> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.
This will prevent developers from keeping old poor habits around of bad land use
Developers build what people want that fits into local code. If parking spots are not desirable they will figure it out quick.
If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.
Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.
Too many cars will just add to congestion and make the surrounding spaces less desirable. You could address this with a congestion charge, but that has problems of its own. Limits to parking in some key spots around transit can then be a workable alternative.
I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…
I think a lot of this gets solved if the city cracks down on crime and cleans up public transport. I've lived in downtown SF (5th and Mission) as well as across the Bay Area and avoided public transport other than Caltrain (even then, the SF station was not great) because of so much vagrancy, people doing drugs on the bus and metro, and just being worried about personal safety. I personally still didn't buy a car and…
Taxis are just awful for traffic: every journey they drive twice as far as a private car (need to drive to the customer first, then take them to destination) and they spend all day driving around, idling etc. Granted if they are actively driving around, they don't take parking spaces. But they increase congestion instead.
I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…
> the city is much easier to navigate by car.
Cities stop being "easy to navigate by car" when they have too many cars around. And car-congested streets are also very hostile to bikes and pedestrians, so it's very hard to correct the problem once it gets ingrained. So it makes sense to give the latter uses high priority, and keep car use as a rare exception.
> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.
I hate this and think it’s ideas like this that are dangerous. Thinking like this is discriminating against lower socioeconomic status individuals. This works well for the commuter going to downtown SF for their 9-5; taking weekend trips with a zip car. What about people who don’t work 9-5, or have a job that is not an easy bart hop away. Ideas like this are just has bad as the authors interpretation of past laws.
Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.
you really think so? i get the free market angle, but what about the local optimum risk? People want parking because they need parking. and they need parking because they need cars because everything's unwalkable because there's too much parking...
Yes get rid of minimums but really the first step here is having better public transportation.
Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.
Trying to shoehorn a market into everything is not necessarily a good thing. I'd prefer housing for low income folks over parking for rich tech dudes.
I am sure we all have different views here but parking maximums seems to discriminate the most towards low income folks as you would classify them. Those who are not working normal 9-5 or have employment that does not follow the Bart stops.
You're reading the demand/supply situation backwards. Even with all the construction in Brooklyn, supply is failing to meet demand, therefore prices are going up. We've failed to meet supply in urban spaces for several generations now and have a massive deficit to pay off before adding any supply can actually drive prices down; we're barely adding enough units to affect the rate of increase of prices.
> You're reading the demand/supply situation backwards. No. I'm reading it exactly right. Density _causes_ higher prices. It makes it easier to create jobs near dense locations, which in turn makes it more attractive for people to move in. This in turn increases housing costs.
It's a chicken and egg problem. But remember an egg by itself wouldn't survive, and a single chicken in isolation can't produce a viable egg.
A surprisingly progressive proposal coming from Berkeley, but of course they are still playing games with parking minimums maximums, setback requirements, and income segregation. Seems like it would be a step forward at least.
This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is grea…
400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.
I'm not as optimistic as Darrell. I think the city will manage to pass a strict demolition ordinance at the same time as the general upzoning, nullifying the practical effect.
I would agree. My take is a little more cynical though. Berkeley likes to feel as if it’s progressive and accepting of others but hand wave away how it’s an exclusive oasis.