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

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#91

Post by gamblor956 »

throwaway542134 wrote: post #65
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…

I think this is just low cost/effort to reduce a particular problem. DTLA is the most walkable and accessible to public transit place in the city, the only issue is there's nothing there worth walking to besides the Staples Center. The real area of focus for reducing traffic and vehicle usage should be the San Fernando Valley corridors (Sepulveda/405, the 5, and the 101 to San Gabriel Valley). Iirc from a recent repo…

DTLA is the most walkable and accessible to public transit place in the city, the only issue is there's nothing there worth walking to besides the Staples Center.

And Disney Hall, the Broad, and MOCA on Bunker Hill. Grand Avenue park for events. The Arts District and its many restaurants and breweries. Little Tokyo and the 3 museums there. FiDi's many restaurants. Historic Core and the old Broadway theaters, some still in use. The tens of thousands of new apartments constructed in South Park, Skid West, and Skidrokyo. For architecture nerds, nearly 100 years and a dozen different architectural styles spread out between all of the DTLA districts but especially in FiDi and HC.

We have one metro stop in the SFV, which serves the 3 million residents. It's no wonder it's surrounded by a massive parking lot, and most commuters don't use it anyway.

The sooner the Sepulveda Pass rail/monorail is built, the better.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#92

Post by mixmastamyk »

jayd16 wrote: post #73
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.

You have it backwards. Less than sufficient parking discourages travel to that area. If you want the area to proper and not simply feel pain, you can't just discourage cars without an alternative. If you want people to use public transit, encourage public transit.

Never traveled, eh?

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#93

Post by gamblor956 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #20
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…

I don't see anything odd about the claim. 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 refriger…

AC/heating are actually required by law in most of the US.

For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement).

Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#94

Post by mixmastamyk »

throwaway542134 wrote: post #65
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…

I think this is just low cost/effort to reduce a particular problem. DTLA is the most walkable and accessible to public transit place in the city, the only issue is there's nothing there worth walking to besides the Staples Center. The real area of focus for reducing traffic and vehicle usage should be the San Fernando Valley corridors (Sepulveda/405, the 5, and the 101 to San Gabriel Valley). Iirc from a recent repo…

> nothing there worth walking to besides the Staples Center.

Impressive ignorance.

The historical, governmental, a cultural, entertainment, and now residential center is "not worth walking to."

And the Staples Center? Perhaps 99 on the 100 things to do list.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#95

Post by Rebelgecko »

throwaway542134 wrote: post #66
mixmastamyk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Downtown has the best transport access in the entire city The only problem is that most people don't have a reason to go there. The streets are usually empty aside from the homeless encampments. The only reasons I've ever had to go to DTLA was to attend a conference and some games at the Staples Center. It's a cultural and recreational wasteland compared to the rest of the city.

Los Angeles is less downtown-focused than other big cities but I still don't think that's a fair representation.

You can go to a hockey game or a basketball game in DTLA, and you're near stadiums for baseball, football and soccer. If you'd rather see a symphony than a game of sportsball you can listen to the LA phil at Disney Hall (and if the architecture of Disney Hall is more modern than you prefer, there's plenty of older buildings worth checking out).

There's a bunch of museums if you're into that kind of thing. On the grungier side, there's Santee Alley and the fashion district if you want to get that "third world bazaar" experience without having to travel.

You can get food from dozens of different cultures, even without visiting enclaves like Chinatown or Little Tokyo.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#96

Post by nwallin »

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…

> basically all the new construction in that area comes in at the top of the market.

There's a reason for this.

As a result of the fact that new construction is required to have 1-2 parking spots, developers need to put in a lot of parking. And because they need to put in a lot of parking, they need to be expensive. And because they need to be expensive, they might as well be luxury apartments. As a result of all this, all new construction is luxury apartments.

The biggest impact that lifting this requirement will have is that it will increase the amount of affordable housing.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#97

Post by gamblor956 »

harmmonica wrote: post #38
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.

However, the city of LA entirely includes several other cities within its borders, and the LA Metro area population is roughly 10-12 million...

Also with respect to the rail comparisons, most of LA Metro's ridership is on the bus system, which absolutely dwarfs Sydney's total public transit ridership, even after huge drops in ridership.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#98

Post by rory096 »

zjaffee wrote: post #59
rory096 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wher…

>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.

Changes will more likely happen at the margin. I have no doubt that an apartment building with 1 space per 1br apartment instead of 1.5 would still be marketable at the top end.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#99

Post by rory096 »

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.

Out of curiosity, what mechanism is used to bar residents of new buildings from on-street parking? Pressure on the on-street parking supply is the most common reason given to support off-street parking requirements.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#100

Post by mixmastamyk »

calvinbhai wrote: post #90

This is a win for Uber and Lyft. (wasn't Uber lobbying for this in all big cities?) Once it becomes the norm, Uber/Lyft can continue jacking up prices.

It is the private cars that are currently being subsidized. Removing a subsidy shouldn't result in blaming of the victim.

They have a while to reach profitability and taxi-prices in any case. I won't blame them when they do.

Post reply on HN