Apt's at Federal Cold Storage in Strip (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: apartment, rent)

[pman]

Originally Posted by UKyank

To get to those handfull places you mentioned within a few blocks no you most likely will not be driving (unless at night - many wont want to walk through the strip then), but its naive to think that pittsburgh is truly a city that a relatively affluent person is going to give up their car in. We have a very long way to go transportation wise before we begin to reach that level.
I live where I can easily walk to all of those places you mentioned (& do) but also have 2 vehicles and I would not consider purchasing a place that did not accommodate parking in some manner for me. (And yes I've also lived totally car-free elsewhere; pittsburgh does not meet my transportation needs for such)

the more density and retail, the more walkable a place becomes. I made two comments, one about retail and one about parking, those comments are mutually exclusive. while you may want parking for both of your cars, not everyone is like that. there is plenty of parking across the street that can be purchased. there's a good likelihood one car would suffice for a couple. I get that some people still think that "it can't work here" and as far as living carless, the city certainly has its work cut out for it.
eschaton-this area has excellent transit. you walk over to liberty and you have the 86,87,91 in addition to the 54. the bus is a decent option especially offpeak when there's little traffic. the price is a little high, $5 RT is enough to entice people into driving to lawrenceville if they don't already have a pass, but I certainly could see hopping a bus up to lawrenceville and grabbing a few beers at franktuary or the industry or up to church brew works. bus service between downtown and lawrenceville/bloomfield is pretty decent. the neighborhoods that are suddenly in demand such as lawrenceville are not coincidentally the least auto dominated. the biggest problem downtown is how much street space is given over to people who merely want to get in and out quickly.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by pman

with rents that high seems odd they'd opt for so much parking rather than more units. not sure if the lack of ground floor retail means anything.

I think it would be hard to find people to rent high end places without providing places for them to park. They can afford to own cars. Their friends probably own cars. Where will they park for dinners and parties if there isn't enough parking?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by pman

it's not really about which is cheaper but about which is more profitable, generally apartments are profitable. perhaps their "target market" is two cars or perhaps this is new territory for the monroeville based developers who would normally building some garbage surrounded by surface lots and this is actually very little parking for a project in a place like monroeville. remember, it's more than one car per unit, sacrificing some parking might yield .75 cars per unit which assumes that only a portion of residents would be carless or opt for street parking. it's an excellent location for transit use and walking. it's a quibble, on the whole this project is very good for the area, turning an eyesore into an asset.

People won't rent if they have nowhere to park their cars. Is it really less profitable to provide parking? Most of the upscale condo buildings in Oakland have substantial parking available. They can charge residents for parking spaces or the cost of X parking spaces can be incorporated into rent. How many parking places can you fit into the square footage of an apartment? A 500sqft space can probably hold 8 cars. One way or another, tenants pay for parking even with commercial property. Charge $200/month for a space and that's $1,600 without having to provide heating and cooling, etc. Most monthly parking leases are much higher than $200/month.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I think it would be hard to find people to rent high end places without providing places for them to park. They can afford to own cars. Their friends probably own cars. Where will they park for dinners and parties if there isn't enough parking?

theyll park on the street or take the bus. ill all but guarantee this project does not provide guest parking which would be an incredible waste of space. people dont rent based on their guesta desires.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Hopes

People won't rent if they have nowhere to park their cars. Is it really less profitable to provide parking? Most of the upscale condo buildings in Oakland have substantial parking available. They can charge residents for parking spaces or the cost of X parking spaces can be incorporated into rent. How many parking places can you fit into the square footage of an apartment? A 500sqft space can probably hold 8 cars. One way or another, tenants pay for parking even with commercial property. Charge $200/month for a space and that's $1,600 without having to provide heating and cooling, etc. Most monthly parking leases are much higher than $200/month.

people will rent. mind you i didnt say eliminate parking but less in order to make room for retail or more units. parking is less profitable. how much is a space across the street?

[UKyank]

I'm guessing the developer has crunched the number, completed the studies. & generally done much more in depth analysis on the question & has thus concluded it is in their economic benefit to offer more available parking to prospective buyers over more units

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Even if every middle class person took the bus to town, its hardly the only place that people go and they still need cars to go shopping, go to jobs outside of town, visit friends and relatives, etc.

And those cars still have to be parked.

My point is if demand in Pittsburgh continues to rise, some better transit options will be put in place in the densest neighborhoods like South Side and Lawrenceville (hell, they've been talking about both a trolley and a rail line here simultaneously). Eventually, the better transit and worse parking situation will cause more people to go on a "car diet" (two-car families downsizing to one, or people giving up cars entirely), and the area will reach equilibrium. Lack of parking has never, ever hurt a gentrifying urban neighborhood's further economic development AFAIK.

[Hopes]

I'm sure parking is more profitable than vacant retail spaces. There's no guarantee that retail spaces will be occupied.

Amenities are important for upscale residences. Car owners think about these things. People with money will pay for convenience parking instead of parking across the street.

I wouldn't be surprised if the city is starting to require developers to provide X parking spaces. If the city doesn't, it should. Residents in Lawrenceville and Southside complain about parking problems all the time.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My point is if demand in Pittsburgh continues to rise, some better transit options will be put in place in the densest neighborhoods like South Side and Lawrenceville (hell, they've been talking about both a trolley and a rail line here simultaneously). Eventually, the better transit and worse parking situation will cause more people to go on a "car diet" (two-car families downsizing to one, or people giving up cars entirely), and the area will reach equilibrium. Lack of parking has never, ever hurt a gentrifying urban neighborhood's further economic development AFAIK.

Dream on. They'll find a more convenient place to live.

[greg42]

Hell we live in the sticks and have been on a car diet for a few years. One car. Entirely doable when you don't have children to shuttle about and you commute to the same general area. Urban places are already a more convenient place to live in many respects, to the people who choose them.

That said, another reason to have 2 spots per unit would be guests. If I lived there for example it would be much easier to have a space for the occasional drive-in guest in addition to my own car.