Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2017, 12:17 AM
 
3,344 posts, read 2,280,420 times
Reputation: 2819

Advertisements

It appears these days minimum parking requirements are a hot topic in Los Angeles and elsewhere. There are some "greeny" groups that argue that LA requires too much parking for developments.

Though for those who live in automobile dependent LA I guess most of you have the experience of struggling to find parking everyday. You would also be surprised to learn that LA only requires one space for up to three bedrooms. Pretty unrealistic for a city where people are forced to drive as there are hardly any practical alternatives and have at least two cars per household.

I find that some parts of the city such as downtown there seem to be more parking spaces than their are people. As there are plenty of lots and garages both of buildings and commercially operated public parking facilities. But neighborhoods in the west its either tiny little parking lots, a very tight garage or assigned parking space, or streets that are packed to the gills and often requiring users to pay for a permit. People often have to circle for parking that won't get them a ticket which adds to traffic congestion and pollution.

What do you think the city of LA should do in the future in terms of parking, should they eliminate parking requirements, or should they expand it and require residents to have proof of parking space to bring cars in. Should we have a different set of rules for neighborhoods like downtown where there are already alot of parking spaces per capita within pretty much all the city blocks and also plenty of public transit options? I.e approving a development without parking if there is already a certain number of parking spaces within a certain distance of the development that is open for the use of the building's occupants and visitors?

What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2017, 07:29 AM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,840,942 times
Reputation: 9236
They should be eased. Los Angeles has more transit options than most cities, and expanding them. With other options like car sharing, there is less need to own cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2017, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
1,780 posts, read 1,751,074 times
Reputation: 1218
In certain areas that are well served by transit, like Hollywood proper, Koreatown, Westlake, Downtown, etc., they should be eliminated. Developers will still provide parking, unless they want a very difficult time renting/selling their units, but they won't be dictated by regulations. Parking spaces cost almost as much as the units do, and most of that cost is passed onto the renter/buyer.

More parking also encourages more trips by be taken by car and places like these that are well served by transit can get away with developing properties with a lower ratio of spaces to units.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2017, 08:36 AM
 
672 posts, read 2,170,311 times
Reputation: 896
Too little on the edge of the county. Too much in the center of town. Different strategies for different densities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2017, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles, CA
1,886 posts, read 2,088,558 times
Reputation: 2250
The reality is renters gladly pay for these parking spots so developers keep building them, regardless of regulation. It's a capitalistic solution to a problem and that's the way it should be. In order for renters to say no to parking, these renters must have viable alternatives. Sure there are select neighborhoods well served by transit and parking spaces are an additional fee (I live in one), however to assume such for the remainder of the city is a naive generalization that needs to be killed. With fire. Lots of it.

In a perfect world, we'd all have my cushy situation. I live in a dense, transit-friendly neighborhood. Work off of a nearby transit line. My car is only used for long trips. But that is simply unattainable for the majority of us. People live where they can afford to, and work where they can get the best job.

So I'm against lifting these restrictions, because the city/county are so far out from a transit system that would provide these renters/buyers a viable alternative. On top of it, you've got NIMBYs pushing Measure S, aiming to halt the very multi-use developments that attract transit, bring additional tax base which can be used to support this infrastructure, and ease traffic for everyone.

Can't wait to see how C-D's NIMBYs respond.




By the way OP, the city of LA does require more than 1 parking space for a three bedroom unit. You may be thinking of the "3 habitable rooms" rule which includes the living room, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2017, 03:04 PM
 
3,344 posts, read 2,280,420 times
Reputation: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange View Post
In certain areas that are well served by transit, like Hollywood proper, Koreatown, Westlake, Downtown, etc., they should be eliminated. Developers will still provide parking, unless they want a very difficult time renting/selling their units, but they won't be dictated by regulations. Parking spaces cost almost as much as the units do, and most of that cost is passed onto the renter/buyer.

More parking also encourages more trips by be taken by car and places like these that are well served by transit can get away with developing properties with a lower ratio of spaces to units.
True I too have a mix bag of feelings on the parking requirements.

Parking does cost a lot of money which a major expense for public and private firms to deal with.
But parking congestion increases traffic, pollution, noise, and can even be dangerous as it delays emergency response.

While parking does somewhat encourages driving which is counter initiative if we build more to cope with demand. Though in neighborhoods without transit other than hours of bus rides they will be driving anyways regardless of the difficult parking situation. No one I know would trade difficult parking for hours of bus rides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adr3naline View Post
The reality is renters gladly pay for these parking spots so developers keep building them, regardless of regulation.



By the way OP, the city of LA does require more than 1 parking space for a three bedroom unit. You may be thinking of the "3 habitable rooms" rule which includes the living room, etc.
While I may have misread LA's parking requirements and thought it means three bedrooms I still find LA city's parking requirements are pretty minimal compared to other cities and LA county.
Also the parking requirements for some reason seem to apply to apartments near Universities as they often have up to 3 habitable rooms but only allow one parking space per unit. So the streets surrounding are always congested with parking with or without permit requirements.
Though I bet developers would build parking in car loving LA regardless whether required or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike121 View Post
Too little on the edge of the county. Too much in the center of town. Different strategies for different densities.
Though I notice in LA is that some neighborhoods like downtown has more parking than people which are open to all for a fee more than enough for residents and visitors alike. but other neighborhoods especially on the westside are severely parking congested because there are very little choices but to drive and there are no garages or lots that one can store their car off their property. The neighborhoods within a mile radius of Sawtelle bl, Sepulvada blvd, are a great example where even plazas and restaurants have very little parking lots and their customer parking spills into the neighborhoods and cause severe traffic girdlock.

Just a fact many multi unit housing even though they do have parking they are not a given for all residents. i.e some may charge a fortune for the covered one leading to parking congestion near the building as many residents decide to park on the streets surrounding it while many onsite parking spaces remains empty. There are also very little if any incidental extra parking spaces for visitors or temporary residents as well some of them do get converted to paid resident parking after the development opens. The increased number of Airbnbs also severely cause neighborhood parking congestion.


Therefore I believe for those neighborhoods such as downtown with plenty of parking surrounding it and nearby mass transit access should approve developments by factoring the number of parking spaces surrounding the development available for building occupants including visitors, (commercial/public parking spaces that charge a fee for daily/monthly parking fits the definition, while shopping center spaces reserved for customers are not) rather than requiring minimum parking on the property itself.

Though for other neighborhoods that do not have ready access to nearby parking and transit there should either be at least two spaces per residence either onsite or within a certain distance of a public parking facilities that can offer the required number of parking. Or the city should factor in parking for such a development. Cities should also require that residents and non residents staying longer than fifteen days a month have proof of a parking space should they keep a car in the city this is already done in some cities. And cities should work with developers and property owners to fund centralized parking facilities and rapid transit projects in which their tenants, employees, and would use along with public toilets in high density areas of the city. Today we can take added advantage of new technologies such as Automated parking facilities which costs much less to build than traditional parking structures and self cleaning toilets.

Last edited by citizensadvocate; 02-27-2017 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2017, 03:19 PM
 
Location: TOVCCA
8,452 posts, read 14,989,006 times
Reputation: 12529
Get rid of only-for-neighborhood-residents permit parking. Those streets are public thoroughfares, so everyone should be able to have the chance to park there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 05:19 PM
 
3,344 posts, read 2,280,420 times
Reputation: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightlysparrow View Post
Get rid of only-for-neighborhood-residents permit parking. Those streets are public thoroughfares, so everyone should be able to have the chance to park there.
I heard there are lots of flaws with the permit parking system for people to get parking permits particularly guest parking permits. Many residents just could not or find the process to arduous which denies them and their guests from the parking spaces they are entitled to.

We should have a system that allows paid guest parking in permit zones for 5 days a month per registered vehicle without needing to provide proof of residency and have automated kiosks in blocks with permit parking. Though having said that we should overhaul minimum parking by the block rather than unit and require resident vehicles have proof of parking space and that its used for that purpose. There is nothing more annoying than cars that should be parked in a designated space but taking up curb room because the space is made unavailable for one reason or the other either due to being blocked by storage, inaccessibility, or due to issues with the HOA/apartment management.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2017, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,303 posts, read 21,364,015 times
Reputation: 12318
I don't imagine that apartments or condo buildings without parking would be easily to rent or sell especially if they are in neighborhoods where parking is very difficult .

We aren't yet at the point where it's common for people to rely on public transit .
Yes people do but they usually don't live in brand new condos or apartments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,947,904 times
Reputation: 5126
There should be parking garages built in areas with over crowded street parking. A lot of cities in the NE have this. Won't hurt someone to walk a few blocks to a ten story parking garage with a couple of ground floors of retail. Make it automated too.Then developers don't have to provide much parking (or any).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top