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.
To which I say, "that's nice". I don't call that "smart planning" at all. What if someone needs to park near their home during the day? Young urbanists seem to assume that everyone works during the day, M-F. Lots of people work off hours; there are still a few SAHMs, especially when the babies are tiny, thus need for parking during the daytime hours. That also doesn't account for people who want to leave the car at home and get to work a different way.
Amen! Not only that but what about those urbanists working at home? Traffic is so bad in many places that local government is encouraging companies to work out arrangements for more employees to work from home so as not to contribute to the traffic. The traffic is dynamic - but how does that help the static parking problem - particularly when you have moronic design plans for "car-less condos" like downtown Austin (the same city whose local government is encouraging employers to have more workers work from home so as to cut down on traffic).
The marina district is the worst. I work in south of market. It takes people longer on the bus to get to work than it takes me to get across the bay from Oakland. If I take the bus to Bart, take Bart and walk I still tie the marina people to make my 12 mile trip. The bus to SF takes 25 minutes from my neighborhood in Oakland. That's sad.
Bus without BART? Even with bridge traffic.
The issue with "BART is faster than MUNI" is that you have to live a short distance from a BART station in East Bay, most people don't. MUNI coverage is much denser, most in San Francisco are a short distance from a MUNI stop. San Franciscans complain about MUNI, but I thought it was one of the better bus systems in the country. Dense coverage, bus stops with informative signs. And the buses are all door boarding and proof of payment, saves a lot of time.
This thread is a good example of why it's so difficult to reduce car dependence in this country. There are so many busybodies out there who are unable to handle the idea of other people living different lifestyles than them (eg, other people living without cars in an apartment without offstreet parking for cars they don't have). For these busybodies it's not good enough that they themselves can live at places with offstreet parking - they want the government to force their preference onto everyone else.
An apartment with less parking than residents have cars (except in a few limited areas, an apartment without parking will have some cars — a study of a proposed parkingless Ithaca apartment found car ownership among renters would be about half the usual not zero) will mean extra cars using on-street parking that existing residents and visitors are already using. Businesses with less parking than shoppers might mean some more on-street parking is used, or visitors parking in adjacent business' lots.
I don't think the above is always that bad, but there are clearly downsides involved.
======================================
Looking at the convenience of the residents who are choosing the low parking situation is not that important. There are reasons some renters might actively want the low parking apartment. For example, I would personally choose a low parking apartment that doesn't have a large ugly surface parking lot next to it over one with alway convenient parking and a large ugly surface parking lot.
Amen! Not only that but what about those urbanists working at home? Traffic is so bad in many places that local government is encouraging companies to work out arrangements for more employees to work from home so as not to contribute to the traffic. The traffic is dynamic - but how does that help the static parking problem - particularly when you have moronic design plans for "car-less condos" like downtown Austin (the same city whose local government is encouraging employers to have more workers work from home so as to cut down on traffic).
Agreed! Since I posted that, I also thought of college students who have more erratic schedules. These erratic schedules also make taking public transit hard, and for those working after dark, especially women, there are safety issues with walking and biking. That is something else this board does not like to consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
This thread is a good example of why it's so difficult to reduce car dependence in this country. There are so many busybodies out there who are unable to handle the idea of other people living different lifestyles than them (eg, other people living without cars in an apartment without offstreet parking for cars they don't have). For these busybodies it's not good enough that they themselves can live at places with offstreet parking - they want the government to force their preference onto everyone else.
You know, some of us are simply more "realist" than others. I've lived in Boulder County, CO long enough to have heard a lot of "pie in the sky" stuff about how making it harder to drive will decrease driving. In 35 years or so, it hasn't worked here. Someone, I believe it was Minervah, once posted about how Portland built some apts. with no parking and lo and behold, most of the renters had cars anyway, clogging up the streets to park them. Why give developers a deal on not having to provide some minimum level of parking? Why should the city provide the parking in the form of wider streets? I posted upthread about how my father the councilman, in his experience, found shared driveways to be contentious. I posted how some have found, through their experience, shared parking to be contentious. Yet we hear the same old, same old constantly!
Agreed! Since I posted that, I also thought of college students who have more erratic schedules. These erratic schedules also make taking public transit hard, and for those working after dark, especially women, there are safety issues with walking and biking. That is something else this board does not like to consider.
However, college students use transit at among the highest rates and have among the lowest car ownership rates.
Quote:
Someone, I believe it was Minervah, once posted about how Portland built some apts. with no parking and lo and behold, most of the renters had cars anyway, clogging up the streets to park them. Why give developers a deal on not having to provide some minimum level of parking?
I've given reasons why previously. Yet we hear the same old, same old.
There's a link I read that Portland's low/no parking buildings did reduce cost somewhat, but I can't find it.
Quote:
Why should the city provide the parking in the form of wider streets?
Most streets with on-street aren't unusually wide. I don't see any reason why not, the asphalt is already there, unlike providing new parking.
Quote:
I posted upthread about how my father the councilman, in his experience, found shared driveways to be contentious. I posted how some have found, through their experience, shared parking to be contentious. Yet we hear the same old, same old constantly!
Yes, I'm aware it can be contentious. Shared driveways are rather common in older neighborhoods in Massachusetts, I'm rather familiar with them.
To which I say, "that's nice". I don't call that "smart planning" at all. What if someone needs to park near their home during the day? Young urbanists seem to assume that everyone works during the day, M-F. Lots of people work off hours; there are still a few SAHMs, especially when the babies are tiny, thus need for parking during the daytime hours. That also doesn't account for people who want to leave the car at home and get to work a different way.
There are lots of "what ifs" in life, and every dwelling can't be designed for all of them. Should we outlaw multi-story homes, or have minimum elevator requirements for multi-story homes? What if an elderly person develops knee problems, and can't use stairs? Should we legislate minimum yard requirements? What if a single person gets married, and has children who want to play outside? Should all dwellings be ADA compliant? What if someone in a wheelchair wants to live there?
People have been choosing where to live, deciding what features are and aren't important to them, for a long time, and there are some people who don't feel that having their own dedicated parking space is that important.
There are lots of "what ifs" in life, and every dwelling can't be designed for all of them. Should we outlaw multi-story homes, or have minimum elevator requirements for multi-story homes? What if an elderly person develops knee problems, and can't use stairs? Should we legislate minimum yard requirements?What if a single person gets married, and has children who want to play outside? Should all dwellings be ADA compliant? What if someone in a wheelchair wants to live there?
Good points.
Single-family homes of course do have minimum yard requirements, often huge ones in many regions. I like to see a minimum lot size requirement map for Boston area suburbs, wouldn't be surprised if the median was an 1/2 acre.
However, college students use transit at among the highest rates and have among the lowest car ownership rates.
Yes, and we know what those rates are. You can get a good idea of how many parking spaces you may need and plan accordingly. Also, here in Boulder County, college students live all over the place. Those that live farther from campus generally have cars, maybe only one car per couple for married/partnered students, but cars nevertheless.
I've given reasons why previously. Yet we hear the same old, same old.
There's a link I read that Portland's low/no parking buildings did reduce cost somewhat, but I can't find it.
I disagree with saying esentially, "the city can pay for my building's parking". I will take your word regarding Portland.
Most streets with on-street aren't unusually wide. I don't see any reason why not, the asphalt is already there, unlike providing new parking.
Very narrow streets usually have no parking, or parking on one-side only. There's a lot of that in some of the old 'hoods in Denver.
Yes, I'm aware it can be contentious.
You got that right! Mine in teal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
There are lots of "what ifs" in life, and every dwelling can't be designed for all of them. Should we outlaw multi-story homes, or have minimum elevator requirements for multi-story homes? What if an elderly person develops knee problems, and can't use stairs? Should we legislate minimum yard requirements? What if a single person gets married, and has children who want to play outside? Should all dwellings be ADA compliant? What if someone in a wheelchair wants to live there?
People have been choosing where to live, deciding what features are and aren't important to them, for a long time, and there are some people who don't feel that having their own dedicated parking space is that important.
Something tells me if I posted the bold, I'd be told I was being "silly". Let me take these from the top.
There usually are requirements for elevators in buildings over a certain number of stories. In any event, I've never been in a building of more than about 3 stories that didn't have one. Presumably, if you lived in such a building on the upper floors and and developed a condition where you couldn't climb stairs, you'd probably have to move.
A person who develops knee problems might have to find a more suitable residence, especially if they were permanent.
There are minimum lot sizes just about everywhere. Also set-backs from the street.
I'm not sure what you mean about children wanting to play outside. Are you asking "should all buildings have an outside play area?" To that question, I would say 'no'. Parents can take their kids to the park. That's usually an incentive for buying/renting a SF house with a yard.
Don't all new buildings have to be ADA comliant? Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST: FAQ "The Fair Housing Act requires all "covered multifamily dwellings" designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Covered multifamily dwellings are all dwelling units in buildings containing four or more units with one or more elevators, and all ground floor units in buildings containing four or more units, without an elevator. Federal regulations adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 CFR 100.201 define covered multi-family dwellings."
There's a lot more in that link; I suggest you read it.
As far as someone in a wheelchair-see the above link.
Agreed! Since I posted that, I also thought of college students who have more erratic schedules. These erratic schedules also make taking public transit hard, and for those working after dark, especially women, there are safety issues with walking and biking. That is something else this board does not like to consider.
You know, some of us are simply more "realist" than others. I've lived in Boulder County, CO long enough to have heard a lot of "pie in the sky" stuff about how making it harder to drive will decrease driving. In 35 years or so, it hasn't worked here. Someone, I believe it was Minervah, once posted about how Portland built some apts. with no parking and lo and behold, most of the renters had cars anyway, clogging up the streets to park them. Why give developers a deal on not having to provide some minimum level of parking? Why should the city provide the parking in the form of wider streets? I posted upthread about how my father the councilman, in his experience, found shared driveways to be contentious. I posted how some have found, through their experience, shared parking to be contentious. Yet we hear the same old, same old constantly!
Why do it? A lot of benefits. Allows more units to be built, which is really important in a lot of metro areas that are supply-constrained. Fewer parking lots means a greater chance that a place like a store, restaurant can be built within walking distance of a residence since because now not so much space has to be taken up by lots that expand the distance between developments. Sure, often a developer can provide parking in the form of a parking garage that doesn't take up as much place as a lot, but that's not really feasible in many cases.
But in the above I'm talking about areas where there is sufficient demand for that kind of density. That doesn't describe the vast majority of the country. In many suburban areas developers build MORE parking than is required by law, suggesting that if you abolished the minimum they would still provide parking lots. The point is that even if minimum parking requirements were abolished everywhere (which won't happen) there are still going to be plenty of places where those who want offstreet parking can find it.
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.
