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

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#131

Post by esotericn »

rory096 wrote: post #99
VBprogrammer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Inner London boroughs issue permits for on street residents parking linked to a car registration.

If you live in a new development you can't get a permit.

I have been in a queue at the local council offices behind a guy who had bought a 500K+ flat without knowing he could not park his car within 2+ miles of it.

Fun.

I don't live there any more.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#132

Post by gtirloni »

nwallin wrote: post #96
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 thi…

I don't know much about the US housing dynamics but it seems very unlikely that prices will get lower due to less parking being required. It's more likely the builders will profit more.

We went through a similar situation with airplane tickets where I live. The govt agency in charge of aviation and the airlines all wanted the free luggage requirement gone citing cost reductions. They got it, the fares didn't get any cheaper and now you have to pay extra.

I really don't see the 17% reduction in space required for parking being passed onto buyers. People will continue to demand 1-2 parking spots because that's a high cost area and people buying there don't care that much about that discount, if that even happens.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#133

Post by jessaustin »

nier wrote: post #57
IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Wow that is some demented autocorrect right there...

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#134

Post by jessaustin »

gtirloni wrote: post #132
nwallin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

I don't know much about the US housing dynamics but it seems very unlikely that prices will get lower due to less parking being required. It's more likely the builders will profit more. We went through a similar situation with airplane tickets where I live. The govt agency in charge of aviation and the airlines all wanted the free luggage requirement gone citing cost reductions. They got it, the fares didn't get any…

The two markets are not so similar. Air travel can only support a limited number of suppliers (in some locations this number is zero), since commercial airplanes are very expensive and require the use of valuable airport facilities. Housing isn't like that. Lots of investors can afford the note on a small apartment building. If one developer pads her profits, another one will undercut her.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#135

Post by mayneack »

sokoloff wrote: post #113
mktmkr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car shares are definitely not for driving to work but I fail to see why you can't use them to pick up your kids. Car sharing solves the problem where people can easily journey to work without a car, but they want one for other purposes like shopping.

Wouldn’t most residents of the building need the shared car at roughly the same time to pick up their kids from school?

If most people need it at roughly the same time to get to a small number of places, then it's an obvious use for public transport.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#136

Post by analog31 »

briandear wrote: post #103
obelos wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're willing to externalize the costs of making mass-SOV transportation possible, to the advancement of personal gain, yes, “the market” will push people toward taking advantage of that discounted resource. Until there is established some sort of per-use fee for ROW use that offsets those externalities, the market pricing is already critically warped and cannot be used as an oracle for what people are willing…

Do cyclists pay for their road usage? I paid over $600 for my California car registration and I pay significant gasoline taxes. I also pay significant income taxes. And bridge tolls. The taxes and fees that I directly pay for my car (registration and gas taxes) aren’t being used 100% for my road usage. That money is being used for bike lanes I never use or buses I never ride. So I am paying for someone else’s “extern…

>>> Do cyclists pay for their road usage?

Yes, definitely. Granted, this may vary from state to state, and I don't know the situation in California. Most of the roads that I travel on are city and county roads that are paid for out of my property taxes. Ironically, our property taxes are higher because living in a bike friendly zone with good access to public transit increases our property value.

I'm not allowed to ride my bike on the freeways, and I avoid the major federal / state highways. I suspect that those are what suck up the most money.

I pay income tax.

Most cyclists still own cars. My family pays for registration of two cars that we drive less because of our bikes. We pay gas taxes when we drive, plus license fees, and state-mandated insurance.

Our bikes do negligible damage to the roads, and we reduce the need for both road construction and parking space.

I'd be willing to bet that if we analyzed all of the numbers carefully, we'd find the net effect is that motorists and cyclists both pay -- to subsidize the trucking industry.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#137

Post by andys627 »

User23 wrote: post #60
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.

I'd argue that if we prefer it so much, the free market would take care of it.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#138

Post by refurb »

obelos wrote: post #39
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.

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.

How do we know it doesn’t work?

If I was a builder, my incentives are closely aligned with the city - build something that appeals to buyers. If I build a fancy apartment building where everyone owns cars but I provide no parking, well those aren’t going to be very desirable.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#139

Post by andys627 »

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.

Not encouraging driving is not the same as discouraging driving. Eliminated parking minimums neither discourages or encourages driving.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#140

Post by [deleted] »

andys627 wrote: post #139
jayd16 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not encouraging driving is not the same as discouraging driving. Eliminated parking minimums neither discourages or encourages driving.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN