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.
I agree with you that a city has some right to impose requirements on buildings and developments within its city limits - including a requirement for some amount of parking. Anti-car people want a city government that will impose a low maximum limit on parking spaces. Pro-car people want a city that imposes a high lower limit on parking spaces. The owner wants to exclude the city from the decision as to how many parking spaces he would have.
If there is a parking requirement there should also be a requirement addressing the size of the parking spots. I've been in city parking garages where the car slots were so small, I could not get out of the car without great effort. I don't bother to frequent that garage nor the places around that garage which depended on it because of city anti-car policies. Nothing to do with the businesses but rather the convenience of access to the businesses.
Yes I agree, we do need planners to step in and tell property owners what to do. I just don't see how that stance is consistent with the stance that the city shouldn't significantly reduce value for owners. Make no mistake, requiring free parking in these dense cities is going to be prohibitively expensive for many owners. Too bad for them. Free parking should be a right.
Public transit only benefits a tiny minority of people. Most people prefer driving cars and living in big single family houses with plenty of land where they can raise families. That's the American dream. Public transit is not practical for that lifestyle. Therefore, public dollars should go to roads and parking, not public transit. It's a long-standing American tradition that the majority should always get what it wants. So we're making America great again (#maga) if we cut public transit subsidies and steer them towards spending that supports cars.
Actually in Chicago Public Transit in the form of METRA enables that lifestyle. Commuter rail is as fast or faster than driving into downtown. It's only downside is that it is limited by schedule. Here nobody in the right mind would drive downtown unless they lived very close and had parking(like a CEO who lives in the Gold Coast). Or there were no other options(public transit can't do everything).
There's still plenty of people living within say, 5 miles of downtown Chicago. CTA transit runs later though some not driving would choose take taxis/Uber.
If you don't have a car, it's far easier to shop downtown than rely on rides to suburban malls even if living in suburbs [did that a few times in high school]. LIRR runs 24 hour, passengers on the 1:42 am on weekends tend to be loud...
Actually no. Chicago is a big enough place that you would just shop locally rather than go downtown if you had no car. In fact there is plenty of retail near bus routes(and even parking should your uber driver need it). People used to travel to state street(and other locations) for the larger stores. The rise of the mall hurt this use.
Quote:
Can't office workers just take the train? Seems like adding lots parking to skyscrapers would make downtown more congested.
The reason why they have parking is because the buildings have staff(24/7) and serve more than one purpose. If you are an staff member who needs to be there at 6 a.m. your public transit options are going to be limited.
Some are residential. Some have retail. Some have various types of office space(even doctors). They don't expect everyone to drive in, but the have some. The other reason to have parking is that not all office workers want to use public transit(High level workers might have parking). Other workers might need the use of the car(someone in sales who needs to travel to different locations). Also due to the lack of parking, parking downtown can be quite profitable for the garage or lot.
Yes I agree, we do need planners to step in and tell property owners what to do. I just don't see how that stance is consistent with the stance that the city shouldn't significantly reduce value for owners. Make no mistake, requiring free parking in these dense cities is going to be prohibitively expensive for many owners. Too bad for them. Free parking should be a right.
The reason why free parking exists is because the business owner(usually) thinks it is a good idea.
Yes I agree, we do need planners to step in and tell property owners what to do. I just don't see how that stance is consistent with the stance that the city shouldn't significantly reduce value for owners. Make no mistake, requiring free parking in these dense cities is going to be prohibitively expensive for many owners. Too bad for them. Free parking should be a right.
No - NOT "planners".
If you have a rational city ordinance you should be able to enforce that.
But having folks submit permit applications for approval is different that having a "planner" impose the planner's view on what the place should look like. It's still not the greatest but reasonable things like running water, electricity, wastewater service, etc. are already acceptable requirements and parking is not any different for a retail establishment.
Yes there is no law requiring free parking but there should be. Clearly the parking minimums don't go far enough because there are still places like Manhattan where it is very hard to find free parking. If I don't want to pay for something, why should I have to when others can cover the cost for me?
That's the problem with free goods overall. There's unlimited demand for a free good. And no incentive to supply.
No - NOT "planners".
If you have a rational city ordinance you should be able to enforce that.
But having folks submit permit applications for approval is different that having a "planner" impose the planner's view on what the place should look like. It's still not the greatest but reasonable things like running water, electricity, wastewater service, etc. are already acceptable requirements and parking is not any different for a retail establishment.
That's just semantics. Saying a certain building should have at least a certain number of parking spots is obviously a plan. Even if the people who write the ordinance do not have "planner" in their job title or description, what they are doing is planning. They are putting forth the proper view that people should be driving to these establishments and those people should have their parking provided for, and they are imposing this view on businesses.
Speaking of subsidies, I heard this on "Marketplace" this morning. https://www.marketplace.org/2016/11/...nctuary-cities "For the 2016-17 fiscal year, San Francisco's operating budget is $9.6 billion, said Severin Campbell, director of the city's budget and legislative analyst's office.
About $478 million comes from the federal government.
"Five percent of the budget is fairly significant," Campbell said."
So the subsidizers get subsidies. Please, for the sake of this discussion, assume I have no opinion about "Sanctuary Cities". This is just to show the subsidies.
The city does not have an obligation to provide street parking. I know of no place that says the off-street parking has to be done in a garage. Of course, since I said that, someone will come up with some area somewhere that requires that. So let's just say it's not the norm anywhere I have lived. I'm also not familiar with municipal garages that allow for residential parking.
Got a cite for that "younger talent" thing?
Your attitude towards drivers is duly noted.
Street parking is in fact the norm in every city I have visited and lived in, and many cities allow monthly parking--sometimes even reserved spots--for residents in municipal garages. Geometrical and land value considerations do make it impossible for a developer to build enough housing units to turn a profit without building a garage to satisfy minimum parking requirements.
As for the rest, just google "millennials" and look up where most of the high paying tech jobs are.
Roads are a boon to urban areas. They are how goods and services are delivered and the route used by buyers, sellers, employees, and employers alike. Public transit, not so much.
Hmmm. The "valuable urban property" is more valuable to the owner when the owner gets to choose what to do with it. Those owners decided it would be profitable to install parking lots and gas stations, respectively. Also having parking lots increases the customer base. Public transit makes cities safer? That's laughable. Are your police, EMS, fire department, etc. using public transit for calls? No. They use roads.
Any economist will tell you the most valuable commodity is people--human resources. That's where transit is more efficient, it allows for that concentration of human capital in a way that single occupant vehicles simply cannot scale to. High school geometry! I'm not saying you need to concentrate human capital in every situation everywhere or even in a majority of locations, but the fact is all world class cities do this and simply couldn't exist in their current capacity without transit. Land owners have decided to do it this way in every single world class city--and you find very few surface lots and gas stations in their business districts!
Regarding emergency services and deliveries, it is interesting to note how little these services are actually prioritized on congested roads when push comes to shove. Every time you see an ambulance stuck in a traffic jam where there are simply too many cars to move out of the way, you should think of this. Or think of the poor delivery truck people who get no break and still have schedules to adhere to. We should indeed have roads in cities, and they should ideally be set aside primarily for city services and commercial business services--not primarily for the convenience of single occupancy cars which then need a space to park. There is simply no space for everyone to drive and park when and where they want to--modern day tragedy of the commons. However, I don't think anyone on here will tell you we should have *zero* roads in cities.
Now don't get me wrong, the situation is vastly different in suburbs and rural areas, you'd better have parking if you want people to stay in business! However, even then, is the half empty massive Walmart parking lot really necessary? Especially if there is another one right next door?
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.
.
