housing costs because there'd be more places to live?

There's literally dozens of parking lots, plus countless parking spaces, in every downtown in America...requiring all newly-constructed urban dwellings to be self-sustaining when it comes to parking would benefit far more people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 01:21 PM
 
9,794 posts, read 4,601,984 times
Reputation: 12726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
What line of reasoning do you offer in support of your belief, other than an irrational hatred of cars?
Hatred of cars? First time I've been accused of that. Lol.

I gave you a reason - streets were built for cars to drive on not to park on.

What defines when it is ok to park? Why not just park in the right lane of a major artery already clogged with traffic? There aren't any No Parking signs because it's just common sense.

Street parking is a hazard. How many times have you seen a street perfectly wide enough for cars to pass in both directions but because of parked cars there is only one lane? Then you get to play chicken and go for it, hoping someone doesn't come from the other end or will wait. And you never know when a person is going to step out from between parked cars or open a car door. You can't see cars backing out of driveways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 01:33 PM
 
1,999 posts, read 2,940,431 times
Reputation: 2154
Actually far from being a hazard, on-street parking tends to reduce crashes:

Reassessing On-Street Parking - Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board - Volume 2046, Volume 2046 / 2008 Performance Measurement, Demand Management, and Issues of Major U.S. Cities - Transportation Research Board

"Low-speed streets with on-street parking also had the lowest fatal and severe crash rates of any road category in the study of 250 Connecticut roadway segments. Part of the reason is that the presence of parking had a measurable effect on vehicle speeds."
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