11–20 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's quite a bit of capacity available for downtown residents, should they choose to own a car https://www.parkme.com/map#Downtown%20Los%20Angeles%2C%20Los...
And how are the typical daily parking rates?
DTLA is extremely walk/bike/train/bus friendly, most long term residents I knew did not own cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regu…
i get all that, and i'm not against this change generally, but i'm wondering about whether the savings are actually passed-through or does the developer/owner capture that value? i'm skeptical that (most of) the savings accrues to the renter.
If I am a strawberry seller and my cost to buy strawberries goes down, I can pass those savings onto the consumer or not. But my competitors will all be making the same choice, so absent collusion, if I don't lower my prices, but my competitors do, then obviously they'll take my business.
In other words, profit margins are determined by how competitive a market is, not the cost of production.
If this change goes through, I imagine that profit margins for LA developers will remain similar to whatever they are now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regu…
i get all that, and i'm not against this change generally, but i'm wondering about whether the savings are actually passed-through or does the developer/owner capture that value? i'm skeptical that (most of) the savings accrues to the renter.
My old unit in the DC area had something like $80,000 in parking attached to it. That could have been ground floor units or retail instead. The units would have been cheaper had the parking minimums not been there. In bigger buildings that put parking underground, those units can be very expensive to build.
Is it the case that most people living in the downtown area don't have a car?
Another portion of the population doesn't have cars or are otherwise uninterested in parking. This change would make it legal for there to be development projects that cater to this set of the population.
does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. i wish all parking would be built underground, but yes, that's even more expensive.
>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regu…
This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term.
Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be at least somewhat concerned that without sufficient regulation short term thinking on the part of builders might result in less parking than would be generally desirable.
I'm not at all convinced that urban planning should be done by market forces alone.
Is it the case that most people living in the downtown area don't have a car?
Hopefully it's changing.
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how are the typical daily parking rates?
Around $30/day or $200/mo. DTLA is extremely walk/bike/train/bus friendly, most long term residents I knew did not own cars.
Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.
I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.
https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regu…
> In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term. Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be a…
There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. My apartment, like most apartments I've seen, also has it.
Turns out that people don't need the government to tell them what they want. People like AC, so most buildings have AC. Not particularly remarkable, but most apartments in my area also come with refrigerators, stoves, ovens, sinks, showers, and dishwashers, all sans-minimum-appliance requirement.
To me, a minimum parking requirement seems as weirdly dystopian as requiring ACs or dishwashers. Most people like those things, so most buildings will have them, but it shouldn't be illegal to decide you don't need an AC or dishwasher.