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.
Everyone thinks parking is free, except for special events, but in fact it costs money, added to the price of goods and services. It's actually even worse. Many mall parking lots are only used to capacity two days: Black Friday and Christmas Eve. So all customers are paying for a lot of spaces that sit empty most of the time.
Except, of course, this is nonsense. The reason the parking lots are sized for peak capacity is simply because of the way that sort of retail works; the lion's share of the profit is made during those peak times, and if the malls can't capture it, that peak doesn't _spread_, instead it's merely _cut off_. Cut that capacity and you don't make goods and services cheaper; at best, you make them more expensive (so the malls can still make profits with the smaller peak) and at worst the mall dies.
Of course, if all government meddling was withdrawn, America would still have the largest electric traction urban and interurban rail transit system in the world, 90% would be using it, and only 10% of the population would be using expensive but convenient automobiles... on few paved roads... no public funded infrastructure... no suburban sprawl... no strip malls... no imports of foreign petroleum... sigh.
Hmm. We are already conducting a natural experiment, in that anyone who wants to move to a city with excellent public transportation can. New York is the only city where you really don't need a car, although some parts of Boston, Philly, Washington, Chicago, and San Francisco also qualify. If you add up all these areas you get about 15 million people, so that's a 5% market share.
Where I live it's only paid parking, and believe me, PLENTY of business is going on.
Disney charges exorbitant parking rates, they have to stop letting in people during peak season.
Malls generally provide free parking, and they're dying.
Well, there are some exceptions, like theme parks and stadiums where having paid parking is convenient because it allows only the people that are using these facilities to park closely and discourages random people from taking up those spots. It also is a way for these places to make revenues and they're popular enough that people will pay it.
However, in many city centers, I really do think that having free parking would encourage more people to come. If you're just having a lunch at a small restaurant, why would you want to pay a $2 parking fee at a nearby garage if you're at a Downtown area? In many Downtowns parking is scarce, so I can understand that paid parking garages are useful in that sense. I feel like they usually make a judgment call. In places where they know people are going to be there anyway (like a Downtown area), they make parking paid, but usually in urban areas that are out of the way, but still need economic encouragement, they'll let the parking be free, like in most planned communities.
There are definitely some malls that are still popular (outlet malls, upscale malls), but the market for them is shrinking, that is true. I think just specialized stores are surviving and malls that can fulfill the needs of a market, which requires less malls than before. All I know is that I would stop by more often at the Downtown restaurants if parking was free.
I've been to Beijing. Beijing would be a congested mess no matter what parking minimums were set to. As would pretty much any major city. Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing--sign of a vibrant, in-demand location.
Or a place that is a bottleneck for people traveling to other locations. Can't find anything redeeming or exciting about congestion. The term "vibrant" is misplaced. Calling a place with such congestion "vibrant" is like calling someone in the throes of a heart attack "vibrant".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Then either go to a different medical office, or use the valet parking. I don't see the problem. If there really is a case where there is NO other office of that kind in the area, people need it for medical issues, and there's no public transit, then ok fine, I'd be ok with some parking requirements for that case. That's definitely not the norm, though. That's a special case, not a justification for across-the-board parking minimums.
Local government doesn't need your opinion or consent!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
So your fear is that if not for parking minimums, all the developers would never (or rarely) build parking, and businesses would just keep buying their buildings only to have their businesses fail because their customers can't park there, ad infinitum? Utter nonsense. If that came about, that would open up a major competitive advantage for a developer to come in and start offering parking. After all, his customers would be chomping at the bit to stop losing money and have parking for their customers. Why would such a developer NOT come along? Are you suggesting developers would form some kind of cartel to collude and not offer parking, even though doing so would make their customers' businesses fail? Again, utter nonsense.
1. You can only purchase from what is available
2. Once the property is developed without parking where do you believe parking is to come from after-the-fact to remedy the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Why should people be allowed to build a building that is destined to fail? Is that a serious question? Of course they should. People come up with cockamamie, dumb business schemes all the time. They need to fail, because that's how people learn what works and what doesn't.
There is a difference between a business failure vs a building failure. Local governments also adopt standards to prevent other "failures". That's why you have codes imposing electrical standards, plumbing standards, lighting standards, parking standards, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
But of course they DON'T always fail. Thousands of successful businesses around the country that have little or no parking. The problem is when the regulators assume at the outset that any such business will fail without some special amount of parking. They're wrong, or at least, they're not right all the time.
That might be an argument for having different standards for say fast food sites vs office park vs retail sales but it's not really an argument that supports no regulation. Fast food has different utility and wastewater needs than an office park or retail sales, for example, and local government can certainly impose standards accordingly.
Everyone thinks parking is free, except for special events, but in fact it costs money, added to the price of goods and services. It's actually even worse. Many mall parking lots are only used to capacity two days: Black Friday and Christmas Eve. So all customers are paying for a lot of spaces that sit empty most of the time.
So it's a cost of doing business, just like having to (gasp) pay "the help", etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Then either go to a different medical office, or use the valet parking. I don't see the problem. If there really is a case where there is NO other office of that kind in the area, people need it for medical issues, and there's no public transit, then ok fine, I'd be ok with some parking requirements for that case. That's definitely not the norm, though. That's a special case, not a justification for across-the-board parking minimums.
So your fear is that if not for parking minimums, all the developers would never (or rarely) build parking, and businesses would just keep buying their buildings only to have their businesses fail because their customers can't park there, ad infinitum? Utter nonsense. If that came about, that would open up a major competitive advantage for a developer to come in and start offering parking. After all, his customers would be chomping at the bit to stop losing money and have parking for their customers. Why would such a developer NOT come along? Are you suggesting developers would form some kind of cartel to collude and not offer parking, even though doing so would make their customers' businesses fail? Again, utter nonsense.
Why should people be allowed to build a building that is destined to fail? Is that a serious question? Of course they should. People come up with cockamamie, dumb business schemes all the time. They need to fail, because that's how people learn what works and what doesn't.
But of course they DON'T always fail. Thousands of successful businesses around the country that have little or no parking. The problem is when the regulators assume at the outset that any such business will fail without some special amount of parking. They're wrong, or at least, they're not right all the time.
We've been over this many times before. I'm not going to side with Donald Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Of course, if all government meddling was withdrawn, America would still have the largest electric traction urban and interurban rail transit system in the world, 90% would be using it, and only 10% of the population would be using expensive but convenient automobiles... on few paved roads... no public funded infrastructure... no suburban sprawl... no strip malls... no imports of foreign petroleum... sigh.
LOL, as if electric traction urban and interurban rail transit isn't subsidized!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Not a believable argument. Yeah sure there would be less parking if there were no parking minimums but parking wouldn't go away altogether. Like you say, they are in it to make money, and to make money you need customers. If there is no other way for the customer to get to your business other than driving, then either there will be parking (could be provided on the property, could be at a public lot/garage) or the business will not survive. It's their problem to figure out, I see no need for the government to impose its view of the "right" amount of parking.
Or a place that is a bottleneck for people traveling to other locations. Can't find anything redeeming or exciting about congestion. The term "vibrant" is misplaced. Calling a place with such congestion "vibrant" is like calling someone in the throes of a heart attack "vibrant".
Local government doesn't need your opinion or consent!
1. You can only purchase from what is available
2. Once the property is developed without parking where do you believe parking is to come from after-the-fact to remedy the problem?
There is a difference between a business failure vs a building failure. Local governments also adopt standards to prevent other "failures". That's why you have codes imposing electrical standards, plumbing standards, lighting standards, parking standards, etc.
That might be an argument for having different standards for say fast food sites vs office park vs retail sales but it's not really an argument that supports no regulation. Fast food has different utility and wastewater needs than an office park or retail sales, for example, and local government can certainly impose standards accordingly.
I meant that a developer would come along to offer parking to business owners (who don't have a building yet or maybe they want to move to a new location) that don't want their business to fail like those that have before them. If it's true that parking is necessary for a business to succeed, why would you buy a development that has no parking if you've seen developments like that fail before? Solutions for existing businesses also could emerge too though, like someone building a parking lot/garage next to buildings that don't have their own parking.
Just because a local government imposes a code doesn't mean it's a good or worthwhile code. Upon examination some of those other standards you mention might be ill-conceived too. But in principle, a standard to say ensure that a building has safe electricity or structural integrity has a different motivation behind it than a parking standard. The former is about safety, the latter is not. If you go to a building and you can't find a parking spot, you're inconvenienced but you're not in an unsafe position like you would be if the building you're in collapses. In addition, parking is directly related to considerations specific to the business like customer demand. That's an area where the business owner is going to have a better idea than some regulator, in contrast to something like an electrical code where the owner may not know. So I don't think they're that comparable.
Last edited by stateofnature; 04-08-2017 at 09:47 AM..
I meant that a developer would come along to offer parking to business owners (who don't have a building yet or maybe they want to move to a new location) that don't want their business to fail like those that have before them. If it's true that parking is necessary for a business to succeed, why would you buy a development that has no parking if you've seen developments like that fail before? Solutions for existing businesses also could emerge too though, like someone building a parking lot/garage next to buildings that don't have their own parking.
Just because a local government imposes a code doesn't mean it's a good or worthwhile code. Upon examination some of those other standards you mention might be ill-conceived too. But in principle, a standard to say ensure that a building has safe electricity or structural integrity has a different motivation behind it than a parking standard. The former is about safety, the latter is not. If you go to a building and you can't find a parking spot, you're inconvenienced but you're not in an unsafe position like you would be if the building you're in collapses. In addition, parking is directly related to considerations specific to the business like customer demand. That's an area where the business owner is going to have a better idea than some regulator, in contrast to something like an electrical code where the owner may not know. So I don't think they're that comparable.
Inadequate parking causes congestion. And people will go to great lengths to park their cars, double park and other illegal things, etc. The reason for cities to require parking is because developers don't always do what's right.
Inadequate parking causes congestion. And people will go to great lengths to park their cars, double park and other illegal things, etc. The reason for cities to require parking is because developers don't always do what's right.
No it doesn't. Some of the most congested areas in the country have tons of parking. And besides, I don't think that eliminating parking minimums would lead to "inadequate" parking. If people are double parking then that's what parking enforcement is for.
No it doesn't. Some of the most congested areas in the country have tons of parking. And besides, I don't think that eliminating parking minimums would lead to "inadequate" parking. If people are double parking then that's what parking enforcement is for.
Where?
Well, we don't build cities based on what some CD poster "thinks". You don't understand what I'm saying, and you're not trying.
Well, we don't build cities based on what some CD poster "thinks". You don't understand what I'm saying, and you're not trying.
Virginia suburbs of DC (often worse traffic than the city itself).
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.
