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.
What makes you think there would be no parking without minimum parking restrictions? If people demand parking as much as you say they do, then that's an incentive for developers to provide parking or for residents to pay for parking.
The problem is that the government has no idea what the "right" amount of parking and so when they mandate it, they mandate too much and tons of land is wasted. That is why you have cities like Houston where there are hardly any walkable neighborhoods because it's so difficult to build compact, pedestrian-friendly developments because so much space has to be given over to parking.
In a world without minimum parking regulations of course there would still be parking, it would just be a more efficient amount of parking. Yes, sometimes in some areas street parking only might be more efficient than huge parking lots. You might find this "annoying" but why should the government subsidize your personal preference? I live in an area that is street parking only and I love it. I don't support the government mandating street parking only though because I don't believe that my personal preferences are objectively true.
Without minimum parking, people would park on the streets. This is especially problematic in places where old houses have been subdivided into apts. The old house my daughter and her BF live in has two apts with FIVE, count 'em, cars to it. If it were a SFH, it would probably have two at most. The streets get clogged with residents' cars. It is the city's job to keep traffic flowing, not to give the developers a break.
Without minimum parking, people would park on the streets. This is especially problematic in places where old houses have been subdivided into apts. The old house my daughter and her BF live in has two apts with FIVE, count 'em, cars to it. If it were a SFH, it would probably have two at most. The streets get clogged with residents' cars. It is the city's job to keep traffic flowing, not to give the developers a break.
Well, yes. That's why the claims of no parking with off street parking aren't credible.
Sommerville, MA among other local cities have a system of residential parking permit so the residents can have somewhat convenient street parking (also with guest permits). The traffic flows on the streets. The residents can still park.
The more common argument seems to go "Roads are subsidized, so road users have no reason to complain about transit subsidies". Which makes no sense. The less common but even more off-base argument is "Roads are subsidized, therefore the government is subsidizing suburban growth at the expense of the city".
Actually the second seems a bit more reasonable to me. If road construction funds are heavily concentrated for the outer edges of a metro / city, it will make living in the outer suburbs a more attractive proposition. If a big expressway network is built for a city rather than a more extensive rail network, driving will be a more favored option in the former case. Roads tend to encourage decentralization more than rail (which is usually radial) so it would help the outer suburbs more.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is a separate issue altogether.
Without minimum parking, people would park on the streets. This is especially problematic in places where old houses have been subdivided into apts. The old house my daughter and her BF live in has two apts with FIVE, count 'em, cars to it. If it were a SFH, it would probably have two at most. The streets get clogged with residents' cars. It is the city's job to keep traffic flowing, not to give the developers a break.
It's not the city's job to subsidize the automobile by giving everyone a free parking space. If your daughter doesn't like the parking situation in her neighborhood, she can move to a less urban neighborhood with more space.. or rent an off-street parking space. It's not giving the developers a "break" - it's not forcing something on them.
I prefer neighborhoods with street parking because they are more walkable due in large part to the number of cars on the street that cause traffic to slow down. So the "clogged" nature of the street is a benefit for me, not a bad thing. You disagree, which is fine. But why is your preference more correct than mine? Why is yours deserving of government mandates?
I am saying let people live in the neighborhoods they prefer. Don't force every neighborhood to be the same through these minimum parking rules.
To bring this back to the topic of the thread, anti-urbanists whine about subsidies for transit, but then when it comes to all the rules and regulations that force neighborhoods to be sprawling and unwalkable, they want the government to force their preferences down the throats of everyone.
Perhaps it's people who are just getting into urban planning/urban issues who seem astounded that roads are subsidized.
Maybe, but the people who make these comments are mostly long-term regulars. I would have thought they would have tired by them as well as those who argue back on it.
Quote:
Well, the genie is not going back in the bottle, Pandora is not going back in her box, etc.
Yes, but how does that disagree with what I said? Cars ownership isn't going away but that doesn't imp;y mandating construction to ensure driving has maximal convenience should be done, especially at the expense of other things (more housing units, less land used for paving, etc.)
Quote:
The current thought (and that of the last 30-40 years in some places, e.g. Boulder, CO) is that if parking isn't provided, people won't have cars. This has not been borne out in reality. People get the cars anyway, and park them on the streets, even illegally at times. People seem to continue to go to great lengths for car ownership.
Perhaps that's the thought for some. Generally, within the same area, people with cars, especially those who drive really frequently are going to find parking-less apartments less appealing. People parking on the streets is the obvious consequence of no off street parking, it's the usual in just about any older urban neighborhood. The logic [well at least the correct logic] of no parking requirements is ensuring parking convenience isn't that important, at least not worth the sacrifice in space or housing units. Illegally parked cars can be ticketed and towed.
I don't know the specifics of Boulder, I do know Ithaca has considered lowering or removing some minimum parking requirements and it might be a bit similar as both are college cities (though Boulder is much larger). The study found, in a neighborhood primarily with student renters, about 50% of renters had cars. For an apartment with no off street parking, the mix was more like 16% of renters with cars. Since overall, there is more cars than off street parking, the residential streets are full of cars parked on the street. For those who tire of dealing with street parking, there are off street parking spaces rented out. You can see signs for them. I currently don't have an off street parking space, I park on the street myself.
As for no off street parking reducing car ownership, it certainly does where parking is inconvenient and the disadvantages of not owning a car aren't that high. Boulder isn't at a high enough level of either. Wealthy areas of Manhattan have lower car ownership rates than just as wealthy areas of inner Brooklyn, even though car commuting rates aren't that much higher in Brooklyn. Central London has transit as good as Manhattan, and if anything higher costs to own a car. But it has a residential street parking system and more available spaces due to lower densities relative to Manhattan. Car ownership is again higher in central London (~ 40%) than well off parts of Manhattan (20-25%)
Quote:
Why should the city/town/whatever government be the provider of residential parking? Why shouldn't the developer, and eventually the homeowner, provide the parking, off the street?
Why should the city/town be in the business of making sure people don't have to park on the street? In any case if roads are subsidized, and transit is subsidized, it's not the end of the world to have some parking subsidy, too. A mandate to force a just in built form seems more onerous.
What makes you think there would be no parking without minimum parking restrictions? If people demand parking as much as you say they do, then that's an incentive for developers to provide parking or for residents to pay for parking.
In some places people do pay for parking in Chicago but not most places.
Quote:
The problem is that the government has no idea what the "right" amount of parking and so when they mandate it, they mandate too much and tons of land is wasted. That is why you have cities like Houston where there are hardly any walkable neighborhoods because it's so difficult to build compact, pedestrian-friendly developments because so much space has to be given over to parking.
An lot of the reasons why neighborhoods were compact and walk able before the auto don't exist now so their is less demand to cater to it. Old neighborhoods are not compact to be hip. They are small because without the car you are limited as to how far you can travel to get something and you are limited as to how much you can carry and you are limited by the amount of public transit service(it could be faster to walk 4-6 blocks than wait on an bus.).
Quote:
In a world without minimum parking regulations of course there would still be parking, it would just be a more efficient amount of parking. Yes, sometimes in some areas street parking only might be more efficient than huge parking lots. You might find this "annoying" but why should the government subsidize your personal preference? I live in an area that is street parking only and I love it. I don't support the government mandating street parking only though because I don't believe that my personal preferences are objectively true.
[/quote]
The government does not subside off the street parking. It subsidizes on the street parking by providing towing services and regulates it by ticketing. The city of Chicago does not care if I park in my Garage or not, but if I park in front of my house and don't move my car for seven days it will be towed.
The fewer cars Chicago has to tow the lower the cost to the city therefore it is in the interest of the City to force developers to have off the street parking. It also is an good idea because some things need more parking than others like schools. One College could take up blocks and blocks of on the street parking denying it to residents who live in the area as well as people who may be visiting the area to shop. If the city stopped towing parking on the street would get filled with inoperable motor vehicles. On the street parking isn't sufficient in an world were almost every adult owns an car if not two nor will people ever go back to not owning cars. There are a few situations where people don't own cars, but not most.
Actually the second seems a bit more reasonable to me. If road construction funds are heavily concentrated for the outer edges of a metro / city, it will make living in the outer suburbs a more attractive proposition. If a big expressway network is built for a city rather than a more extensive rail network, driving will be a more favored option in the former case. Roads tend to encourage decentralization more than rail (which is usually radial) so it would help the outer suburbs more.
But transit is even more subsidized than roads, which makes the premise false and the whole argument falls apart.
I went to a talk about parking minimums and it is completely arbitrary. People pulled numbers out of their ******
Some highlights of the talk:
Barber shops require more parking spaces than hair salons
Churches mandate more parking spots per priest than nun
Parking rules typically mandate providing parking for the busiest possible day, not a normal day
There was one slide about the minimu requirements and the audiences started laughing. It was completely random with no rhyme or reason at all. And when further digging happened into how parking minimums were set, it was uncovered there was zero science. People just guessed and they were codified into law.
I would not have a problem if parking rules were actually researched before the minimums were created, but that is not the case!
It's not the city's job to subsidize the automobile by giving everyone a free parking space. If your daughter doesn't like the parking situation in her neighborhood, she can move to a less urban neighborhood with more space.. or rent an off-street parking space. It's not giving the developers a "break" - it's not forcing something on them.
I prefer neighborhoods with street parking because they are more walkable due in large part to the number of cars on the street that cause traffic to slow down. So the "clogged" nature of the street is a benefit for me, not a bad thing. You disagree, which is fine. But why is your preference more correct than mine? Why is yours deserving of government mandates?
I am saying let people live in the neighborhoods they prefer. Don't force every neighborhood to be the same through these minimum parking rules.
To bring this back to the topic of the thread, anti-urbanists whine about subsidies for transit, but then when it comes to all the rules and regulations that force neighborhoods to be sprawling and unwalkable, they want the government to force their preferences down the throats of everyone.
My o My! Such fightin' words, and on a Sunday no less!
There are no off-street parking spaces to rent in my daughter's 'hood.
The traffic has to flow for reasons of public safety. It has nothing to do with me wanting to shove something down anyone's throat. chirack expressed it well with these words: Old neighborhoods are not compact to be hip. I haven't whined about subsidies for transit. Every time I buy something within the RTD, I subsidize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Maybe, but the people who make these comments are mostly long-term regulars. I would have thought they would have tired by them as well as those who argue back on it.
Yes, but how does that disagree with what I said? Cars ownership isn't going away but that doesn't imp;y mandating construction to ensure driving has maximal convenience should be done, especially at the expense of other things (more housing units, less land used for paving, etc.)
Perhaps that's the thought for some. Generally, within the same area, people with cars, especially those who drive really frequently are going to find parking-less apartments less appealing. People parking on the streets is the obvious consequence of no off street parking, it's the usual in just about any older urban neighborhood. The logic [well at least the correct logic] of no parking requirements is ensuring parking convenience isn't that important, at least not worth the sacrifice in space or housing units. Illegally parked cars can be ticketed and towed.
I don't know the specifics of Boulder, I do know Ithaca has considered lowering or removing some minimum parking requirements and it might be a bit similar as both are college cities (though Boulder is much larger). The study found, in a neighborhood primarily with student renters, about 50% of renters had cars. For an apartment with no off street parking, the mix was more like 16% of renters with cars. Since overall, there is more cars than off street parking, the residential streets are full of cars parked on the street. For those who tire of dealing with street parking, there are off street parking spaces rented out. You can see signs for them. I currently don't have an off street parking space, I park on the street myself.
As for no off street parking reducing car ownership, it certainly does where parking is inconvenient and the disadvantages of not owning a car aren't that high. Boulder isn't at a high enough level of either. Wealthy areas of Manhattan have lower car ownership rates than just as wealthy areas of inner Brooklyn, even though car commuting rates aren't that much higher in Brooklyn. Central London has transit as good as Manhattan, and if anything higher costs to own a car. But it has a residential street parking system and more available spaces due to lower densities relative to Manhattan. Car ownership is again higher in central London (~ 40%) than well off parts of Manhattan (20-25%)
Why should the city/town be in the business of making sure people don't have to park on the street? In any case if roads are subsidized, and transit is subsidized, it's not the end of the world to have some parking subsidy, too. A mandate to force a just in built form seems more onerous.
The OP of this thread is a newcomer to Urban Planning. I think s/he was trying to stir up a controversy.
Manhattan is not the rest of the US, not by a longshot. What is going on there has little if anything to do with the rest of the country. For decades, sometimes forever, people have lived there w/o cars. That's what you expect when you live there. It's not what you expect when you live in St. Paul, MN; Boulder, CO or Champaign, IL. Every place I ever lived in Champaign-Urbana had off-street parking. My husband lived in an old house, right near the campus. They had a driveway, and he said they sometimes parked in the yard as well.
I have little love lost for developers. They could care less how a neighborhood functions after they're built out. The more units they can sell, the better.
My o My! Such fightin' words, and on a Sunday no less!
There are no off-street parking spaces to rent in my daughter's 'hood.
The traffic has to flow for reasons of public safety.
And how exactly is the traffic flow restricted by the on street parking? I drove through a neighborhood full of parked cars yesterday, flow was fine.
Quote:
The OP of this thread is a newcomer to Urban Planning. I think s/he was trying to stir up a controversy.
The OP is a regular, he's posted here for years.
Quote:
Manhattan is not the rest of the US, not by a longshot. What is going on there has little if anything to do with the rest of the country. For decades, sometimes forever, people have lived there w/o cars. That's what you expect when you live there. It's not what you expect when you live in St. Paul, MN; Boulder, CO or Champaign, IL. Every place I ever lived in Champaign-Urbana had off-street parking. My husband lived in an old house, right near the campus. They had a driveway, and he said they sometimes parked in the yard as well.
Did I claim Manhattan is the rest of the US, or has anything to do with the rest of the country? That's an odd jump. My point was that car ownership is partly lowered due to the difficulty of parking.
Quote:
I have little love lost for developers. They could care less how a neighborhood functions after they're built out. The more units they can sell, the better.
I never mentioned loss of developer's rights as a negative.
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.
