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 10-17-2014, 01:33 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,567,280 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

Parking like the air we breathe, eh? The problem is, all this "free" parking (which of course is not free, someone else pays for it) means more people driving, which means more pollution in the air, which means the air we breathe is more and more poisoned, meaning greater and greater measures must be taken to protect the air we breathe, at greater expense. So there is an inverse relationship between abundant parking and clean air--another cost to be paid for "free" parking.

For many in the Baby Boom generation, especially those born and raised in the suburbs, it must be very difficult to envision a world that isn't ruled by the automobile and subject to its demands. They aren't old enough to remember the days when automobiles didn't rule the streets, and when places like schools, churches, parks, workplaces, and even places where Boy Scouts met, didn't have parking lots, because they were not needed. But younger folks are subject to the lessons taught by older generations--and the consequences of those generations' lack of foresight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2014, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
I really don't think most Millenials learned the cars are the root of all evil message you think they did wburg. Most Millenials still drive and don't think cars are bad things. Most just aren't Luddites who think we should go back to a pre-automobile way of life.

It's just an economic reality. Mobility declined by 20% for the 18-34 demographic between 1995/2001 and 2009. It really doesn't have anything to do with a preference for places without parking lots. "Oh, God, I wouldn't shop there. It has a parking lot and I learned in my parking-lot-less church that cars are evil." No. Millenials are just less mobile. When you're as a group less mobile and more likely to use transit/walk/bike, you naturally shift and become more interested in those things.

Even in Hipsterville Pearl District, the church one of my friends living there goes to has a parking lot. It also shares the same building with the Churche de Hipsters (Patagonia). Neither Patagonia nor the church seem to be being boycotted by anyone because they have a parking lot. They get more interested in places like the Pearl District or nowadays Columbia City (Millenials mostly can't afford to live in Capitol Hill anymore). Are there parking lots? Yes. Can you get around by a method other than walking? Most people can. The anti-car zealots maybe not, but regular people still can get around despite the presence of parking lots destroying the urban fabric and forming hot lava moats of inaccessibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Why? Well why not? That is my opinion. That is the way I grew up in a suburb of St. Louis. That is simply normal, never to pay for parking. Library, school, church, work, shopping, Boy Scout meetings, whatever. There was always free parking. It seems sick and twisted to pay for parking. If the world weren't so overcrowded, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

This is probably, at least in part, generational - I am 70. I was used to certain wonderful conditions which no longer prevail in many locations. If people have never had something, they don't know what they are missing. More and more people are forced to live in overcrowded conditions because that's the way the world has become, but it doesn't make it good, and it doesn't make it right.
Parking is never free, someone had to pay for it, it just happens that the developer chooses to eat the cost of parking in areas that are car centric because that is the only way to get customers to businesses. In areas that have more forms of transportation and are walkable, the need to provide parking lessens, and when parking is provided, it often times charges the user of those parking spots to help cover the cost of the parking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I really don't think most Millenials learned the cars are the root of all evil message you think they did wburg. Most Millenials still drive and don't think cars are bad things. Most just aren't Luddites who think we should go back to a pre-automobile way of life.

It's just an economic reality. Mobility declined by 20% for the 18-34 demographic between 1995/2001 and 2009. It really doesn't have anything to do with a preference for places without parking lots. "Oh, God, I wouldn't shop there. It has a parking lot and I learned in my parking-lot-less church that cars are evil." No. Millenials are just less mobile. When you're as a group less mobile and more likely to use transit/walk/bike, you naturally shift and become more interested in those things.

Even in Hipsterville Pearl District, the church one of my friends living there goes to has a parking lot. It also shares the same building with the Churche de Hipsters (Patagonia). Neither Patagonia nor the church seem to be being boycotted by anyone because they have a parking lot. They get more interested in places like the Pearl District or nowadays Columbia City (Millenials mostly can't afford to live in Capitol Hill anymore). Are there parking lots? Yes. Can you get around by a method other than walking? Most people can. The anti-car zealots maybe not, but regular people still can get around despite the presence of parking lots destroying the urban fabric and forming hot lava moats of inaccessibility.
My car in the 90s got 8-12 miles per gallon, my new car gets 30 miles per gallon. Millenials might not think cars are a bad thing, but they definitely understand the importance of cars that use less resources.

I won't call the Pearl District "hipsterville," there are lots of known hipster neighborhoods in Portland, but the Pearl District isn't one of them.

There isn't a need for every business to have a sea of parking, in Portland it is just as important to have plenty of bike parking, especially in areas where much of your clientele will bike to their businesses.

Walking isn't the only method of commuting, but then again neither is driving. The idea is that urban design should cater to all forms of commuting, and not just cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,744,100 times
Reputation: 32309
The only reason the so-called "cost" of parking is more than negligible is because of high land values. Of course when cities get dense/overcrowded that means land values soar and it costs a more than negligible amount to provide parking. This is what I am calling sick and twisted, but many people are so used to it they don't bat an eye. We humans are pretty flexible, and we seemingly adapt to even the claustrophobia-inducing conditions so loved by urbanists. But that was not our natural environment for tens of thousands of years. We were used to a little space. A yard around our house and a driveway for visitors to park in are hardly the wide-open spaces of yesteryear, but even that small iota of space sure as hell beats urban living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
The only reason the so-called "cost" of parking is more than negligible is because of high land values. Of course when cities get dense/overcrowded that means land values soar and it costs a more than negligible amount to provide parking. This is what I am calling sick and twisted, but many people are so used to it they don't bat an eye. We humans are pretty flexible, and we seemingly adapt to even the claustrophobia-inducing conditions so loved by urbanists. But that was not our natural environment for tens of thousands of years. We were used to a little space. A yard around our house and a driveway for visitors to park in are hardly the wide-open spaces of yesteryear, but even that small iota of space sure as hell beats urban living.
Would you consider this to be a "claustrophobia-inducing condition?"
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4628...nHbw!2e0?hl=en
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,744,100 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Holy cow, I thought your earlier post was meant to be a joke. You were actually serious that free parking should be a birthright? LOL.
What else should be free? Shelter, food and clothing are all more important than parking for human survival. Should those be "free" as well? (I put "free" in quotations because of course nothing comes for free. Someone picks up the tab no matter what.)
I don't see anything the least bit funny about it. Humanity is going backwards by living jammed together like sardines. The automobile age was actually the high point of human development, not technologically speaking of course (which would be space travel and computers) but humanly speaking. Just stop and think about it: Maximum personal freedom to go where we wanted, when we wanted, either far or near, and partake of social interaction (gatherings of family and friends), live music and theatre, or pursue the joys of nature far from permanent human habitation, just by way of example, not limitation.

I feel sorry for those too young to have experienced that golden age firsthand. It is now to a large extent finished, as evidenced by threads such as this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:32 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,013 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Parking like the air we breathe, eh? The problem is, all this "free" parking (which of course is not free, someone else pays for it) means more people driving, which means more pollution in the air, which means the air we breathe is more and more poisoned, meaning greater and greater measures must be taken to protect the air we breathe, at greater expense. So there is an inverse relationship between abundant parking and clean air--another cost to be paid for "free" parking.

For many in the Baby Boom generation, especially those born and raised in the suburbs, it must be very difficult to envision a world that isn't ruled by the automobile and subject to its demands. They aren't old enough to remember the days when automobiles didn't rule the streets, and when places like schools, churches, parks, workplaces, and even places where Boy Scouts met, didn't have parking lots, because they were not needed. But younger folks are subject to the lessons taught by older generations--and the consequences of those generations' lack of foresight.
I'm sure this will get deleted, but hopefully some will see it first: gag me, just gag me!

The old generational thing. You young'uns thinking you're so smart. Funny thing, I saw Norman Lear being interviewed on some TV show a few nights ago; he said the conflict between Archie Bunker and his son-in-law Michael in his hit show "All in the Family" was based on Lear's own conflict with his father. Lear is 92 years old. "Don't trust anyone over (how old are you now, wburg)". I'm sure I'm old enough to at least be your teen mom.

Don't give me this crap about clean air. Pittsburgh's air is much cleaner now than it was in the 1940s/50s, when far fewer people drove. Denver's air is cleaner now than it was when we came here in 1980, despite almost 100% growth since then. Denver-Aurora, CO MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I don't see anything the least bit funny about it. Humanity is going backwards by living jammed together like sardines. The automobile age was actually the high point of human development, not technologically speaking of course (which would be space travel and computers) but humanly speaking. Just stop and think about it: Maximum personal freedom to go where we wanted, when we wanted, either far or near, and partake of social interaction (gatherings of family and friends), live music and theatre, or pursue the joys of nature far from permanent human habitation, just by way of example, not limitation.

I feel sorry for those too young to have experienced that golden age firsthand. It is now to a large extent finished, as evidenced by threads such as this.
What "golden age" are you referring to? One doesn't have to live in areas like "sardines" to not have a need for a car for every trip they make out of their house. How much of that golden age was spent sitting in your car trying to get to places because nothing was within walking distance?

Being confined to a car for periods a day is quite a limitation. Then of course that car costs money, so just going to work a portion of your pay goes to the upkeep of the car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,533,646 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'm sure this will get deleted, but hopefully some will see it first: gag me, just gag me!

The old generational thing. You young'uns thinking you're so smart. Funny thing, I saw Norman Lear being interviewed on some TV show a few nights ago; he said the conflict between Archie Bunker and his son-in-law Michael in his hit show "All in the Family" was based on Lear's own conflict with his father. Lear is 92 years old. "Don't trust anyone over (how old are you now, wburg)". I'm sure I'm old enough to at least be your teen mom.

Don't give me this crap about clean air. Pittsburgh's air is much cleaner now than it was in the 1940s/50s, when far fewer people drove. Denver's air is cleaner now than it was when we came here in 1980, despite almost 100% growth since then. Denver-Aurora, CO MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Pittsburgh also had quite the dirty steel industry in the 40s and 50s, which probably had more of an effect than the amount of cars on the road at the time...but don't let that fact slow you down.
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