41–50 of 174 posts
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.
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 r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
This is something of a problem because one of the features of the building is a large conference center where we can hold events. Luckily the older buildings on campus all over overbuilt parking so it's not a completely unworkable issue, but it does mean people who come for the conference need to walk over from the neighboring building.
I actually use the relatively convenient metro stop most days, but sometimes I have to drive and it is always a crapshoot if the underground parking will be full. The funny thing is my building is in one of the least walkable suburbs in the world. The suburb was completely built around cars and plans to make it even a little walkable are at least a decade way from completion (have not even started yet).
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.
I can't think of any others besides the 3 you mentioned that I'd want to go carless in offhand.
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.
After that, it's chicken-and-egg more than cart-and-whores. With surface parking lots taking up easily half the space in many US business districts, eliminating them could double density and thereby cut average distances in half, making other modes of transportation much more feasible.
Essentially, the US at one point chose cars as the dominant mode of transportation and got trapped in that decision. Anybody who has seen alternatives knows this is a tremendous burden on quality of life, yet any change will, in the short term, also hurt in different ways.
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.
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.
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 r…
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.
Maybe paid dedicated parking separate from the housing and only allowed to people that live in the area (with an increase in price for a second car for a household) would suffice, as long as it was planned well. But that's the problem, poor planning (or changes over time) could cause problems again.