- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s going to be a nightmare. Say someone puts in a condo block with no parking. The surface streets will be FILLED with cars. The neighbors will scream about people parking in front of their houses.
The fantasy is “Well, the residents just won’t own cars.” That is a fantasy.
Portland tried it and that’s exactly what the end result was.
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/12/27/portland-mandates-parking-u-turn
"A city-commissioned survey of 115 residents of new apartment buildings would show that 72 percent of the respondents owned cars, with the majority parking on neighborhood streets. Even though the same survey showed that the areas around the buildings had plenty of available parking, neighbors didn’t perceive it that way.
Charlie Hales, who was mayor during the controversy and had championed the removal of parking mandates as a council member in 2002, even floated the idea of instituting a building moratorium until the zoning code could be sorted out. Hales told Willamette Week that he had anticipated developers might build one parking spot instead of two, but hadn’t imagined banks would finance housing with no parking at all.
In response to the outcry, Portland’s city council reinstituted a parking requirement for multifamily developments with more than 30 units. Those larger buildings would need to provide one parking space for every three or four units, depending on the building size. “That was the strategic retreat,” Hales explained. “We decided to adjust our ideal slightly to a watered-down version in order to reduce the controversy.”"
Idk who is downvoting you for sharing a counterpoint. It’s good to look around the country for lessons learned. Especially Portland.
I suspect the biggest problem is the availability of free street parking. There is no such thing as free parking. Someone is always paying. The associated cost with providing parking should be born by those who are parking and not the rest of society.
Ending parking requirement means that developers and businesses decide how much parking to build rather than arbitrary government mandates. It’s been shown to lower housing costs, give businesses more flexibility, and right-size parking lots.
A developer could build a condo right next to a transit hub or self contained community and offer little to no parking at all. If people are willing to live in them, the developer would sell those condos. If the developer gets it wrong, they won’t sell anything.
Worth nothing, about 20% of Denver renters don’t own a car. Right now, those renters pay $200-300/month for parking they don’t use because it’s bundled into rent. Your solution is basically forcing all residents to subsidize car ownership.
The problem you are describing sounds like an opportunity to build parking garages. Yes, it would cost to use them, but it would decouple the cost of having a car from the cost of living space.
It also causes problems for people who can’t afford their own parking.
When we bought a house, as we were moving out of our last apartment, we were told that because parking at the complex was tight, cars that hadn’t moved in 3 days would be towed.
Now my wife and I both worked from home, we each had a car, and it was not unusual for neither car to move for up to 6 days at a time.
So had we stayed, we would have had to switch parking spaces every 3 days, just for fun, to avoid being towed by the very complex in which we were living.
Go for it, please build more dense TOD near rail stops. Even literally on the RTD park and ride lots.
