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

51–60 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#51

Post by andys627 »

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…

This is not a silver bullet, but a small step in the right direction. I think it causes problems in the short run, but helps strengthen public transit in the long run.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#53

Post by paulgb »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #36
nostromo wrote: post #26

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.

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.

I agree that markets can't solve everything, especially within the tight networks of externalities that exist in high-density cities. But with parking, I think the problem is the opposite: car owners create a negative externality (use of limited city-provided parking) that ends up costing non-car-owners because cities then require buildings to build parking.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#54

Post by mktmkr »

jaredklewis wrote: post #12
clairity wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why wouldn't the savings/costs be passed along to the consumer as in every other segment of the market? 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 mar…

I think you are overstating the case that the market will pass this saving through. In reality there is some market-clearing price for a dwelling without a parking space and there's nothing the developer can do to influence it. This is the same reason that it's actually not possible to "build affordable housing" as many people demand. Yes you can build the housing but there's nothing you can do about the price it then commands.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#55

Post by chc »

mktmkr wrote: post #19
chc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

Are they? It's always seemed to me that frequent stops, circuitous routes and long travel distances are the reason the buses are slow relative to cars. After all, cars have to deal with other cars as well. And for comparison, to the south, San Diego has much better traffic than LA, but the buses are still quite slow (e.g. I recently considered taking the bus rather than a 15-minute drive in San Diego, but it would have been over an hour by bus).

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#56

Post by zjaffee »

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.

I have to completely disagree with you here in terms of parking. Cities absolutely need to do significant transportation planning or you get the mess that exists throughout huge portions of the developing world. Even Los Angeles with it's traffic problems doesn't even come close to Mumbai. While governments aren't always good about solving these issues, the market would be worse as it's too decentralized to care about tragedy of the commons type problems.

Additionally, I also indirectly disagree with the last two points because it is absolutely crucial that cities have some control over population changes as it relates to density. Utility overload is a real issue, and needs to be accounted for. Schools need to get built, sidewalks widened, and so on.

What's ultimately needed is a form of adaptive city planning, that reacts to market forces (such as population changes, desire from developers to build new buildings, ect) with planned solutions such that there are no tragedy of the commons issues that come about. What's unacceptable is the 20+ year horizon planning that most cities do now.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#57

Post by nier »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #46
chc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just lifting a requirement, for know. Presumably, there are currently cases where you have to build a parking lot even though it's the headquarters for Fundamentalist Cyclists International and situated right next to public transport. 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 d…

Cart-and-what?

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#58

Post by zjaffee »

slg wrote: post #33

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…

The value of this is the law currently dictates that parking spaces must be provided on a per unit basis to the person living in the unit. This would often relate to not being able to split out the cost of parking from the cost of the apartment, so for those without a car they'd have to pay more.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#59

Post by zjaffee »

rory096 wrote: post #25
Reelin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. Sure we can. Those regulations are not always binding. Buildings are built with parking capacity in excess of minimums all the time. >Requiring excessive parking will artificially and…

> It is, however, a great example of how non-market forces can create worse, environmentally inefficient, undesirable outcomes by submitting what should be private choices to mob rule.

There is no evidence that this is the case though. The vast majority of new construction has always been targeted towards the top of the market, which in the case of Los Angeles means a need for parking spaces.

The only clear case where the market would act differently would be in the case of commercial parking requirements, where a one sized fits all approach as exists today doesn't work as each neighborhood in LA drives a different amount.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#60

Post by User23 »

andys627 wrote: post #52

Gov'ts can do 3 things - encourage something, do nothing, or discourage something. Parking minimums encourage people to drive cars. This is LA taking a small step towards picking winners (cars...) just little bit less.

And 4: act to accommodate the revealed preferences of its citizens.
Post reply on HN