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.
Did anybody see this coming up to the planning commission. Is a good start to that whole Valdez area plan that the city has. Hopefully they can snag some good nation retails to fill the space.
I suppose the building is a good idea. But why are they building 196 residential units, but providing only 122-137 parking spaces? I know the zoning allows it, but if every building going up does this, they guarantee a neighborhood parking shortfall. As it is almost every 2-adult family has two cars. I know there's this belief that if you don't build parking people will take public transportation. But, its a pretty big bet to make, to build an entire neighborhood, each residential building having a 30% shortfall in parking spaces (if every 2-adult unit has only 1 car), or up to a 65% shortfall (if every unit has 2 adults each with one car for a total of 2 cars per unit). I can almost smell the fumes of the circling cars already.
I suppose the building is a good idea. But why are they building 196 residential units, but providing only 122-137 parking spaces? I know the zoning allows it, but if every building going up does this, they guarantee a neighborhood parking shortfall. As it is almost every 2-adult family has two cars. I know there's this belief that if you don't build parking people will take public transportation. But, its a pretty big bet to make, to build an entire neighborhood, each residential building having a 30% shortfall in parking spaces (if every 2-adult unit has only 1 car), or up to a 65% shortfall (if every unit has 2 adults each with one car for a total of 2 cars per unit). I can almost smell the fumes of the circling cars already.
If you have a behavior that you want to limit (like driving), you don't plan for everyone to drive. 20% of Oakland households are car-free (31% of San Francisco households are car-free). According to AAA, the average american spends roughly $9,000 on their automobile per year (it's probably more in California...). That money could be much better spent on saving for the purchase of a home, taking some serious vacations, paying down student loans, or any number of better ways - especially when you live a 5 minute walk from the 19th Street BART station! Honestly, they shouldn't be building any parking with this development at all, it just makes the place more expensive. Let the garages full of Teslas and beemers get built and waste space in SF, Oakland just needs people and places for those people to live.
I suppose the building is a good idea. But why are they building 196 residential units, but providing only 122-137 parking spaces? I know the zoning allows it, but if every building going up does this, they guarantee a neighborhood parking shortfall. As it is almost every 2-adult family has two cars. I know there's this belief that if you don't build parking people will take public transportation. But, its a pretty big bet to make, to build an entire neighborhood, each residential building having a 30% shortfall in parking spaces (if every 2-adult unit has only 1 car), or up to a 65% shortfall (if every unit has 2 adults each with one car for a total of 2 cars per unit). I can almost smell the fumes of the circling cars already.
There is plenty of transit and alternatives in this area. Why would you, if you have 2 cars, pick a spot where there isn't much parking for you! There are plenty of other locations. Also, about 20% of Oaklanders use transit exclusively, and this is one of the areas where the rate of transit only people was much higher, so it aligns more closely with neighborhood demographics.
Additionally, many units will be studios and 1 bedrooms. These are not two car households. People tend to move to locations like this (as couples) so they can decrease to one car, since many helpful amenities are in walking distance.
So in a nutshell, people are already taking transit. It is a really popular bike route. That area has low car ownership already. Why add in tons of parking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89
If you have a behavior that you want to limit (like driving), you don't plan for everyone to drive. 20% of Oakland households are car-free (31% of San Francisco households are car-free). According to AAA, the average american spends roughly $9,000 on their automobile per year (it's probably more in California...). That money could be much better spent on saving for the purchase of a home, taking some serious vacations, paying down student loans, or any number of better ways - especially when you live a 5 minute walk from the 19th Street BART station! Honestly, they shouldn't be building any parking with this development at all, it just makes the place more expensive. Let the garages full of Teslas and beemers get built and waste space in SF, Oakland just needs people and places for those people to live.
I agree, they could decrease the parking a little more. Once the density and amenities increase more, they should do a parking free residential development.
There is plenty of transit and alternatives in this area. Why would you, if you have 2 cars, pick a spot where there isn't much parking for you! There are plenty of other locations. Also, about 20% of Oaklanders use transit exclusively, and this is one of the areas where the rate of transit only people was much higher, so it aligns more closely with neighborhood demographics.
Additionally, many units will be studios and 1 bedrooms. These are not two car households. People tend to move to locations like this (as couples) so they can decrease to one car, since many helpful amenities are in walking distance.
So in a nutshell, people are already taking transit. It is a really popular bike route. That area has low car ownership already. Why add in tons of parking?
I agree, they could decrease the parking a little more. Once the density and amenities increase more, they should do a parking free residential development.
Maybe I can move there when I get rid of my car!
Just as I thought--if we don't build it, they won't come. We'll see. My sense is this claim (hope?) will be proven wrong. My reasons are as follows:
1)This is not NY, nor is it Prague, London, or any of the many other cities with quick, efficient, public transportation that reaches everywhere. Anecdotal case in point--the child I mentor had a track meet last Saturday in San Jose. My car is in the shop. It would take me 2.25 hours, with three buses and one BART segment, to get there. I could go an equivalent distance in the NY area much quicker, with fewer transfers. I had to miss the meet--4.5 hours of travel time was not possible. My point--"upscale" people--the market for the developments at issue--are not going to ditch their cars. They are going to commute with transit if they can, and keep the car(s) for discretionary trips. Still less pollution, but still need for parking spaces. I admit, down to San Jose is a long trip. However, it was a discretionary one, and I think people in those units will have some similar desires for such trips. I doubt they'll ditch their cars, or limit themselves to zipcar.
2)One can bemoan gentrification, but the Exxon-Valdez, 'scuse me, Broadway-Valdez project is going to further gentrify the area. Yes, there will be some affordable housing. Most of the new units won't be affordable. And there's your maintenance of cars.
3)One can't use current residents in the area to project car ownership. The area is underperfoming in terms of both retail and residence. Once it stops underperforming, car ownership will grow.
4)Finally, the way you may be correct is people with studios may not have cars, and perhaps there will be enough studios to make the planned parking be sufficient. However, even that I think will not be enough, partly because studios (of usually 1 person) will not produce the population increase the plan seeks, so there's a disincentive for building mostly such units.
Yet another in step in a long line of "if we don't accommodate what people will probably do, they won't do it" thinking. As I said, "We'll see."
Just as I thought--if we don't build it, they won't come. We'll see. My sense is this claim (hope?) will be proven wrong. My reasons are as follows:
1)This is not NY, nor is it Prague, London, or any of the many other cities with quick, efficient, public transportation that reaches everywhere. Anecdotal case in point--the child I mentor had a track meet last Saturday in San Jose. My car is in the shop. It would take me 2.25 hours, with three buses and one BART segment, to get there. I could go an equivalent distance in the NY area much quicker, with fewer transfers. I had to miss the meet--4.5 hours of travel time was not possible. My point--"upscale" people--the market for the developments at issue--are not going to ditch their cars. They are going to commute with transit if they can, and keep the car(s) for discretionary trips. Still less pollution, but still need for parking spaces. I admit, down to San Jose is a long trip. However, it was a discretionary one, and I think people in those units will have some similar desires for such trips. I doubt they'll ditch their cars, or limit themselves to zipcar.
2)One can bemoan gentrification, but the Exxon-Valdez, 'scuse me, Broadway-Valdez project is going to further gentrify the area. Yes, there will be some affordable housing. Most of the new units won't be affordable. And there's your maintenance of cars.
3)One can't use current residents in the area to project car ownership. The area is underperfoming in terms of both retail and residence. Once it stops underperforming, car ownership will grow.
4)Finally, the way you may be correct is people with studios may not have cars, and perhaps there will be enough studios to make the planned parking be sufficient. However, even that I think will not be enough, partly because studios (of usually 1 person) will not produce the population increase the plan seeks, so there's a disincentive for building mostly such units.
Yet another in step in a long line of "if we don't accommodate what people will probably do, they won't do it" thinking. As I said, "We'll see."
Actually the car free people are already here. Around 25 percent of the people I know innOakland do not have cars. Unfortunately some of them have to subsidize the parking in their building.
In "established areas" nearby, the car free percentage is at 20ish percent (Piedmont Ave in pariticular). Adams Point is also similar, if not more car-free.
The percentage of people who are younger than me, who are car free with no plans of getting one is pretty high. In fact one BART board member lived over there car free a few years ago. We are trending towards less car use. Oakland in particular.
Buying a car for an ocassional trip to San Jose isn't practical. I am the target demo for the building. And although I currently have a car, it is not in my long term plan to keep it. In fact, as times go on I use my car less. Currently it works out to about 4x a month. An amount easily zipcar able. It could even be less in the coming months.
We need to stop building infrastructure for a lifestyle that no longer exists.
Actually the car free people are already here. Around 25 percent of the people I know innOakland do not have cars.
So, 75 percent of the people you know in Oakland have cars.
Quote:
Unfortunately some of them have to subsidize the parking in their building.
In "established areas" nearby, the car free percentage is at 20ish percent (Piedmont Ave in pariticular). Adams Point is also similar, if not more car-free.
So, Piedmont Avenue, a very car-free area, still has 80% of the residents with cars. Quick question: Is the amount of parking in that area sufficient, or is it constantly tough to find spaces.
Quote:
The percentage of people who are younger than me, who are car free with no plans of getting one is pretty high.
Fact: People often make claims. The question is, what do they do? Young single people and/or w/o kids can easily say "No plans for a car." I'm less certain than you that those claims won't be forgotten when the kids turn 3 and its a big hassle to go without a car.
Quote:
In fact one BART board member lived over there car free a few years ago.
His/her noteworthiness suggests all other BART board members had cars. I doubt we should make policy on the basis of the aberrant case, at least not if we want policy to work.
Quote:
We are trending towards less car use. Oakland in particular.
This is a claim, but I see no evidence this is true. I am not saying it is false, I am saying a bold assertion does not make it true.
[/quote]Buying a car for an ocassional trip to San Jose isn't practical[/quote]
Perhaps for people with a certain amount of money. But, the area is gentrifying (unless we rethink and reject the B-V plan. I say this because developers are setting prices that necessarily mean gentrification). The new residents will be able to afford one or two cars for non-commute travel.
Quote:
I am the target demo for the building.
So you say. But, if you think a car is an extravagance, I doubt it.
Quote:
And although I currently have a car, it is not in my long term plan to keep it.
I wonder how long you've kept your car with getting rid of it being your "long-term" plan. You're making my case for me. You don't appear to be getting rid of the car; you are waiting until you no longer need it. What will make you not need it is a combination of lotsa things, including life stage. What makes you think others will go through life stages in which you had a car, but NOT get one or two?
Quote:
In fact, as times go on I use my car less. Currently it works out to about 4x a month. An amount easily zipcar able. It could even be less in the coming months.
We need to stop building infrastructure for a lifestyle that no longer exists.
So, again, this parking plan is from the "If we don't plan for what people will do, they won't do it" school of development. I wonder how often such designs fail, and how many times such designs succeed. That's the question we should be asking.
Buying a car for an ocassional trip to San Jose isn't practical. I am the target demo for the building. And although I currently have a car, it is not in my long term plan to keep it. In fact, as times go on I use my car less. Currently it works out to about 4x a month. An amount easily zipcar able. It could even be less in the coming months.
Although you use your car 4 times a month, you still have it. It is still taking a parking space. So, your own behavior implies that "using a car 4 times a month" is sufficient to own one. Do you think that the other people might reach the same conclusion? Do you think people who can afford to buy or rent in the new buildings in that area might have a lower threshold for keeping a car (because those with more money can afford more "useless" objects)?
Your own behavior, plus the 75%+ other car owners in "walkable Piedmont Avenue", suggest that despite your claim that:
Quote:
We need to stop building infrastructure for a lifestyle that no longer exists.
we definitely do still need to keep building infrastructure for parking. Why? Your own behavior shows the lifestyle is alive and well. Despite driving only 4 times a month, you still own and park a car. You seem to be waiting for when you absolutely do not need the car for anything. If others behave like you, a person who claims to reject "the car lifestyle," that building is going to need a lot more parking spaces--or, the street is going to get a lot more competitive for those who live there to find a parking space .
we definitely do still need to keep building infrastructure for parking. Why? Your own behavior shows the lifestyle is alive and well. Despite driving only 4 times a month, you still own and park a car. You seem to be waiting for when you absolutely do not need the car for anything. If others behave like you, a person who claims to reject "the car lifestyle," that building is going to need a lot more parking spaces--or, the street is going to get a lot more competitive for those who live there to find a parking space .
What's important to remember in this debate, is that the buildings in question will stand for the next 100 to 150 years. Sure, right now the numbers in Oakland as a whole are 80% with car, 20% without. Current trends though, show that:
jade408's car needs are easily met by a zip car, like he said. We know that car sharing services reduce car ownership where they are present. So no, SoSciProf, we don't need to keep building parking. There are already myriad options for people who wish to live with a car (the vast majority of the bay area is built for the car lifestyle...). What we need is a different type of place, one that accommodates the desires (and economic realities) of today's youth.
Although you use your car 4 times a month, you still have it. It is still taking a parking space. So, your own behavior implies that "using a car 4 times a month" is sufficient to own one. Do you think that the other people might reach the same conclusion? Do you think people who can afford to buy or rent in the new buildings in that area might have a lower threshold for keeping a car (because those with more money can afford more "useless" objects)?
Your own behavior, plus the 75%+ other car owners in "walkable Piedmont Avenue", suggest that despite your claim that:
we definitely do still need to keep building infrastructure for parking. Why? Your own behavior shows the lifestyle is alive and well. Despite driving only 4 times a month, you still own and park a car. You seem to be waiting for when you absolutely do not need the car for anything. If others behave like you, a person who claims to reject "the car lifestyle," that building is going to need a lot more parking spaces--or, the street is going to get a lot more competitive for those who live there to find a parking space .
My place came with free odd street larking. When I moved in, I needed a car so tyat was a requirememt for finding an apartment. I was close to getting rid of my car, but then my job changed requiring a car. These days not so much and I got a bike. I'll guve my car to my parents when it is paid off and switch to zipcar. I'm saving up to buy a condo in a walkable area of Oakland. In my book driving shouldn't be a necessity, and i am working in making this oreference match my lifestyle. Many many other people have similar opinions to me. And this includes people who can well afford a car. If having a parking space is critical to you, you get a home with a parking space. Especially when you have choice due to income. These new places are catering to that demo. There are seceral other buildings in downtown Oakland that have zero parking spaces. They sold just fine. These comdos, while currently less prime, should have no issues either.
What's important to remember in this debate, is that the buildings in question will stand for the next 100 to 150 years. Sure, right now the numbers in Oakland as a whole are 80% with car, 20% without.
How many of the things you do in life are based on designs from 1865? Because 1865 was 150 years ago. Is the wiring in your home from 1865? How about the plumbing? Do you have the same number of inside bathrooms now as the dwelling had in 1865? Plumbing concerns stuff people have been doing for the entire history of the human species, but I doubt you'd be pleased to buy a property that had plumbing arrangements that were common in 1865. My point? It is just as silly to expect someone in 2015 to have housing designed just as it was in 1865 as it is to expect in 2015 to hard-code uses of building elements that will work in 2165. For all we know we won't need parking spaces in the basement, we'll need parking on the roof for people's personal flying devices. But designing for that now would be stupid. Or, more likely, we won't need most of the buildings because only half a million people remain in the entire world, as the population crashed due to climate change, famine, war, and pestilence. But designing for a population crash would be stupid, for what do we do with all the people while we await such a crash?
So, though I applaud the desire to build buildings to last, it is folly to presume one can build specific spaces as if that is how they will be used in perpetuity. What we do know is people of that social stratum have cars, and they're going to get them regardless. If we are wise we build for the contemporary reality and re-purpose the space if possible later. If we are unwise we build AGAINST contemporary reality and create gridlock in today's neighborhood.
It's the bay area, so I know which way the decision will go. But, when parking hassles boil over and lower the quality of life, I will point to this exchange.
They are also waiting a lot longer to: 1)Move out of their parents' homes, 2)Get their own apartment as opposed to living with roommates and, 3)Marry. I believe all those trends connect to one thing: The young have been battered by this economy. Consequently, if the Main Street economy ever comes back (i.e., the Wall Street economy, which is booming, is not the issue), I suspect all those trends will reverse. Until we see delayed licenses in a functioning economy, I wouldn't design as if this claim were true.
This is a function of 1, above, and that cars are engineered to last longer. The poor economy and the higher quality cars are making people hold them longer, not decide they don't need them.
As I originally said, few will commute from Oakland to San Jose. However, many would love to head down to San Jose to the Tech museum on a Saturday, or over to the wine country for weekend wine tasting, or . . . I could add new stuff for hours. It is a wonderful thing about the bay area. Needing a car for commuting is an unhappy experience. Keeping a car for discretionary use facilitates a high quality of life. The latter will lead to fewer miles being driven. But almost every mile driven is still driven by someone who owns (or leases) the vehicle, which means they have to park it in their neighborhood.
Jade408's claims would be more persuasive if she were saying "I gave up my car 10 years ago, and . . .." As it is, all she can say is, "I plan to give up my car, someday. But right now, I need it 4 times a month." Still no date for liberation from her car, hardly a ringing endorsement for failing to engineer more parking spaces for building residents.
The funny thing in this exchange is I'm all for public transportation. I take public transportation to campus, or I walk, or I bike. I drive less than one day a week, much less than one day a week--I probably drive to work 10 days all year. Yet, I, like most, use the car for discretionary reasons. It is a hassle to change 3 buses + BART to get somewhere. It is a hassle to rent a car. Those things are why most people will continue to own cars--80% of people around Piedmont Avenue own them, and that's one of the most if not THE most connected, dense, upscale neighborhood in Oakland. It nicely approximates what social stratum is going to buy/rent in the area under discussion. I've never met anyone in the Piedmont Avenue area say parking is not a problem. I've never met anyone in that area claim they plan to sell or not have a car. Its my experience, and thus its anecdote, not data. Still, I believe it is a good match for what will happen down Broadway. Failing to plan for that is not going to stop people from living there, or stop them from having cars. Its just going to lower the quality of life they will have while they live there.
But, bay areans have never let the prospect of lowering quality of life get in the way of a poor policy prescription they support. Thus, I have little expectation of changing any minds with data, historical evidence, or logic.
So, as I said--we'll see.
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.
