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.
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.
A 3-6 story building wouldn't block mountain views in many instances. Buildings over 6 stories are almost never without elevators for obvious reasons. In any case, you have lived in a number of other cities besides Denver, I was assuming you had seen them elsewhere. I looked up how common they were from the American Housing Survey. Numbers by metropolitan area:
NYC: 6% (8% if New Jersey is excluded)
Chicago: 4%
Boston: 4%
Denver: 2.5%
Pittsburgh: 1.3%
In New York City, people talk about elevator buildings vs "walk-up buildings"; walk-up buildings are limited to the older and more central parts of the city. I've heard Paris is similar in that respect. I found a source that says that in Paris, 24% of apartments lack elevators but that's just for the city proper (1/5th of the metro)
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.
As I said, my town is in a similar situation.
Quote:
Well, the farther out areas have the less expensive housing (usually), meaning people of lower means are living there.
I would have said the same, but didn't get around to it.
What about units with two bedrooms, should they be required two spots because there might be more than one person driving in that unit? Just because one for one is simple math doesn't mean it is the correct math.
As for that survey, there is no need to take it up with the paper because they aren't the ones posting on this site, but you did reference his post about it.
I don't think there is any one size fits all solution or minimum for parking spots in apartment buildings. In Seattle they required buildings during a boom in the past to all have a certain amount of parking spots, now they have garages that are only partially being used with excess space that in the end was just a waste of money for the developers. That is a cost that could have been avoided.
I suggested 1 car per unit. Some one-bedroom units have two people living in them. Lots of people do that when they're first starting out. So that means the other person would have to find an alternate place for his/her car. I'd give an example with my daughter but you guys trashed her the other night, so I'm leaving her out. But. . . an old house converted into two-2 BR units that have a 3 person occupancy limit each could go from having 1-2 cars for the entire building to 6! Most singles, IME, have their own cars. Couples sometimes share.
In general, I think any land use regulation using one hard rule rather than adjusting for local conditions is a bad idea. Land use regulation and zoning almost always adjusts for local conditions and local inputs.
Philadelphia's rowhouse housing stock gives it higher numbers than Boston or Chicago despite similar densities. Boston has a lot of small multifamily with shared driveway which might hold most tenants car's at the expense of blocking most it; dunno how the survey counts them. Since Philadelphia has higher car ownership than New York City, it's likely it's street parking is similarly congested. However, Philadelphia has a parking cone culture after snowstorms; New York City does not. Perhaps because few in New York City expect to have parking in front of their home, just a space somewhere nearby, the cone culture is counter-productive for that. Or that fewer are using their car on a day to day basis. For whatever reason, NYC lacks residential parking permits unlike Philadelphia or Boston.
In general, I think any land use regulation using one hard rule rather than adjusting for local conditions is a bad idea. Land use regulation and zoning almost always adjusts for local conditions and local inputs.
I'm all for "flexibility" but I think you can get *too* flexible, too. In Denver and Minneapolis, to name two cities, you can be sure that most tenants/owners in multi-family housing have cars. In NY/NJ, not so much. In rentals there is a great bit of turnover, too, so just because "Tenant A" doesn't have a car and doesn't want one, ever, that doesn't mean Tenant A is going to be living in the building long. When s/he moves out, "Tenant B" may be a couple with two cars. That's the kind of thing that has to be taken into account with rentals.
In many cities, a few central neighborhoods may still have lower car ownership, a few outer ones have even higher car ownership. For a neighborhood with high housing costs or limited green space convenient and where many don't need to use their car day to day convenient parking may be a less important priority.
A flat ratio might not even make sense in the same neighborhood; at least in ones that are mostly built-up and adding a few extra housing. Adding a couple of small apartment buildings (say, 3-4 units) with zero or one space wouldn't overfill the street parking. A giant apartment building or two with no parking (say, 50 units) even if half of the units don't own cars could overwhelm the street parking situation. I know some cities have laxer rules for smaller buildings for that reason; and also it's harder for small buildings to find room in many cases.
A 3-6 story building wouldn't block mountain views in many instances. Buildings over 6 stories are almost never without elevators for obvious reasons. In any case, you have lived in a number of other cities besides Denver, I was assuming you had seen them elsewhere. I looked up how common they were from the American Housing Survey. Numbers by metropolitan area:
NYC: 6% (8% if New Jersey is excluded)
Chicago: 4%
Boston: 4%
Denver: 2.5%
Pittsburgh: 1.3%
In New York City, people talk about elevator buildings vs "walk-up buildings"; walk-up buildings are limited to the older and more central parts of the city. I've heard Paris is similar in that respect. I found a source that says that in Paris, 24% of apartments lack elevators but that's just for the city proper (1/5th of the metro)
I would have said the same, but didn't get around to it.
Some board makes the decisions in Denver, I believe. Up to the builder to give a pretty good case for a variance. I'd say most buildings are 3-4 stories or fewer. In Boulder, there is a 55' height limit, measured from some place on the property. I think that's about 5 stories. There are some grandfathered buildings, and CU is exempt from Boulder's rules b/c it's state property. The only major city I lived in other than Denver is Pittsburgh, which as you see has fewer 6+ story buildings than even Denver, which always gets crap for being "sprawly". Champaign doesn't have a lot of tall buildings, especially for residences. There was a fancy office/restaurant building in Champaign called "Century 21" which was 21 stories tall. Tower turning 35, but controversy over its construction lingers | News-Gazette.com Has a different name now. You could see far across the prairie from the top floor. Housing projects, where I did some home visiting, tend not to have elevators unless very multi-story; senior residences, where I also did some visiting, almost always have elevators.
In many cities, a few central neighborhoods may still have lower car ownership, a few outer ones have even higher car ownership. For a neighborhood with high housing costs or limited green space convenient and where many don't need to use their car day to day convenient parking may be a less important priority.
A flat ratio might not even make sense in the same neighborhood; at least in ones that are mostly built-up and adding a few extra housing. Adding a couple of small apartment buildings (say, 3-4 units) with zero or one space wouldn't overfill the street parking. A giant apartment building or two with no parking (say, 50 units) even if half of the units don't own cars could overwhelm the street parking situation. I know some cities have laxer rules for smaller buildings for that reason; and also it's harder for small buildings to find room in many cases.
Maybe you could say, "1 space per unit" and let people do some trades, like with carbon emissions!
If posters have noticed from my posting patterns, I'm more ok with road subsidies than off-street parking requirement, though am ok with the latter depending on the neighborhood or level.
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.
