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.
Above-grade parking will generally cost less (so I've heard) than below-grade parking from a construction-cost standpoint, particularly in some soil conditions. But you can discourage it in many ways.
You can simply not allow it. Or do what my city does and set tight limits, plus require it to be screened behind other uses like housing units.
You can also count parking in floor-area-ratio calculations. Most cities have limits in square footage and height above-grade, which might apply to commercial use only, or residential too. Whatever the rules, make parking count against the final tally.
You can also let developers choose to build less parking, or no parking. Eventually developers and financiers will figure out that they can earn a lot by targeting the no-car market or simply a lower ratio. This creates a feedback loop where you're also rewarding people for ditching their cars, which creates more of a walking culture, which encourages more developers...
With low/no-parking, developers will find small lots viable. Parcels that can't fit much parking due to simple geometry will eventually make sense for large unit counts. Small units will make more sense, helping affordability.
As for whether it's ok...we can disagree. Icon has some doorways but it's both a cause and effect of the highway-like road. One reason is the number of cars this sort of building brings (re: volume of parking, not so much where it is). Another is the wall effect due to having a non-active use up there, even if there's some art to its exterior treatment.
I'd prefer no parking decks, but if they're going to be built I prefer an in-building approach over a separate deck. Stand-alone parking decks are massive wastes of space with little justification. I hate non-efficiency in urban areas. I think at some point southern cities will have more strict regulations concerning development but as of now developers have a ton of power and our politicians are too liberal to extend public control over private land owners, especially in the south over more progressive metros out west.
You're right, Skyhouse is terrible. I didn't know they built a tower in Midtown Atlanta and did the same thing here. (Skyhouse Midtown)
Parking decks can be done well though. Icon Midtown does this pretty well in my opinion. I don't know exactly how we deal with this in southern cities though. How do we totally get rid of parking decks in 2020?
While I was aware that Skyhouse is basically a cookie-cutter, chain residential tower development in several cities, I just assumed that they sat atop parking garage 'podiums' but I see that I never paid enough attention to know that the garage is a standalone structure next to the tower it seems. It appears that Charlotte has done it better than both Atlanta and Houston, with two towers sharing a parking garage that sits between them, occupying half a block with retail spaces wrapping the entire ground floor along the three streets it fronts. If there has to be a standalone parking garage accompanying Skyhouse, this looks to be the ideal way to do it in a way that would encourage pedestrian activity. The only downside would be the way the block is somewhat halved by the creation of a back alley that results in mid-block curb cuts. But still, overall I think Charlotte did the best job among these three of making lemonades with lemons, so to speak. But there's a fair amount of ground-floor retail space in the Skyhouse parking garage in Midtown Atlanta though.
People do realize that DC & Boston have larger daytime populations and densities than Inner LA (even area adjusted).
While LA is more urban over its entirely, it core simply isn’t as built up as DC or Bostons
I’m not so sure why dense suburbs are counted when we’re discussing urbanity on this site. There isn’t much functional difference between a dense suburb that isn’t walkable vs a suburb with large lots that isn’t walkable.
Maybe the good thing is that one day such above ground garages could be torn down and rebuilt?
Well there's an old parking deck in my downtown that will be demolished to build an even bigger parking deck--it does come with 32 story tower at least.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
People do realize that DC & Boston have larger daytime populations and densities than Inner LA (even area adjusted).
While LA is more urban over its entirely, it core simply isn’t as built up as DC or Bostons
Both DC and Boston reach over 1.1-1.2 million ish population within 100 sq mi or less from their city center. Does LA reach this from DTLA expanding outward? In fact outside of the top 5, do any American cities come to this threshold?
I'd imagine LA could have deeper neighborhoods away from DTLA that clusters up and combined comes close, but I'm talking from the most urban downtown building core going outward.
NYC
Chicago
S.F
Philadelphia
Los Angeles ( Central LA = 873k in 57 square miles )
After that, I'd give it to D.C over Boston.
Boston has over 900k in its inner 57 square miles. . . if that's your sole criterion.
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.
