Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

la.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#31

Post by mktmkr »

bahmboo wrote: post #27

Lost in this can be the specifics of "parking". Put in lots of 3-5 minute zones for ride hailing, add 10-15 minute spots for deliveries. Make sure there are enforced truck parking only for restaurant and business deliveries. Car share only parking. Scooter and bike parking. etc. And yes, if I want full time parking for my car I will pay for it. It's not that expensive if that's my priority. These are generally the ki…

1 shared car is shown to replace between 7 and 20 private cars in various deployments. Building new housing with dedicated car-share parking is a great way to go.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#32

Post by tempsy »

It’s frustrating how few cities in the US are liveable without a car. One of the best parts of SF is that it’s so small and easy to navigate without a car.

And NYC’s subway system is complete disarray. Not sure what other cities are manageable without one.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#33

Post by slg »

As a resident of LA, I don't see this actually accomplishing much due to the specific market of downtown LA. Like the article mentions, basically all the new construction in that area comes in at the top of the market. Almost everyone in that socioeconomic class in LA has a car and would want a nearby place to park it. Developers therefore aren't going to build a new luxury high-rise and not provide parking for its residents.

That said, we might as well remove this regulation requiring parking if the market will dictate a similar level of parking anyway. I simply think this type of change would see a greater impact in neighborhoods in which car ownership levels are lower.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#34

Post by mktmkr »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #6
rory096 wrote: post #5

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…

It's funny, in London new housing has been built with the explicit planning condition that residents aren't entitled to on street parking and no parking is included in the development.

In SF as well, but the local government has shown itself unable to resist calls to later add parking entitlements to structures after they are built. For example all "live-work" developments are forbidden by law from participating in residential parking permit zones, but the city council has repeatedly established RPP zones on blocks where the sole residential buildings are all live-work.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

nostromo wrote: post #26
StringyBob wrote: post #10

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.

Here’s a crazy idea: let the property owner and developer decide the correct amount of parking to provide. And the size of the apartments. And the number of floors to build. The regulations here should be based around things like structural integrity, egress, and safety. Not views, not density, not what size of apartment is “too big” or “too small.” All of those are things the market can sort out.

Isn’t that basically just the libertarian mindset? Ie let individuals optimize for their own interests, even when the t as the detriment of the community? Markets are definitely efficient in sorting out short term individual goals, but not much beyond that.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#37

Post by mixmastamyk »

jameslk wrote: post #35

I'm not familiar with downtown LA but I haven't heard great things about public transportation in LA. Are they just trying to encourage less driving without providing any alternatives?

Downtown has the best transport access in the entire city. There are frequent trains in every direction and long-distance thru Union Station. While not Germany-level, it is quite good.

Combined with the rise of rideshare and rentals etc, large parking garages are becoming obsolete.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#38

Post by harmmonica »

jjcm wrote: post #30

It's a good thought, but until public transportation is a 1st party citizen in LA, this will just cause more problems in the long run. Busses are still seen as a method of transport for impoverished people, not for the masses. Trains and light rail simply aren't a priority for either the city nor the population. For comparison, Sydney is similar to LA in terms of density and affluence, but has 7.7 times as many peopl…

Your numbers may be apples to apples if that Sydney number is the greater metro, but just a note that the City of Los Angeles is "only" 4M or so.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#39

Post by obelos »

nostromo wrote: post #26
StringyBob wrote: post #10

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.

Here’s a crazy idea: let the property owner and developer decide the correct amount of parking to provide. And the size of the apartments. And the number of floors to build. The regulations here should be based around things like structural integrity, egress, and safety. Not views, not density, not what size of apartment is “too big” or “too small.” All of those are things the market can sort out.

It's crazy because it doesn't work. All of those factors rely upon the use of common, municipal resources, and those municipal resources, especially streets, often can't be expanded.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#40

Post by Johnny555 »

gowld wrote: post #23
mktmkr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cars are the reason the buses are slow. 22% of LA workers travel to work without a car, which isn't great but it's not zero either. Metro LA added a dedicated bus lane on Flower and they are moving more than one bus per minute in that lane. As soon as you remove the cars everything else gets a lot better. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...

Removing parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes. If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.

If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.

That's hard to do without BRT - we have plenty of dedicated bus lanes (the right lane) around here, but they all allow cars for right-hand turns, so buses still get stuck behind a line of cars.

Without BRT and center-island boarding, it's harder to reserve anything but the far-right lane since the bus needs to get there to pickup/dropoff passengers.

Post reply on HN