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.
The issue with "BART is faster than MUNI" is that you have to live a short distance from a BART station in East Bay, most people don't. MUNI coverage is much denser, most in San Francisco are a short distance from a MUNI stop. San Franciscans complain about MUNI, but I thought it was one of the better bus systems in the country. Dense coverage, bus stops with informative signs. And the buses are all door boarding and proof of payment, saves a lot of time.
Yup! The bus is really speedy from my neighborhood. Basically it hops on the freeway, into the carpool lane. This saves a lot of time at the toll plaza. Usually clocks in at 20-25 minutes. On a slow day it is 30 minutes. The bus is across the street from my apartment. So door to door time to office is 30-35 minutes.
The problem is muni has so many stops, actual travel time is terrible. And there is little dedicated infrastructure for transit in SF. SF has prioritized cars over all modes, encouraging people to get in their cars.
I was being silly, to make a point. Unfortunately, it was missed.
What do you mean I missed the point? I answered every one of your questions.
You said:
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."
I do think all new developments should have minimum parking requirements, at least one spot per unit. My daughter lived in a place in Denver near the U of Denver, right next to the physics building actually, where each apt. had one space off the alley. It didn't really take away from the ambience. Street parking around there was awful! We sometimes had to park several blocks away when we went to visit.
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.
That wasn't clear. If you own your house, you can put one in. My brother-in-law just put in a lift for his wife who has cancer. He has one of these "bi-levels" or "raised ranches" as they are called in the east. You have to go up stairs to get to the front door, d/t a sloping lot, and then up some more steps (or down) into the main area of the house. When our church did a remodeling, they had to put in an elevator, and it's a two story building.
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!
Well, nei also responded with something about minimum lot sizes, so I guess he didn't get the joke either. Every place I have ever lived has some sort of minimum lot size. Yes, lots are smaller in the west, but there's still a minimum. Apartment buildings also have regulations as to lot size, # of units per acre, etc.
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.
That's not what I got out of that link. Here's my quote again: "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." ALL ground floor units in buildings containing four or more units.
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)
I stand by what I said. At least one parking spot per unit. Sorry if you think that's rigid. There's plenty of experience to show that it's necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
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.
Well, I didn't say that either. However, I do think that when old buildings are being converted, a spot per unit should be provided.
Well, nei also responded with something about minimum lot sizes, so I guess he didn't get the joke either. Every place I have ever lived has some sort of minimum lot size. Yes, lots are smaller in the west, but there's still a minimum. Apartment buildings also have regulations as to lot size, # of units per acre, etc.
At the highest densities, FAR is generally used rather minimum lot sizes.
Quote:
I stand by what I said. At least one parking spot per unit. Sorry if you think that's rigid. There's plenty of experience to show that it's necessary.
There is to you. Me (and some others) have a very different view on what's necessary in exactly the similar situation. In dense cities, your rule in result in a large additional area being consumed for parking that could be used for other things (more housing, parks, etc.) — things that may be more "necessary" than parking.
With those rules, it would difficult to build new housing such as this gray building:
That's not what I got out of that link. Here's my quote again: "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." ALL ground floor units in buildings containing four or more units.
which is exactly as JR_C said, as duplexes, triplexes have less than four units by definition.
At the highest densities, FAR is generally used rather minimum lot sizes.
There is to you. Me (and some others) have a very different view on what's necessary in exactly the similar situation. In dense cities, your rule in result in a large additional area being consumed for parking that could be used for other things (more housing, parks, etc.) — things that may be more "necessary" than parking.
With those rules, it would difficult to build new housing such as this gray building:
which is exactly as JR_C said, as duplexes, triplexes have less than four units by definition.
That's not all he said. He also said "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."
That is untrue. Any 4+ unit building has to be ADA compatible if first occupancy is after March 31, 1991. That was 25 years ago now.
Well, I didn't say that either. However, I do think that when old buildings are being converted, a spot per unit should be provided.
I don't believe in blanket parking rules. There are some places where 1:1 makes sense. Others where 1:1.5 makes sense and others where 1:.5 or less makes. Blanket rules for all neighborhood types leads to excess and unused parking. Poor use of limited space. It can also add a lot of unnecessary dvelopment cost to projects. We should also stop "bundling" parking into the price of all units. Parking should be decoupled from the units, and purchased as a stand alone amenity.
I don't believe in blanket parking rules. There are some places where 1:1 makes sense. Others where 1:1.5 makes sense and others where 1:.5 or less makes. Blanket rules for all neighborhood types leads to excess and unused parking. Poor use of limited space. It can also add a lot of unnecessary dvelopment cost to projects. We should also stop "bundling" parking into the price of all units. Parking should be decoupled from the units, and purchased as a stand alone amenity.
I do like buildings over a number of units to require parking, but like you I agree that cost shouldn't be coupled with the apartment. If someone wants to have a parking spot in a building, especially in a more urban setting, then there should be a fee for that parking space and the ratio of parking should be much lower than a one to one per units.
I don't believe in blanket parking rules. There are some places where 1:1 makes sense. Others where 1:1.5 makes sense and others where 1:.5 or less makes. Blanket rules for all neighborhood types leads to excess and unused parking. Poor use of limited space. It can also add a lot of unnecessary dvelopment cost to projects. We should also stop "bundling" parking into the price of all units. Parking should be decoupled from the units, and purchased as a stand alone amenity.
The fact of the matter is that except for a few true believers, people continue to own cars even in situations designed for them to not have cars. I previously mentioned Minervah's post about apartments in Portland built with no parking and how it did not discourage car ownership. I did a search and hit the jackpot-unusual for CD's search engine.
I've bolded the most relevant (to me anyway) comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
If you believe the OP's premise I have a bridge to sell you. In fact a couple of them. And you can also buy the cars lined up on them waiting to cross. Take a look at this for example.
Portland is supposed to be one of the bike meccas of the country and it definitely is. But that does not mean all the young people have given up their cars. Not by a long shot. In fact, the many large apartment buildings in crowded neighborhoods going up in the this decade without parking spaces to encourage cyclists discouraging car ownership has been a failure.
In one newspaper interview, a reporter asked ten residents how many owned bikes. Ten said they did. But out of the ten, they also owned eleven cars between them. Although bike riding is up and the use of cars down in some areas, there are still more cars on the road than ever before. One reason could be the cutback in mass transit. But I think people for the most part are just not willing to give up their cars.
Not everyone wants to indulge in downtown entertainment and the like. Many people in Portland for example eschew that type of thing for the outdoor activities that are so great here. For that one needs a car in order to get to the mountains or ocean or the many camp sites. To say that young people all want to be in urban centers before they move to the 'burbs to raise their families is painting an entire group of people with too broad a brush.
BTW, I am 66 years old and have never owned a car so I don't fit the young stereotype the OP describes. I simply like living in cities, taking public transportation everywhere and walking. When I was younger living in Chicago I took mass transit and rode my bike everywhere. After moving to Portland in my mid thirties I gave up the bike and stuck to the bus to get around. But that has always been my preference. There's no hidden agenda here.
Adding to this that all the bike riders are not all young here in Portland by any means. They are of all ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes. Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
Well he was just elected mayor so up until now it wasn't his problem. Our former mayor didn't pay much attention. They didn't begin ten years ago, they were just in the planning stages. Then suddenly they seemed to appear one after another one at a time little by little where they didn't cause too many problems until they began to invade areas where they did.
Portland was a city that had high hopes for the bicycle taking over the car and many, many people do use the bike as a means of transportation. Some hearty souls do use bikes as car subsitutes but most use both. And as people have kids, although you see some parents take their kids in tandom with their bikes, most opt to put them in cars.
One problem it seems that no one foresaw is that when people use bikes and cars, they tend to leave their cars at home more which keeps the cars in parking spaces for a longer period of time while they are using their bike which makes that space unavailable for other people. This is especially a problem for business owners who would prefer to see a greater turnover in parking spaces with more people being able to park there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
Thank you and yes you are correct. I remember everyone telling me that many people are afraid or hesitant at first but I never got over it. And living in a large city like Chicago I had good public transportation so it was not a big deal. I had taken the CTA since I was a kid and preferred to continue taking it to get around.
But as time went by, I did become more of an oddity. Everyone I knew was driving even in Chicago. Still, as you say, it was okay by me and I never had any animosity towards anyone who did drive for any reason. Of course when I moved to Portland, I became a total curiosity because it seems that in the West, cars, at least at the time I moved here were a lot more important to the culture.
I am glad cars are now more efficient being made to conserve gas and are more environmentally friendly. That makes sense because it's just unrealistic to expect people to give them up any more than it is to expect people to give up the telephone or the electric light bulb both which have been vastly improved since being invented.
The dummies in Portland who thought they could make people give up their cars for bikes only are now seeing how unrealistic they were especially with the improvements made towards environmental standards being made all the time on cars. Portland definitely does not hate cars contrary to whatever Spike or anyone thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
I agree with this. I see it all around me here in Portland. People have their bikes and walk a lot but that doesn't eliminate their cars. And often I see them choose their cars over public transportation to travel anyplace else but work.
I grew up when people didn't use the words "trend" or "car experience" in regard to using cars so that makes me chuckle a bit. I was a kid in Chicago born in the mid forties and growing up there with excellent public transportation many of my parents friends and neighbors did not even own cars. But they weren't considered anything special. And no one had more than one car.
It's good to see people wanting to get back to using more public transportation under any circumstances. But I would definitely say it takes a certain amount of understand as to how to use it. It takes patience for one thing. Like anything else, you have to learn and understand how it works.
One space per unit. If you don't want yours, rent it out!
I stand by what I said. At least one parking spot per unit. Sorry if you think that's rigid. There's plenty of experience to show that it's necessary.
Let me try again. You're saying that every dwelling unit should have its own parking space, because people living in a building without parking may get a car, someday, and will need a place to park. My point is that, if parking is important--or becomes important--to that resident, they can find a place that has the parking they want. Parking doesn't need to be a requirement, just like an elevator doesn't need to be a requirement for every dwelling that's more than one story. If someone becomes unable to use their stairs, they certainly have the right to have a lift installed in their own home. But, they may choose to buy a different--one story--home, instead. If they are renters in a 2 story house, it's unlikely that a landlord would be willing to make that kind of investment, and the tenant would have to find a different home.
Quote:
That's not what I got out of that link. Here's my quote again: "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." ALL ground floor units in buildings containing four or more units.
Right below the paragraph you quoted, there is this:
Quote:
The Fair Housing Act requires seven basic requirements that must be met to comply with the access requirements of the Act. Those Requirements are:
Requirement 1. An accessible building entrance on an accessible route.
Requirement 2. Accessible common and public use areas.
Requirement 3. Usable doors (usable by a person in a wheelchair).
Requirement 4. Accessible route into and through the dwelling unit.
Requirement 5. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations.
Requirement 6. Reinforced walls in bathrooms for later installation of grab bars.
Requirement 7. Usable kitchens and bathrooms.
I'll provide one of the Q&A examples that makes it clear to me that new multi-unit housing does NOT need to fully meet ADA requirements.
Quote:
Requirement 7-- Usable Kitchens and Bathrooms
Counters and Vanities
Q. It appears from Figure 2(c) of the Guidelines (under Requirement 5) that there is a 34 inch height requirement for kitchen counters and vanities. Is this true?
A. No. Requirement 7 addresses the requirement for usable kitchens and bathrooms so that a person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. The legislative history of the Fair Housing Act makes it clear that the Congress intended that the Act affect ability to maneuver within the space of the kitchen and bathroom, but not to require fixtures, cabinetry or plumbing of adjustable design. Figure 2(c) of the Guidelines is illustrating the maximum side reach range over an obstruction. Because the picture was taken directly from the ANSI A117.1 1986 standard, the diagram also shows the height of the obstruction, which, in this picture, is a countertop. This 34 inch height, however, should not be regarded as a requirement.
The fact of the matter is that except for a few true believers, people continue to own cars even in situations designed for them to not have cars. I previously mentioned Minervah's post about apartments in Portland built with no parking and how it did not discourage car ownership. I did a search and hit the jackpot-unusual for CD's search engine.
I've bolded the most relevant (to me anyway) comments.
One space per unit. If you don't want yours, rent it out!
That is a lot of one sided posts from one specific person and their opinion about parking usage. While I do agree that an increase of cars have happened in popular neighborhoods, I don't think it is a one to one ratio or even a ten to eleven ratio. Asking ten people in one building isn't much of a survey.....
Also, I have to agree with nei, why is one to one the magic number for parking spaces per unit?
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.
