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.
What's odd about this is during the last downturn the highest foreclosure rates were further out in more car-centric areas. If cars drove affordability you'd expect just the opposite to have happened.
Don't the parking fees make up for most or all of the cost of the parking garages? If the garages aren't enormous, you can have apartment buildings and garages nearby, though for some (say, Downtown Berkeley) it doesn't make sense to have its own parking.
Ah we do legislate stuff like that and for good reason.
We legislate for reasons of fairness, but the point I think was that we shouldn't legislate to accommodate all circumstances simultaneously; that would be a massive burden on builders, prohibitively so, if we required every unit to accommodate the entire lifecycle, including our norms for what's "good" for families, from a person's birth until their death.
And lets be clear, many of the codes in zoning titles are a matter of our norms and the specifics are defined arbitrarily, sometimes so defined only because that's what was defined somewhere else. How many feet should a house be set back or a minimum lot size are not scientific matters and we should not treat these things as if they were.
This is absolutely not true. Developers always try to go below zoned parking requirements because then they can build more units (commercial, retail, residential) on the property. The idea that a developer would build more parking than required is ludicrous. If a developer does build more parking it is because they were able to extract something else from the local authorities.
Well I could be wrong but I remember reading and hearing about cases of developers going over the minimum. But I can't seem to remember the specific places right now.
At a certain point in low density areas if you lowered the minimum enough there's going to be an incentive for providing parking above the minimum. Offstreet parking is a selling point for potential residents that could outweigh the benefit of adding more units. If developers tend to never go over the minimums it is because the minimums are set pretty high.
To which I say, "that's nice". I don't call that "smart planning" at all. What if someone needs to park near their home during the day? Young urbanists seem to assume that everyone works during the day, M-F. Lots of people work off hours; there are still a few SAHMs, especially when the babies are tiny, thus need for parking during the daytime hours. That also doesn't account for people who want to leave the car at home and get to work a different way.
What I stand by is that developers should provide some minimum level of off-street parking. Some of you seem to think these developers are kind hearted souls just building residences out of the goodness of their hearts. Actually, they are in business to make money, and cutting out surface parking means they can build more units. They probably don't charge much, if any more for a unit w/o parking either, especially since some think it's so chic to not have any.
Another thing with shared parking it that it's often a hornet's nest. Now maybe it works in the situation you describe, but I was just at a meeting Sunday about shared parking for our church and another entity and someone brought up that very point. I remember when my father was a councilman, he said even shared driveways can be contentious.
Some people don't need cars. Developers build surface parking when there is demand for it. Developers respond to supply and demand like any other business. If they're building something in a place that has a walk score of 90, then the people living there are LESS LIKELY to need a car, therefore the developer won't build as many parking spaces. I don't know why you're trying to dictate how others live. Some people want parking, and others don't.
Last edited by nei; 05-04-2016 at 01:55 PM..
Reason: rude
This thread is a good example of why it's so difficult to reduce car dependence in this country. There are so many busybodies out there who are unable to handle the idea of other people living different lifestyles than them (eg, other people living without cars in an apartment without offstreet parking for cars they don't have). For these busybodies it's not good enough that they themselves can live at places with offstreet parking - they want the government to force their preference onto everyone else.
That's the issue with this thread. I'm actually using economics to make my points. What I've stated this whole time is that I'm ok with people doing anything they want as long as they pay the full cost. That applies to drivers and public transit users. I don't want to take away your car. I want everyone, including public transit users, to pay the full costs. I'm not showing favoritism to anything.
Last edited by nei; 05-04-2016 at 11:08 AM..
Reason: rude
Never? Aren't there lots of older elevator-less buildings? Called "walk-up apartments". You've said you've been in a lot of old housing, including for poor people so I find that surprising.
I live on a one-side only street. Due to a "shared driveway situation" I park on the street half the time. I prefer that over having more asphalt next to my home. More streets near my town center are one side-only than not but a no parking street has to be quite narrow; city rule is there must be at least 12 feet left after parking.
I'm unsure what the extra cost the city is paying?
Denver is a funny place. There aren't a lot of tall buildings. People want to preserve their mountain views. https://www.denvergov.org/content/de...ew-planes.html
This is true not only in the city, but also in most of the suburbs.
I really don't think I've been in a building >3 stories that didn't have elevators.
The street has to be wider for parking to be allowed on it. At least one lane of traffic has to be able to pass down the street. There are a lot of streets in Denver with parking just on one side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch
What's odd about this is during the last downturn the highest foreclosure rates were further out in more car-centric areas. If cars drove affordability you'd expect just the opposite to have happened.
Well, the farther out areas have the less expensive housing (usually), meaning people of lower means are living there.
Something tells me if I posted the bold, I'd be told I was being "silly". Let me take these from the top.
There usually are requirements for elevators in buildings over a certain number of stories. In any event, I've never been in a building of more than about 3 stories that didn't have one. Presumably, if you lived in such a building on the upper floors and and developed a condition where you couldn't climb stairs, you'd probably have to move.
A person who develops knee problems might have to find a more suitable residence, especially if they were permanent.
There are minimum lot sizes just about everywhere. Also set-backs from the street.
I'm not sure what you mean about children wanting to play outside. Are you asking "should all buildings have an outside play area?" To that question, I would say 'no'. Parents can take their kids to the park. That's usually an incentive for buying/renting a SF house with a yard.
Don't all new buildings have to be ADA comliant? Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST: FAQ "The Fair Housing Act requires all "covered multifamily dwellings" designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Covered multifamily dwellings are all dwelling units in buildings containing four or more units with one or more elevators, and all ground floor units in buildings containing four or more units, without an elevator. Federal regulations adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 CFR 100.201 define covered multi-family dwellings."
There's a lot more in that link; I suggest you read it.
As far as someone in a wheelchair-see the above link.
I was being silly, to make a point. Unfortunately, it was missed.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
What I stand by is that developers should provide some minimum level of off-street parking.
This implies absoluteness; that all new developments should be subject to minimum parking requirements. Your reasoning for this was based on a number of "what ifs."
So, I provided some silly "what ifs" to justify some other potential absolute requirements.
With my first "what if," I wasn't referring to ADA accessibility. I was facetiously asking if every house more than one story should have an elevator, just in case someone needs it someday.
Minimum lot sizes have indeed become common, but they aren't universal. Haven't you pointed out a number of times that yards out west are often smaller than yards in the Midwest and east? And, what about apartment buildings downtown? They don't have yards at all!
Single family homes, duplexes, and triplexes aren't required to be ADA accessible. And, per your link, buildings with 4+ units are only required to meet what I'd call "ADA light." They only have to be constructed in such a way that they could be retrofitted to be ADA accessible, if that were needed in the future.
These features aren't universal. And, if people decide they need them in the future, they can choose for themselves how they get them, just like with parking. (or the absence of parking)
C'mon people. Stay civil. Among many other things, don't snap at other posters. And don't assume that because someone else disagrees that don't understand the topic.
To which I say, "that's nice". I don't call that "smart planning" at all. What if someone needs to park near their home during the day? Young urbanists seem to assume that everyone works during the day, M-F. Lots of people work off hours; there are still a few SAHMs, especially when the babies are tiny, thus need for parking during the daytime hours. That also doesn't account for people who want to leave the car at home and get to work a different way.
What I stand by is that developers should provide some minimum level of off-street parking. Some of you seem to think these developers are kind hearted souls just building residences out of the goodness of their hearts. Actually, they are in business to make money, and cutting out surface parking means they can build more units. They probably don't charge much, if any more for a unit w/o parking either, especially since some think it's so chic to not have any.
Another thing with shared parking it that it's often a hornet's nest. Now maybe it works in the situation you describe, but I was just at a meeting Sunday about shared parking for our church and another entity and someone brought up that very point. I remember when my father was a councilman, he said even shared driveways can be contentious.
My neighborhood has buildings that were purposely built in the early 1900s that don't have parking, as cars weren't common. And mid century buildings that have parking. And some newly built buildings that have small amounts of parking. There is street parking, under building parking, and huge garages in the neighborhood. So there are lots of types of parking available, besides the shared grocery store lot. I don't think we should tear down the great 1900s buildings to put in parking, when there is a several hundred spot garage across the street that is rarely 50% full.
It depends on the neighborhood, but there are lots of ways to work out sharing parking for multiple uses.
My street doesn't have residential permits. The streets closer to the hospital do to discourage workers from parking all day. And the streets closer to the commercial district. Most of the buildings in the commercial district have commercial on the bottom and residential on top. Those residents have access to the street parking, residential parking, and the garages! This is a good compromise. Old neighborhoods (like mine) have made it work, why not neighborhoods.
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.
