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 point was that they're only partially utilized and not 100% full all the time ever. No transit line is, either. It's a weird comparison to make.
From my perspective, it is your conception of "partial utilization" of transit that is weird. Train lines and bus lanes aren't supposed to be bumper-to-bumper 24 hours a day (which seems to constitute full utilization from your perspective); that defeats their purpose. They are dedicated right-of-ways with the appropriate headways needed to move passengers back and forth efficiently and frequently. Transit lines that are "fully utilized," in the way you are presenting that concept, would essentially be useless.
And if I'm not mistaken, the point wasn't just that most large parking lots are only partially utilized at any time, but significantly so most of the time. Thankfully, as land continues to become more expensive and scarce in developed areas, developers and local governments are addressing the issue in several ways, such as developing parking sharing agreements, relaxing parking minimums, etc.
Quote:
That's what I had said. I live in Fulton, just a few miles outside of midtown. So I have no real choice but to fund a system I don't use. I'm okay with that. But, for some reason, non drivers throw a fit at the thought of having some of their money fund parking.
Here's the thing though: when governments significantly subsidize parking to make it artificially cheap for drivers, that discourages the use--and, by extension, the expansion--of transit. And transit, by definition, is supposed to be subsidized by the public. That's bad policy. Private automobiles, on the other hand, are not accessible to the public. Now you might say "Well transit isn't really all that accessible to me either" and if that's the case, it very well might be if so much private parking wasn't subsidized.
Quote:
And they're not paid for by the public. They're paid for by users or businesses. What's the point? I assume you feel the same way about roads and public parking?
Sorry, that was a mistype and I didn't finish my thought there. I was referring to 'free'/cheap public parking facilities wherein the price of parking isn't at all commensurate with the value of the land. And parking minimums for private businesses tend to be excessive and force those businesses to pay for more parking than they want or need. Even if those businesses (and by extension, their customers) are willing to pay for that excessive parking, there are still opportunity costs to consider.
Sure it is. The argument is that having parking hurts stormwater runoff and creates heat islands. How is this different from a concrete city?
Any highly developed area is going to have issues with stormwater runoff and urban heat islands; that's a built-in cost for all urban areas since they have to have impervious surface like roads and buildings. However, cities with denser urban development and less land dedicated to parking are better suited to alleviate these issues by planting vegetation and installing solar panels on the roofs of buildings and having rainwater harvesting systems installed so that the rainwater collected may be used for on-site purposes. Such cities are also able to have more land dedicated to park space. There are also effective ways to reduce runoff and the urban heat island effect on surface parking lots, but there seems to be more of an impetus to incentivize environmentally-friendly features on buildings as they are obviously active uses that generate a lot of energy (and increased property value) as is while surface parking tends to be viewed as more of a passive use of the land.
Quote:
Uhhh...okay? And? That should be exactly what you want. Businesses who provide parking for their consumers to pass the costs on to consumers, not to the general public. I mean, hey, I'd love for some urbanists to fork out extra money to pay for parking lots at private businesses.
Once again I did not fully flesh out my point and I apologize about that. Excessive parking minimums often serve to discourage development as they add costs deemed unnecessary by some businesses and passing that cost to the consumer may prove to be more than the market will bear. I read one study that said that residential developments with parking minimums resulted in housing that was on average $200 more expensive a month. It's certainly easy to see how parking minimums can work against cities' efforts to build more affordable housing. Here's a good link on that: https://www.planning.org/planning/20...leoverparking/
25,000 per year is more than 32 states and Puerto Rico grew in the past year. Georgia grew by just over 100,000. Is it reasonable to think that a quarter of people moving to the state would be moving into CoA limits?
Atlanta metro, yes. CoA city? Where are they going? You would have to plow over quite a bit of SFH neighborhoods for the current footprint to hold a million. 10k a year is pretty hefty as it is and has not happened in the past. Let's wait on the census next year to get an accurate number. Remember the estimates off by over 100k last time?
And if I'm not mistaken, the point wasn't just that most large parking lots are only partially utilized at any time, but significantly so most of the time. Thankfully, as land continues to become more expensive and scarce in developed areas, developers and local governments are addressing the issue in several ways, such as developing parking sharing agreements, relaxing parking minimums, etc.
Yes, large parking lots like those at shopping malls are notoriously under-utilized. Most retail/business parking lots downtown and midtown and other busy areas are utilized quite heavily. The fact that they may not be at 2:00am is largely irrelevant. Also, the same could be said for many sidewalks and bike lanes. Many of these are used very little or practically not at all. So, while I can certainly see getting bent out of shape over acres of parking for a business which likely won't draw that many, I cannot see being upset at requiring a restaurant, bar, or shop (especially one that might already be known) to have enough parking to provide spaces for its customers during normal operations. Take Fox Brothers, for example. They have only 33 spaces if people park along the driveway, and double park in the area on the street, for both employees and patrons. Thus, their normal business parking stretches for several hundred feet down both sides of Elmira. That's kind of a nuisance.
Quote:
Here's the thing though: when governments significantly subsidize parking to make it artificially cheap for drivers, that discourages the use--and, by extension, the expansion--of transit. And transit, by definition, is supposed to be subsidized by the public. That's bad policy. Private automobiles, on the other hand, are not accessible to the public. Now you might say "Well transit isn't really all that accessible to me either" and if that's the case, it very well might be if so much private parking wasn't subsidized.
How much public-subsidized parking do we truly have? Not that much. And when you say "private parking is subsidized", are you referring to parking for private vehicles, or that private lots are subsidized?
What I guess i get out this is "people who use transit should be largely subsidized, while people who use cars should have to pay every cent of their costs".
Quote:
Sorry, that was a mistype and I didn't finish my thought there. I was referring to 'free'/cheap public parking facilities wherein the price of parking isn't at all commensurate with the value of the land. And parking minimums for private businesses tend to be excessive and force those businesses to pay for more parking than they want or need. Even if those businesses (and by extension, their customers) are willing to pay for that excessive parking, there are still opportunity costs to consider.
We should have enough data these days to update parking minimums to a realistic number. Eliminating them altogether I think is a horrible idea and will lead to worse conditions overall. Anybody can find additional costs to make something seem more expensive than it is. Let me add my hourly rate onto the additional time it takes me to take transit instead of drive. Now, suddenly, that ride increased by $60-$120, depending on if I'm in double time when I take the ride.
Why do urbanist articles always have to be so condescending and elitist? Oh, wait... This article is really pretty ridiculous. I mean seriously.."because of parking, we have to increase the air conditioning in buildings"? "Parking encourages bad behavior"? That's a massive stretch of logic.
Quote:
Any highly developed area is going to have issues with stormwater runoff and urban heat islands; that's a built-in cost for all urban areas since they have to have impervious surface like roads and buildings. However, cities with denser urban development and less land dedicated to parking are better suited to alleviate these issues by planting vegetation and installing solar panels on the roofs of buildings and having rainwater harvesting systems installed so that the rainwater collected may be used for on-site purposes.
None of this is possible only in developed areas without parking. Parking lots can easily have pervious surfaces (our son's school parking lot has this), and filled with trees. The technology exists to make parking lots solar panels, or to make them covered parking lots with solar panels as roofing. And there is nothing unique about harvesting rainwater off a building that can't be done from a lot.
Quote:
Such cities are also able to have more land dedicated to park space. There are also effective ways to reduce runoff and the urban heat island effect on surface parking lots, but there seems to be more of an impetus to incentivize environmentally-friendly features on buildings as they are obviously active uses that generate a lot of energy (and increased property value) as is while surface parking tends to be viewed as more of a passive use of the land.
Generally, I think that most core areas should confine parking to garages built into buildings. That's not really viable as much outside core areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks
Atlanta metro, yes. CoA city? Where are they going? You would have to plow over quite a bit of SFH neighborhoods for the current footprint to hold a million. 10k a year is pretty hefty as it is and has not happened in the past. Let's wait on the census next year to get an accurate number. Remember the estimates off by over 100k last time?
Well, as we have seen, many of the posters here have no issue with plowing over our neighborhoods as long as it's to build new residential buildings. The neighborhoods are only important and worth protecting if it's against building more roads.
Yes, large parking lots like those at shopping malls are notoriously under-utilized. Most retail/business parking lots downtown and midtown and other busy areas are utilized quite heavily. The fact that they may not be at 2:00am is largely irrelevant. Also, the same could be said for many sidewalks and bike lanes. Many of these are used very little or practically not at all. So, while I can certainly see getting bent out of shape over acres of parking for a business which likely won't draw that many, I cannot see being upset at requiring a restaurant, bar, or shop (especially one that might already be known) to have enough parking to provide spaces for its customers during normal operations. Take Fox Brothers, for example. They have only 33 spaces if people park along the driveway, and double park in the area on the street, for both employees and patrons. Thus, their normal business parking stretches for several hundred feet down both sides of Elmira. That's kind of a nuisance.
How much public-subsidized parking do we truly have? Not that much. And when you say "private parking is subsidized", are you referring to parking for private vehicles, or that private lots are subsidized?
What I guess i get out this is "people who use transit should be largely subsidized, while people who use cars should have to pay every cent of their costs".
We should have enough data these days to update parking minimums to a realistic number. Eliminating them altogether I think is a horrible idea and will lead to worse conditions overall. Anybody can find additional costs to make something seem more expensive than it is. Let me add my hourly rate onto the additional time it takes me to take transit instead of drive. Now, suddenly, that ride increased by $60-$120, depending on if I'm in double time when I take the ride.
Why do urbanist articles always have to be so condescending and elitist? Oh, wait... This article is really pretty ridiculous. I mean seriously.."because of parking, we have to increase the air conditioning in buildings"? "Parking encourages bad behavior"? That's a massive stretch of logic.
None of this is possible only in developed areas without parking. Parking lots can easily have pervious surfaces (our son's school parking lot has this), and filled with trees. The technology exists to make parking lots solar panels, or to make them covered parking lots with solar panels as roofing. And there is nothing unique about harvesting rainwater off a building that can't be done from a lot.
Generally, I think that most core areas should confine parking to garages built into buildings. That's not really viable as much outside core areas.
Well, as we have seen, many of the posters here have no issue with plowing over our neighborhoods as long as it's to build new residential buildings. The neighborhoods are only important and worth protecting if it's against building more roads.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to samiwas1 again.
Crazy that people here think all this free parking we have is not subsidized. Nothing is free.
When you force businesses and homeowners to pay for and build parking they don't want via a parking minimum you are forcing them to subsidize parking. Those costs then get passed onto renters / customers regardless of if the drive or not. So we pay high rent and get cheap parking. Something is wrong with that.
Note how dependent low density sprawl / car dependency is on subsidies. The years before zoning limited density, before parking minimums, before tax-payer funded highways were rammed through cities, Atlanta (and other cities) were built in a denser urban fashion, the growth was concentrated in a core area, and developers worked with private transit companies to connect new developments on the edges.
For the last 70 years we have had laws that imposed limits on density, forced parking to be built against the will of the owners, and massive federally baked tax spending programs on car infrastructure. The core saw growth stop and even decline and the suburbs grew. Private transit companies were pushed out.
Now that we are starting to modernize our zoning laws and get rid of many parking minimums, starting to legalize some more density, and seen relatively little federal subsides for new or expanded highways growth is returning to the core.
How you you not conclude that sprawl is dependent on government subsidies and zoning laws in order to drain the growth from the core out to the edge. If drivers are not given ever expanded subsidized freeways and developers are not forbidden from building denser, car-lite developments then the core sees much more prosperity.
Atlanta metro, yes. CoA city? Where are they going? You would have to plow over quite a bit of SFH neighborhoods for the current footprint to hold a million. 10k a year is pretty hefty as it is and has not happened in the past. Let's wait on the census next year to get an accurate number. Remember the estimates off by over 100k last time?
People will not move into the city limits if we do not legalize building new housing. The lack of supply will push housing prices too high.
Here is where the "growth areas" are planned to be for the city-proper to more than double in population in the coming decades and still offer some relatively affordable housing options (while still protecting many neighborhoods from too much change):
Crazy that people here think all this free parking we have is not subsidized. Nothing is free.
I typically think when someone is talking about "subsidized", they're referring to the government. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that a business offering parking to their customers is paying for that parking, and including it in the price paid.
Quote:
When you force businesses and homeowners to pay for and build parking they don't want via a parking minimum you are forcing them to subsidize parking. Those costs then get passed onto renters / customers regardless of if the drive or not. So we pay high rent and get cheap parking. Something is wrong with that.
Cool. Well, when I take my family out even to Willy's for some burritos, I pay an extra 40¢ or so just for transit whether I use it or not. Let's call it even.
People generally don't want commercial parking spilling over into the neighborhoods.
If individual residents want to rent / buy the on-street parking spaces on the street in front of their home, they should have that option.
But outside of that if the city should not be forcing other tax payers to spend money to fund such an oversupply of parking the parking in from of certain homes mostly sits empty.
High rent and cheap parking is backwards.
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.
