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.
Streetview of my apartment in Seattle when I moved to Capitol Hill. It's actually kind of run down although it doesn't look it. Fairly well maintained but not what I would call well preserved, especially on the inside. Across the street is an "ugly" building with the required parking. Next block over they've built a lot of infill, mostly without any off-street parking (exception).
That location is two blocks off the Pike/Pine corridor. Parking is basically horrible there. I'd definitely only look at a building that had parking available, preferably garage as the amount of people breaking into cars in Capitol Hill, while not as high as Belltown, is pushing my pucker factor. Most of the featured "courtyard" apartments are Anhalt buildings. They're beautifully designed and very well built, basically the nicest examples of the era intended to be rented to people willing to pay a premium but who did not have the means to purchase something with an actual view from their window of the Cascades or Pugent Sound. I would not look at them. Parking in the neighborhoods they are located in is generally quite bad and they do not have parking. Regardless, they are not really of the same class as most dingbat housing. Dingbat is utilitarian housing designed to be cheap, pretty much the opposite of an Anhalt building.
Given an entire article complaining about an alleged law you'd think they would have the intellectual honesty to identify this law. They didn't. This is nothing but an anti-car rant.
I looked up Danielson Grove and watched a video about it. What these homeowners end up with is a shared detached garage. They have to park in the shared detached garage and cross the private street in the elements to get to their own house.
Ok. Perhaps that wasn't the best written article nor well argued. I skimmed through it late at night before going to sleep, mainly looking at the photos. I mainly posted for the pictures, my point was that mandated parking in dense areas has aesthetic consequences. I think I get your point, but I don't remember exactly which housing development was which.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
As for the rest of the examples, I'm not sure what she's asking for. If the people living in the locations are satisfied with the looks and amount of parking, then what is the problem? And what is she suggesting as the solution?
The problem is if those designs are mandated by law, it's not as much of a free choice. It would be difficult to avoid the IMO unattractive multi-family designs. Since it's just an aesthetic complaint, I don't think it's necessary to present a solution, it may be beyond the scope of the article. Does come across as whining though. As for satisfied with the looks, it's hard to tell if people are, are they just deal with what there is. To me, my reaction is there's no accounting for taste though yes, I'm not saying my tastes should be mandated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I never knew what the term "dingbat" meant until I saw that blog, and I had never seen the term before until recently on this forum. We don't have those out here. However, I don't get the beef. My own house has a similar garage over a bedroom. The cars are tucked away that way w/o taking up even more space for a garage!
Well, the dingbat presents a different look than a neighborhood with spaced out detached homes where only part of the home front is a garage. A block full of dingbats would present a wall of garages on the street, hardly attractive though practical.
Quote:
Note the courtyard building in Seattle doesn't show the street; we have no idea how crowded the street is with cars. Note the Brooklyn picture shows cars parked tightly on the street. The woman is a fraud.
How does that follow that the woman is a fraud?!! It's rather obvious that no off street parking would result in a more crowded street with cars.
I've driven and parked in Brooklyn probably close to where the photo is taken. I've never seen a Brooklyn street where the cars aren't parked tightly, I would find that much more noteworthy to see a street that wasn't. I would prefer a street like that, just because of looks, over a less crowded street with one of those unattractive apartment buildings with off street parking. Or likewise, probably a courtyard building with greenery and no parking over one with parking in the middle instead.
I don't think those "dingbat" buildings look that bad. As for garages facing the street, so what? This is the case in almost every home with an attached garage. (A few have long winding driveways that go around to the back.) It's sure better than a parking lot, no? Even I would agree that a sea of cars is not particularly attractive. In addition, most of these example dingbat buildings have landscaping around them to soften the garage look.
I think garages spaced out look ok, but an entire residential street composed of garages facing the street is rather ugly. Though yes, better than a parking lot. Note if much of the street is curb cuts, you lose on street parking spaces. So the total parking spaces isn't that much higher, the parking is just in a more convenient location?
Quote:
She's a fraud b/c she's using trickery to make her point. Picture #12, no street shown at all. Probably loaded with residents' cars.
It probably does have, I don't see why that's trickery. She's focusing on the property itself, why must the street be shown?
Ok. Perhaps that wasn't the best written article nor well argued. I skimmed through it late at night before going to sleep, mainly looking at the photos. I mainly posted for the pictures, my point was that mandated parking in dense areas has aesthetic consequences. I think I get your point, but I don't remember exactly which housing development was which.
The problem is if those designs are mandated by law, it's not as much of a free choice. It would be difficult to avoid the IMO unattractive multi-family designs. Since it's just an aesthetic complaint, I don't think it's necessary to present a solution, it may be beyond the scope of the article. Does come across as whining though. As for satisfied with the looks, it's hard to tell if people are, are they just deal with what there is. To me, my reaction is there's no accounting for taste though yes, I'm not saying my tastes should be mandated.
Well, the dingbat presents a different look than a neighborhood with spaced out detached homes where only part of the home front is a garage. A block full of dingbats would present a wall of garages on the street, hardly attractive though practical.
How does that follow that the woman is a fraud?!! It's rather obvious that no off street parking would result in a more crowded street with cars.
I've driven and parked in Brooklyn probably close to where the photo is taken. I've never seen a Brooklyn street where the cars aren't parked tightly, I would find that much more noteworthy to see a street that wasn't. I would prefer a street like that, just because of looks, over a less crowded street with one of those unattractive apartment buildings with off street parking. Or likewise, probably a courtyard building with greenery and no parking over one with parking in the middle instead.
I don't think those "dingbat" buildings look that bad. As for garages facing the street, so what? This is the case in almost every home with an attached garage. (A few have long winding driveways that go around to the back.) It's sure better than a parking lot, no? Even I would agree that a sea of cars is not particularly attractive. In addition, most of these example dingbat buildings have landscaping around them to soften the garage look.
She's a fraud b/c she's using trickery to make her point. Picture #12, no street shown at all. Probably loaded with residents' cars. Picture #13 of a huge, single family home; picture taken at such an angle that no garage shown. I'd wager it has at least a 2 car garage somewhere on the property. Others have pointed out other trickery of hers.
Mandating off-street parking is not a matter of tastes. It's a matter of street congestion. I recall a poster from Portland who said that in some of the areas with no provision for car parking off-street, people have cars anyway. In fact, I did a search and here's what I found about Portland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
Thank you and yes you are correct. I remember everyone telling me that many people are afraid or hesitant at first but I never got over it. And living in a large city like Chicago I had good public transportation so it was not a big deal. I had taken the CTA since I was a kid and preferred to continue taking it to get around.
But as time went by, I did become more of an oddity. Everyone I knew was driving even in Chicago. Still, as you say, it was okay by me and I never had any animosity towards anyone who did drive for any reason. Of course when I moved to Portland, I became a total curiosity because it seems that in the West, cars, at least at the time I moved here were a lot more important to the culture.
I am glad cars are now more efficient being made to conserve gas and are more environmentally friendly. That makes sense because it's just unrealistic to expect people to give them up any more than it is to expect people to give up the telephone or the electric light bulb both which have been vastly improved since being invented.
The dummies in Portland who thought they could make people give up their cars for bikes only are now seeing how unrealistic they were especially with the improvements made towards environmental standards being made all the time on cars. Portland definitely does not hate cars contrary to whatever Spike or anyone thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
Well he was just elected mayor so up until now it wasn't his problem. Our former mayor didn't pay much attention. They didn't begin ten years ago, they were just in the planning stages. Then suddenly they seemed to appear one after another one at a time little by little where they didn't cause too many problems until they began to invade areas where they did.
Portland was a city that had high hopes for the bicycle taking over the car and many, many people do use the bike as a means of transportation. Some hearty souls do use bikes as car subsitutes but most use both. And as people have kids, although you see some parents take their kids in tandom with their bikes, most opt to put them in cars.
One problem it seems that no one foresaw is that when people use bikes and cars, they tend to leave their cars at home more which keeps the cars in parking spaces for a longer period of time while they are using their bike which makes that space unavailable for other people. This is especially a problem for business owners who would prefer to see a greater turnover in parking spaces with more people being able to park there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
If you believe the OP's premise I have a bridge to sell you. In fact a couple of them. And you can also buy the cars lined up on them waiting to cross. Take a look at this for example.
Portland is supposed to be one of the bike meccas of the country and it definitely is. But that does not mean all the young people have given up their cars. Not by a long shot. In fact, the many large apartment buildings in crowded neighborhoods going up in the this decade without parking spaces to encourage cyclists discouraging car ownership has been a failure.
In one newspaper interview, a reporter asked ten residents how many owned bikes. Ten said they did. But out of the ten, they also owned eleven cars between them. Although bike riding is up and the use of cars down in some areas, there are still more cars on the road than ever before. One reason could be the cutback in mass transit. But I think people for the most part are just not willing to give up their cars.
Not everyone wants to indulge in downtown entertainment and the like. Many people in Portland for example eschew that type of thing for the outdoor activities that are so great here. For that one needs a car in order to get to the mountains or ocean or the many camp sites. To say that young people all want to be in urban centers before they move to the 'burbs to raise their families is painting an entire group of people with too broad a brush.
BTW, I am 66 years old and have never owned a car so I don't fit the young stereotype the OP describes. I simply like living in cities, taking public transportation everywhere and walking. When I was younger living in Chicago I took mass transit and rode my bike everywhere. After moving to Portland in my mid thirties I gave up the bike and stuck to the bus to get around. But that has always been my preference. There's no hidden agenda here.
Adding to this that all the bike riders are not all young here in Portland by any means. They are of all ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes.Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
Mandating off-street parking is not a matter of tastes. It's a matter of street congestion. I recall a poster from Portland who said that in some of the areas with no provision for car parking off-street, people have cars anyway. In fact, I did a search and here's what I found about Portland.
Yes, of course there are still cars when there isn't off street parking and the street would become congested. For example, looking at apartment ads in my town they mention "off street parking" or "on street parking", it's assumed that people might take the apartment without off street parking with a car.
As I said, my taste would have a congested street than one of the apartment buildings with off street parking. I'm fine with that Brooklyn street for example. In Boston, some of the brick row houses fill the back with off street parking rather than a backyard. I'd rather have some greenery in the back.
That location is two blocks off the Pike/Pine corridor. Parking is basically horrible there. I'd definitely only look at a building that had parking available, preferably garage as the amount of people breaking into cars in Capitol Hill, while not as high as Belltown, is pushing my pucker factor.
How horrible is the horrible parking? I'd assume this new building has underground parking and is more high-end than a dingbat:
Ok. Perhaps that wasn't the best written article nor well argued. I skimmed through it late at night before going to sleep, mainly looking at the photos. I mainly posted for the pictures, my point was that mandated parking in dense areas has aesthetic consequences. I think I get your point, but I don't remember exactly which housing development was which.
Seems like "density" is what caused the problem. They accommodated two households in a space typically associated with one household. The density proponents then proclaim they don't like the aesthetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The problem is if those designs are mandated by law, it's not as much of a free choice. It would be difficult to avoid the IMO unattractive multi-family designs. Since it's just an aesthetic complaint, I don't think it's necessary to present a solution, it may be beyond the scope of the article. Does come across as whining though. As for satisfied with the looks, it's hard to tell if people are, are they just deal with what there is. To me, my reaction is there's no accounting for taste though yes, I'm not saying my tastes should be mandated.
Do the other buildings she identified as preferential have any parking? The Danielson Grove development had shared detached garages in back. She omitted disclosure of them and she also ignored the legal entanglement associated with the "courtyard" environment of her Danielson Grove example. Other commenters have noted additional problems with the pictures portrayed by the author.
The designs aren't mandated by law even if the existence of off-street parking is required. Really, what is the complaint about the Target or the Mcminville, OR office building? The distance to the store or office is the same regardless of the parking. The sidewalks run alongside the buildings as well as at the opposite end of the parking lot from the entrance. She didn't have a problem with the separation created by the acres of wooded space between the intersection and the Target. What the author doesn't like are cars or the use of real estate to accommodate them.
The function to the owners/users far outweighs the opinion of the author - urbanists such as the author of the article are focused on aesthetic opinions from irrelevant people, i.e., folks who have zero standing to complain or say anything.
Yes, of course there are still cars when there isn't off street parking and the street would become congested. For example, looking at apartment ads in my town they mention "off street parking" or "on street parking", it's assumed that people might take the apartment without off street parking with a car.
As I said, my taste would have a congested street than one of the apartment buildings with off street parking. I'm fine with that Brooklyn street for example. In Boston, some of the brick row houses fill the back with off street parking rather than a backyard. I'd rather have some greenery in the back.
So would I. That's why I find those "dingbat" buildings un-problematic.
Seems like "density" is what caused the problem. They accommodated two households in a space typically associated with one household. The density proponents then proclaim they don't like the aesthetics.
Several of the older, pre-off street parking buildings in that post didn't have the same aesthetic issues. What's typical depends on where. Definitely Boston or near downtown Seattle, one household in that space would be atypically low.
Several of the older, pre-off street parking buildings in that post didn't have the same aesthetic issues. What's typical depends on where. Definitely Boston or near downtown Seattle, one household in that space would be atypically low.
so where do they park now...
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.
It's rather obvious that no off street parking would result in a more crowded street with cars.
