LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown • Hacker News Board

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#161

Post by bartread » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 11:16 AM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #151

bartread wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation. A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous. I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and…

> I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary Doesn't it self-regulate though ? If it's not viable to build in a place for a specific use, developers will go to greener fields. It happens in a lot of heavily congested cities. Making whole areas unfit for heavy traffic moved the office building elsewhere, generally in places that where more welcoming to them.

> Doesn't it self-regulate though ?

Possibly in an ideal world, but not in this one (or certainly not on any timescale that I'd regard as acceptable - human lifetimes, and working lifetimes especially, aren't that long in the grand scheme of things and I'm already at least half way through on both fronts).

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#162

Post by DocTomoe » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 11:43 AM UTC

yesand wrote: post #72

jayd16 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's good long term, but the short and medium term is that existing business and residents that rely on street parking will be pushed out.

Yes, that’s the point.

Great way to kill a city's economy. Instead of the bookstore I go to (which often requires me to come twice for a given book), I will now order online. I will not window-shop, and I will not find that cool-looking sweater in the store next to the bookstore. I will also not have a coffee at he cafe on the way to the garage.

My monies will no longer benefit these businesses, and if enough people stay away, they will eventually have to shut down. Storefronts will be boarded up, meanwhile, somewhere next to an interstate, another Amazon Warehouse grows.

This trend has already started, especially in small-to mid-sized European cities (large ones seem to hang on a bit longer, mostly because their public transit systems were heavily updated in the late 20th century). But even in Berlin, or Munich, or Paris I start noticing storefront rot - increasingly more shops, often specialized ones (which served as focal points for customers from afar who might then use that day to do secondary purchases) go out of business.

In the end, you will have very dense city centers filled with large-brand stores, next to major traffic hubs, and slums around it. Cities will lose their one major advantage: the desirability of living there.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#163

Post by yesand » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #162

yesand wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s the point.

Great way to kill a city's economy. Instead of the bookstore I go to (which often requires me to come twice for a given book), I will now order online. I will not window-shop, and I will not find that cool-looking sweater in the store next to the bookstore. I will also not have a coffee at he cafe on the way to the garage. My monies will no longer benefit these businesses, and if enough people stay away, they will ev…

Someone tell Amsterdam and New York that they’re dead because they probably aren’t aware.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#164

Post by DocTomoe » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

yesand wrote: post #163

DocTomoe wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great way to kill a city's economy. Instead of the bookstore I go to (which often requires me to come twice for a given book), I will now order online. I will not window-shop, and I will not find that cool-looking sweater in the store next to the bookstore. I will also not have a coffee at he cafe on the way to the garage. My monies will no longer benefit these businesses, and if enough people stay away, they will ev…

Someone tell Amsterdam and New York that they’re dead because they probably aren’t aware.

Read the first bracket in paragraph three.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#165

Post by refurb » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #160

refurb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I was a builder, my incentives are closely aligned with the city Imagine I've got a fixed-size plot of land, and I'm constructing a 12 space parking lot and a 3-floor building with 3 apartments per floor. 1 space per apartment, plus 3 spare for guests/deliveries/two-car families. No underground parking or anything, just a basic paved lot. I'm planning to sell all the apartments and move on to another project, so I…

It’s more complex then you are making it.

I won’t replace parking with units unless that makes the building more valuable overall. If there is a strong demand for parking spots, the existing units are likely to lose value by having no parking. And I’d also have to shell out cash upfront to compensate them.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#166

Post by refurb » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #142

refurb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are your incentives (as a builder) always closely aligned with the city? Consider Japan, which has building restrictions to avoid eternal shadows. Building height is a function of the setback from the street. A buyer may well want a taller building, and a builder might well be happy to provide it, when the city is dead set against it. What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the mega…

The value of the owner’s asset (the building) is based on more than just the building itself, but also on the surrounding area and the quality of life.

It doesn’t help an owner if they build units nobody wants to live in because of shadows, no parking, etc.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#167

Post by eesmith » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #166

eesmith wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are your incentives (as a builder) always closely aligned with the city? Consider Japan, which has building restrictions to avoid eternal shadows. Building height is a function of the setback from the street. A buyer may well want a taller building, and a builder might well be happy to provide it, when the city is dead set against it. What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the mega…

The value of the owner’s asset (the building) is based on more than just the building itself, but also on the surrounding area and the quality of life. It doesn’t help an owner if they build units nobody wants to live in because of shadows, no parking, etc.

It seems that your answer to my question "What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the megarich to live in tall towers in NYC, with the desire by those who use Central Park to not be in shadows more?" is that the megarich should build as many towers as they want until the megarich themselves no longer want to live with Central Park in shade.

That is, if the megarich enjoy the 50 mile views and don't care about Central Park at all, then it can smother in shadow, yes?

And the only mechanism for the people who want to have sunlight in the Park is to make the megarich either socially or physically uncomfortable enough (perhaps by threats of violence?) that they decide it's time to move away ... or buy more security?

If so, your mechanism seems rather prone to encourage social unrest.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#168

Post by bartread » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #152

bartread wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation. A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous. I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and…

I have a similar problem also in the UK (next door in Bedford) - That is the problem a lot of proponents of public transport don't want to address. If you do want to get rich middle class people to use busses - you will have to accept that the services will have to have a lot more investment and increase in cost and be partially rebalanced away from servicing pensioners and to be blunt poorer workers. The problem is…

> and be partially rebalanced away from servicing pensioners and to be blunt poorer workers.

Having been both dirt poor and relatively affluent more than once, and growing up poor, I'm not really sure buses do an adequate job for elderly or poorer people either: they just use them because there are no other options. And in that context I'm deeply uncomfortable with any initiative that makes them less accessible for the elderly, infirm, or those with low income.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#169

Post by C1sc0cat » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

bartread wrote: post #168

C1sc0cat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar problem also in the UK (next door in Bedford) - That is the problem a lot of proponents of public transport don't want to address. If you do want to get rich middle class people to use busses - you will have to accept that the services will have to have a lot more investment and increase in cost and be partially rebalanced away from servicing pensioners and to be blunt poorer workers. The problem is…

> and be partially rebalanced away from servicing pensioners and to be blunt poorer workers. Having been both dirt poor and relatively affluent more than once, and growing up poor, I'm not really sure buses do an adequate job for elderly or poorer people either: they just use them because there are no other options. And in that context I'm deeply uncomfortable with any initiative that makes them less accessible for t…

This may be more a UK thing but since the over 60's bus pass was introduced that has distorted how bus travel is managed.

Also certainly where I am they pull busses off peak commuting times to make more $ bussing kids to school which effects both poor and better off workers

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#170

Post by laurencerowe » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

bartread wrote: post #146

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.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation. A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous. I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and…

Cambridge really needs to build enough housing for the jobs it has. People seemed to live in outlying villages because it’s so unaffordable. Apparently the colleges own all the land and haven’t really allowed many homes to be built. Good public transport is so much easier to provide in an urban environment.