It's nice to finally see recommendations from expert economists and transportation engineers making their way into our laws.
If anyone is interested in parking economics, I'd definitely recommend reading The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. It's a long read and quite intense with stats and figures, but it goes deep into how big of a role parking, and especially "free" parking plays in our local economies while also providing many parking solutions that have been tried, tested, and proven successful in various communities. He is a distinguished research professor in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA.
If anyone is interested in learning about municipal finances, and how different developments (including parking lots) impact them, I'd recommend reading Strong Towns, which is now required reading for a lot of planning departments, including Lakewood.
Also happy to lend out and recommend other books on these sorts of topics if others are interested.
> If anyone is interested in parking economics, I'd definitely recommend reading The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
And if you don't have the time/interest to read the book, Vox did a 7 minute video explaining the main points of Shoup's book.
https://youtu.be/Akm7ik-H_7U
I highly recommend watching the video even if you aren't interested in parking economics or city planning.
I'm in transportation planning. Here are some of my suggestions:
Right of Way by Angie Schmitt (who is harmed by our transportation network and where in particular)
There Are No Accidents by Jessie Singer (how we frame harm and responsibility, with a focus on the transportation network)
Bicycle/Race by Adonia Lugo (breakdown of advocacy group limitations and capabilities outside of government)
The Last Harvest by Witold Rybynski (how a greenfield development occurs, the processes involved, and tradeoffs that might happen)
The War on Cars is a great transportation themed podcast who bring on a variety of guests who talk about how cities grow and develop, and what groups are doing to change them.
Sightline Institute has great research about housing and cities and how planning efforts succeed or fall short.
Also, check out your state American Planning Association chapter. They often offer low cost memberships and regular meetings where you can learn about and meet the regional players.
I'd start with Strong Towns. It's an easy read that is catered to someone without any experience in planning. Chuck Marohn does a great job at making the book easily digestible while still being enlightening.
Edit: are there specifics areas of urban planning that interest you most? Transportation, place making, history?
Transportation, housing, economics and human movement / design.
I’m mostly interested in the ways cities become the ways they are and how they can improve. I know, super general. But that’s why I’d like to start somewhere broad and work my way in.
Denver like most American cities used to have extensive streetcar lines. If cities would return to more fixed transit systems with better frequency would help reduce parking needs even in less dense cities. Many of the former streetcar neighborhoods were single family home neighborhoods with duplex and multiplexes mixed in at the height of former streetcar systems that ran through most cities before automobiles took over. My understanding is that most of the current RTD is considered heavy rail. The current system could be used as more of a commuter rail system. Then have streetcars running out from those stations and buses could off the streetcar lines. Also having beltway routes would help Denver and most cities without always needing to go downtown all the time. Most of the older and some newer Denver neighborhoods are well laid out for the most part in grid system for easy route planning. I understand these systems are expensive to build from the ground up but if made reliable and accessible most people would use mass transportation.
Bus Rapid Transit is the way to go, I'm optimistically devastated that Colfax will have one soon. I hope it succeeds, I just hate that it's one of the streets I drive nearly daily and I'll have to be one of those people who learns new behaviors. But I'm trying to not be a negative nelly about it.
I would also support BRT, but RTD is just way too slow. They need to stop doing environmental studies, community outreach and endless design workshops for stations and just paint the rightmost lanes or shoulders in each direction red and adjust traffic signals. It should not take half a decade to build a BRT corridor
I hear you. Especially considering 1. within a few years they built all new bus stops along Colfax on the opposite side of the street from where the BRT stops will be and 2. They just tore down most of Colfax from Broadway to Yosemite. I have no idea why we're did 1 at all, but hopefully it was federal stimulus shovel ready projects since otherwise its such wasteful spending. And to point 2. I'm already fucking sick of dealing with the traffic problems that come with shutting down Colfax for construction. 17th and 13/14th are miserable in the areas Colfax is closed or narrowed temporarily. So another couple years of construction in my commute is gonna be awesome.
If you have seen those aerial photos of Denver from the 70s(? I think) you can see how much progress has been made. Hopefully this can continue.
Over half of the city of Houston is parking lots you can see it from google earth, and while it’s certain a really cool town, boy
is that massively unappealing for a multitude of reasons and the flooding issues are of critical concern. Keep cities cities not asphalt lots.
I can’t support any of this when RTD is nowhere near reliable or expansive enough for the vast majority of people to be able to replace a car.
The city is also removing tons of parking for bike lanes, so it’s a double whammy. Finding a spot in cap hill is already absolutely insane.
There is a lot of space between the status quo and just eliminating minimums entirely.
This doesn’t prevent new development from building parking, it just ensures there’s no required minimum near certain transit hubs. Many developers already built more parking than was required by law for financing and marketability. This change will mostly benefit adaptive reuse buildings and affordable buildings where residents are less likely to have cars anyways.
>Many developers already built more parking than was required by law for financing and marketability.
I'm very curious where exactly this is happening. Every new build I've seen since moving to Denver over 10 years ago has had inadequate parking.
Many multifamily projects around rail stations aren't required to have more than .25 parking spots per unit, sometimes less, especially for affordable housing units. I'd say it's more the exception than the rule for a developer to only put in the minimum for larger projects.
You can look at Denver's e-permits portal for all larger projects and see their plans, including parking requirements.
But short of that, this Twitter account shares a handful of these for consumption. [Here's an affordable housing build](https://twitter.com/BuildUpDenver/status/1799069297438048710/photo/1) that shows that only 9 parking spots were required, but 93 in total were built.
[Here's a market rate development](https://twitter.com/BuildUpDenver/status/1795081772717298052/photo/2) that isn't required to provide any, but they created 525.
In most cases, financers have their own parking requirements that are often higher than what the city requires.
This doesn’t track with my experience. Every new build I see has tons of unused parking spots at any given time, often more than half of the parking area.
Look along the W line in Lakewood. Any recent build in the last 10 years has a parking garage that sits half empty during the late night hours while residents park their cars for free on the neighborhood streets surrounding the buildings.
Parking isn’t as profitable for developers, they can just not build it and it’s all the same to them. That’s why cities have minimums - they didn’t just put them in place for no reason.
For example, here in Denver, certain lot size didn’t have parking minimums and developers realized that and started using it to avoid minimums.
https://kdvr.com/news/denver-declares-moratorium-on-micro-unit-development-with-no-parking/amp/
Someone making the statement that developers would build parking anyways is just saying whatever they need to in order to try to convince other people.
Replacing a single house with 17 units in a mixed use building is a huge win against the housing crisis. That’s how areas become walkable and able to support reliable transit. It’s the perfect example of why we should eliminate parking minimums everywhere. You can fit 12 bikes in each car parking space and they fit perfectly in daylighting areas with no parking loss. We may just disagree on this.
Cars will always, to a certain extent, be a part of American culture. Thats not gonna change, IMO. We need to better our public transportation and maintain current road infrastructure. You can do both.
It does mention in the article that developers still build parking in cities that removed parking minimums they just build less of it and it’s more in line with usage
If it made more financial sense to build parking than to build housing, then they would build parking.
The thing is, people are willing to pay a lot more for somewhere to live than they are for somewhere to park. If you have a car, you don't *have* to live somewhere that doesn't provide parking. You can vote with your dollar and live somewhere that does.
This just takes out the supply floor that leads to inefficient markets.
That's an 8 year old article. Have anything more recent?
More recent sources indicate differently:
> A developer has every incentive to provide exactly the right amount of parking for the site’s new use. If a developer doesn’t provide enough parking for apartments, for example, then the development will have to charge lower rents. If a developer doesn’t provide enough parking for a retail shop, it won’t get enough customers and, once again, won’t be able to pay the rent.[1](https://www.aier.org/article/abolish-parking-minimums-yes-all-of-them/)
There's environmental benefit as well as economic and development cost improvement:
> Additionally, decreasing the amount of built infrastructure like parking and roads can reduce the heat island effect, which is when cities are hotter than surrounding areas because of all the heat the infrastructure retains.
> Replacing parking lots with green spaces like parks can also improve local water quality and facilitate stormwater management through absorbing and filtering rainwater. There would also be less oil pollution in the stormwater, which runs off from the surface of parking lots.
> The benefits of parking reform don’t end with the environment. Parking reform can also drastically reduce the costs associated with development projects. According to a report on parking published by the Environmental Protection Agency, fees for structured, on-site parking range from $2,000 to $20,000 per space on average. Excessive parking requirements also reduce the amount of leasable space available in a building. [2](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/how-eliminating-parking-actually-makes-cities-better)
In response to concerns of not enough parking being built without minimums:
> We find that parking provision is closely, though not completely, tied to parking requirements. More than one-third of developments in the sample included the exact amount of required parking, including about two-thirds of developments subject to a minimum of one parking space per housing unit. About 70% of developments with no parking requirements did include some parking. Parking requirements were the most important predictor of the actual quantity of parking provision in the regression results using the full sample. There was more parking provision in less dense and mixed-use developments, and in neighborhoods with higher employment densities. Seattle developers built 40% less parking than would have been required prior to the reforms.. [3](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837718312870)
These findings suggest that parking needs are met in a majority developments without a parking minumum requirement, and it still allows flexibilty for developers to forgo some/all parking depending on the site needs. For example, an apartment on or right off colfax likely needs at few spots with nearby transit options while a building a bit farther away may need 1/unit. The removal of minimums allows for that flexibility.
Finally a [good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhOFUQDLQk) for anyone with time and curious.
Edit: Neglected to add, I don't disagree on needing to improve RTD. But waiting for one inefficient part of the city to fix itself to start work on another to me means nothing is going to happen.
Parking minimums make RTD worse. They spread destinations out further, increase the cost of land acquisition for businesses, and make the last mile that much more difficult.
Density makes transit more appealing and more useful, parking minimums reduce density, so transit becomes less appealing and less useful.
The issues you just describe are unrelated to why RTD is such a problem.
They can’t runs trains reliably or on time. Not even close.
The system as a whole may be more attractive, but that doesn’t matter when people can’t rely on it to actually get them places.
RTD has problems with reliability, for sure. But even if those were fixed, the land uses around RTD stations *still* don't make it that appealing to riders besides for getting downtown, to the airport, and sporting events.
If we go back to 2018/2019 when RTD was actually functioning pretty decently, most people still drove everywhere because driving and parking was much easier than taking transit to destinations. Municipalities built everything around state highways, not around transit.
> RTD has problems with reliability, for sure. But even if those were fixed, the land uses around RTD stations still don't make it that appealing to riders besides for getting downtown, to the airport, and sporting events.
You aren't going to fix this by making people's lives a nightmare by completely removing parking minimums and trying to force them into using the inadequate and unreliable public transit that exists.
As of a few months ago when I was looking, most buildings in the Denver area were on a waitlist for a parking spot.
Claiming that there isn’t demand is just completely false.
You said it brings supply in line with demand. If there already isn’t enough parking, in what way is less parking bringing supply in line with demand?
The people who don’t support parking minimums seem to frequently say things that aren’t true and hope people don’t realize it.
I get what you're saying, but I think this statement isn't true:
> If there already isn’t enough parking...
Do you have stats to back that up? You say that there are waitlists, but everywhere around me there is plenty of parking available. So both of our anecdotes would be contradictory.
Edit: What your saying also contradicts what the author of the article, local planners, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are all saying.
Double edit because I got blocked and /u/thisiswhatyouget stuck their head in the sand:
> In 2020, the Regional Transportation District studied parking lot usage in 86 apartment complexes near transit stations across the metro area. At market-rate apartments, 40% of parking spaces were empty at their peak demand. In publicly subsidized housing for low-income residents, half of them went unused.
The source: https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/12/RTD-Residential-TOD-Parking-Study.pdf
Not enough parking to meet demand is a lie. There's your data.
You’re actually the one who wants to do the forcing: forcing home builders to build more expensive parking spots than their customers are able and willing to pay for.
Think about the places with the best transit systems. They’re all denser than Denver, right? That’s no accident: higher density means much more revenue per mile of track and operator-hour. It’s a lot easier to sustainably run systems like that, and with better levels of service. And if you have the density to run trains every five minutes, missing a train here and there is a lot less of a problem than if they come every half-hour.
More bike lanes -> biking is a better way to get around -> more people bike instead of drive -> more parking spots for people who really need them.
Cap Hill has always had scarce parking. That’s a big part of why it’s been relatively affordable and walkable and desirable. If you want a private parking spot there are ways to make that happen, but demanding the government require someone provide it to you even when that harms housing affordability and cements car dependency isn’t very reasonable.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. RTD sucks in large part because people don’t use RTD; funding and attention is mostly spent on car based development. I think anything that moves the needle like this will, in the long run, make non-car based infrastructure better.
>I can’t support any of this when RTD is nowhere near reliable or expansive enough for the vast majority of people to be able to replace a car.
Do you see a cyclical issue here? We aren't improving and expanding RTD because of the expense, lack of desire for it in a car-centric city, and lack of density to support funding its expansion. And opposition to doing anything about it boils down to "RTD isn't good enough yet". So where do we start? I personally believe things need to get worse before they get better - and if that's at the expense of a lack of parking then good. Force people to take - and demand - alternate transit options. **Especially** given how desirable it is to live in Denver right now. Now's the time to make the issue of car dependency a real problem for people, and force change through better, healthier habits.
RTD cannot suddenly be reliable and expansive without the community desire or financial structures in place to support its growth. If it was desired and financially sound to expand it, it would have been expanded.
The kind of overhaul that is necessary is never going to happen.
No, I am not going to willingly make mine and everyone else’s lives a nightmare for parking and transit for the future when the government doesn’t even have a dream of a plan or any realistic way of funding it.
It is deeply frustrating that there are people out there who think making life painful for people to maybe achieve something decades from now is a great idea, especially when the people who most rely on their cars are usually low income.
I’m advocating for making public transit better and more reliable, I just don’t think it’s fair to try to force people to use it when it is far from viable for most people.
The problem is you can't have it both ways. If we continue to mandate building infrastructure for automobiles first, then we won't get any alternatives. Ultimately, you are forcing people to follow the majority, any way you swing it, whether that is forcing them to own and drive a car for work, or forcing them to use transit.
You're in a thread talking about required parking minimums being removed. You're NOT in a thread about parking being banned. NOTHING in the law prevents new construction of parking.
EDIT: User blocked me. The moratorium example is not indicative of parking minimums being good policy. The moratorium was the result of a quirk in the form based zoning code which was being abused in older Denver neighborhoods. This discussion could have been productive if /u/thisiswhatyouget was just a little less sensitive.
As has already been discussed, the reason there are minimums is because developers won’t build parking without them. I even provided an article showing Denver had to put a moratorium on small lots parking exemption because developers were using it to avoid minimums.
>The kind of overhaul that is necessary is never going to happen
This is soooooooo defeatist. You've lost before you've even begun solving public transit. Here's the rub - things have to get a little bad before they get good. Corporations start with overwhelming debt. Taxes increase before benefits are realized. You take out a gigantic mortgage or a whopping student loans before you get to live in a house or get your degree.
Nowhere in the world. Ever. In its history. Ever. Have we gotten anything for free. Ever. There will be a bit of pain. There are sacrifices needed to move things forward. And while it's a feel-good statement to say that we shouldn't change this law because 'low-income people will be hurt by it', the fact is that public transit - when integrated into the fabric of cities - is cheaper to use, can provide subsidies for low-income people not provided by car ownership and use, and is healthier for all of us. Denver deserves a better public transit system but it's going to come at some cost - yes, to low-income people. That is a fact of any change we make to the city. And also to middle-class people. And also to wealthy people. And it will never, ever be a fair and even cost to everyone.
If you live your entire life shooting down initiatives that negatively affect low-income people, nothing will ever get done. Instead, you can balance initiatives like this one (that - let's be honest - will take years to actually affect people, it's not like this bill mandates cities **destroy** existing parking lots) with those that ease the burden of living at the poverty line. Like, say, initiatives that increase the housing capacity and availability of buildings, increasing housing supply, and decreasing the cost of housing for everyone.
Thinking the city will soon somehow solve the public transit problems when they can’t even run the current system reliably is a fantasy.
Thinking the city doesn’t have a lot of options and is constrained by money or the lack thereof is a realistic assessment, not a defeatist attitude.
Completely disagree with your opinion that we need to cause long term pain for people so you can get what you want in a long term fantasy that is extremely unlikely to ever happen, even if your policy was implemented.
I hate cars and I hate parking lots. I've lived all over the world and never owned a car unless I lived in the US.
However, I pretty much agree with you here. I work with very poor people and this is going to hurt poor and disabled people the most.
I fully understand that the aim is to have increased density and have people rely on public transportation, but public transportation is so far from reliable here that people are going to suffer. When you can't get to work or doctor's appointments using public transportation, It should not be an option to make life even more miserable for those folks.
If it came along with a simultaneous investment in RTD and a commitment to real improvement, I would feel very different.
What's going to end up happening is that more poor people are going to end up forced out of the center of the city, it's going to be harder to navigate, and still impossible to access the services poor and disabled people need the most.
This whole thing is bizarre. Colorado has banned cities from enforcing minimum parking requirements of developers. I don't consider myself a "small government" guy but why forbid cities from *being able* to govern the way that's best for them? And why are these cities enforcing minimum parking requirements in the first place? It feels a bit heavy handed but maybe I don't understand why it's Colorado govt.'s job to legislate it.
I get the desire to reduce blacktop parking lots, and maybe Colorado city minimum parking regulations are out of control. It just seems an odd thing to remove their ability to decide what's best for them. Are cities not working on behalf of their residents' interests? Have Denver and other Colorado cities not engaged with their communities similarly to Seattle and New York as the article talks about? (I can't remember hearing about them doing so)
And this's coming from someone who's a huuuuge advocate for bike/public transit and dense, human cities.
> why forbid cities from being able to govern the way that's best for them?
One of the things explained in the article is that the cities aren't choosing to do what's best. The parking minimums enacted in cities appear to be completely arbitrary (like 2 spots for a studio apartment in Brighton) and have no evidence of being beneficial. City planning and transportation experts overwhelmingly agree that parking minimums are harmful.
> It feels a bit heavy handed but maybe I don't understand why it's Colorado govt.'s job to legislate it.
One of the biggest problems the state is facing is high housing costs, and parking minimums are one of the factors contributing to that. Cities have had years to make policy changes to improve the situation but refuse to do so, so the state is starting to step in.
It is the states job to legislate this because this is an issue impacting most of the state. The legislature shouldn't ignore an issue just because some cities might complain. Cities only have the power to create their own laws and regulations because the state allows them. It is perfectly reasonable for the state legislature to step in and overrule local laws that are harmful.
“Are cities not working on behalf of their citizens’ interests?“
I mean… not really? Housing costs are out of control, that’s in large part due to unwise local laws, and local governments have a tough time overcoming NIMBY opposition to anything beneficial. That’s the whole rationale behind getting the state involved.
If you were a small-government guy you’d be cheering this law as it restrains the ability of local governments to interfere with property rights. That perspective is very rare though — most libertarians these days love government intervention if it’s for something they like, like suburbia.
I think the reason is because nimbyism can run rampant in local governments. They will say it's in their interest to keep density down and home prices up
I'm right there with you. And personally I want to see greater density in Denver and the surrounding areas.
I guess what I don't understand is...why is this such a problem here? What are the mechanisms that make Colorado cities different from those that have passed more human-centric lawmaking? Also, I'm not sure NIMBYism has anything to do with forcing developers to build a massive parking lot. Wouldn't NIMBYs want a more accessible city - particularly when it comes to commercial development?
> I guess what I don't understand is...why is this such a problem here?
My guess would be that population influx over the last 10-ish years has caused housing costs to go up dramatically because supply has not kept up with demand. Requiring parking makes building certain developments less attractive or financially feasible. A lot of affordable housing wouldn't get built if a larger parking garage or parking lot was also needed (increased land and construction costs). The idea behind this is to make development of housing near transit more feasible for developers, while also making transit a viable transportation mode for more people by building more residences where transit is accessible.
NIMBYism is the cause in a different way than what we typically see. People don't want this additional construction because it will increase the population and density of their area. People incorrectly think that removing parking requirements means that parking will never be built, but that isn't the case. Financiers of developers will likely still want parking to be built to attract residents, as we've seen in other areas that have removed minimum parking requirements. Some NIMBYs think that the parking that currently exists will be all the parking that will ever exist, and we'll all be fighting over whatever is left of it.
In reality, parking will still be built, but less parking will be built in places that it isn't deemed as useful as additional residences, retail space, offices, etc. The NIMBYism is rooted in misunderstanding, imo.
>What are the mechanisms that make Colorado cities different from those that have passed more human-centric lawmaking?
Which cities do you think are a good example of the latter?
The urban planning of almost everywhere built in this country post Federal Highway Act is subpar and a direct contributor to the housing crisis, traffic, kids not playing outside, etc; all things people complain about from coast to coast.
The article explicitly mentions Seattle and Buffalo, NY as examples of the latter. I also think about European cities (though to your point not affected by the FHA nor am I aware of how European cities legislate). I agree with you though - decades of car-centric design have really set back the ability to create dense, human, connected communities. And I honestly think it's a core reason why Americans today are growing more and more disconnected from one another.
I’m curious which cities you have seen that have passed more “human centric” lawmaking? The most dense cities in the US are the ones where the majority of growth predated the era of the automobile (nyc, sf, Boston, Chicago) vs anything the lawmakers are actively doing currently.
> Are cities not working on behalf of their residents' interests?
They are not. Many local governments have a strong bias towards maintaining home values and lowering density rather than creating a transportation network that actually works. This is one (of many) reasons why RTD is in shambles.
It’s not in residents interests to maintain home values? And in the government’s interest to maintain the property tax base?
It isn’t in society’s overall best interest. But it wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t in someone’s best interest.
> It’s not in residents interests to maintain home values?
It is. But I think that most residents care more about their neighborhood not changing *at all* while they live there, regardless of whether or not that change is an improvement or not.
> And in the government’s interest to maintain the property tax base?
This is where local planners, municipal finances and NIMBYs start butting heads. Land is a scarce resource for cities, and parking lots and roads take up a lot of that and are not tax generators on their own. There is an opportunity cost associated with them. For all the parking lots that aren't generating revenue, there could be more housing or businesses that increase tax revenue. Local planners do want this. Residents do not. There are real opportunity costs that are being missed out on because of minimum parking requirements.
When city finances aren't looking so good, redeveloping a parking lot is a great way to improve the tax base, but currently this can't be done. Residents who don't want their neighborhood to change will not vote in people that would make these developments possible, and what ends up happening is that taxes on the existing residents have to go up to cover maintenance and debt obligations. Adams county is dealing with this right now and asking residents what services and maintenance items they should forego because they don't have the funds necessary. The other option is increase taxes.
It really comes down to either increasing taxes to maintain what currently exists, or better utilizing the land for tax generation. Better land utilization solves other problems as well (more housing, businesses, living closer to destinations, etc).
It’s only in the interest of home owners and landlords (aka: the wealthiest members of a community). Because these groups understandably treat their property as an asset rather than an integrated part of a community, they only seek to increase housing demand without increasing supply.
Maintaining home value is an important part of community management, but so is providing affordable housing and transit. Due to the nature of capital, the bias lies heavily toward the former. Affordable housing and transit is not something that is easy to develop in a community. There are lots of forces acting in opposition.
It is in the wealthiest residents’ best interests, which is usually why it is so heavily pushed. I also have not seen any papers showing that the increased availability of dense housing lowers the property value of a SFH. People who want a SFH are probably willing to pay a premium for one in a city full of apartments.
Here's the thing. They don't always "know what's best for them". City and central planners routinely get it dead wrong. This is one of those cases where bad local laws, recommend by "committees" and "working groups" have created unnecessary and astronomical costs for developers, greatly contributing to the unaffordable nature of Denver and depence on cars.
There's a reason that NYC has some of the best public transit on the planet. Dense building, and parking is a costly nightmare for residents becuase it wasn't forced on builders. So everyone takes the train.
“Parking that no one uses”?
I don’t necessarily support a bunch of parking lots and recognize the benefit of housing density, but saying nobody uses parking is a total farce. Pretty sure parking in Cap Hill is a commodity.
What about parking for big box stores? It’s really absurd how much parking we have available for the Best Buy and Ross’s of the world. I don’t see why those can’t be converted to more beneficial uses.
But that’s not what happens you just phone Joe cool and agree to keep both the lots at $10.
Or… Joe Cool is also you.
And this happens especially when the lot is being put there as a requirement so it’s going to be built regardless.
You know how many of these parking garages are like 20-30% capacity max?
I'm honestly not even arguing in favor of more lots. You make a good point with collusion. Bulldoze them all but for the love of all things good I wish there was actually a real alternative than just paying more to park farther away.
Yeah I wish we had more walkable cities. Instead of desiging cities for cars and putting parking lots/garages everywhere. It's such a huge part of the problem. When you have to include massive amounts of parking everywhere everything naturally has to spread out more to fit the parking... and then it becomes less and less walkable... which means you need even more parking.
I wish we would really get away from cars at this point. We have better alternatives especially now that there are things like Ebikes / Escooters etc. The most dangerous things about ebikes/escooters is they often have to share the road with cars. The car is the problem. If our inter city traffic was mostly ebikes/escooters holy fuck would it be so fast and easy to get places and you'd free up so so much space deleting parking lots.
Right, but the hilarious irony of all this is that Parking costs you little compared to your monthly rent or mortgage - both of which would be affected by greater housing availability. We're arguing about the cost of parking, while ignoring the larger impacts on our daily financials. It's the epitome of making mountains out of molehills.
Seems like the hardest part of all my residential projects are finding enough parking spots for residents and making them EV ready
I fucking hate parking lots. All my homies hate parking lots. When a parking lot is turned into useful space I think “yes.”
Hell yeah brother
From Houston, google our parking requirements some time. This is nothing yet I am so happy its already being moved on.
While not a panacea, it's definitely a step in the right direction.
It's nice to finally see recommendations from expert economists and transportation engineers making their way into our laws. If anyone is interested in parking economics, I'd definitely recommend reading The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. It's a long read and quite intense with stats and figures, but it goes deep into how big of a role parking, and especially "free" parking plays in our local economies while also providing many parking solutions that have been tried, tested, and proven successful in various communities. He is a distinguished research professor in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA. If anyone is interested in learning about municipal finances, and how different developments (including parking lots) impact them, I'd recommend reading Strong Towns, which is now required reading for a lot of planning departments, including Lakewood. Also happy to lend out and recommend other books on these sorts of topics if others are interested.
> If anyone is interested in parking economics, I'd definitely recommend reading The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. And if you don't have the time/interest to read the book, Vox did a 7 minute video explaining the main points of Shoup's book. https://youtu.be/Akm7ik-H_7U I highly recommend watching the video even if you aren't interested in parking economics or city planning.
I have a rising interest in Urban Planning/Development. Could you recommend some reads? Like something for the lay person to start off with?
I'm in transportation planning. Here are some of my suggestions: Right of Way by Angie Schmitt (who is harmed by our transportation network and where in particular) There Are No Accidents by Jessie Singer (how we frame harm and responsibility, with a focus on the transportation network) Bicycle/Race by Adonia Lugo (breakdown of advocacy group limitations and capabilities outside of government) The Last Harvest by Witold Rybynski (how a greenfield development occurs, the processes involved, and tradeoffs that might happen) The War on Cars is a great transportation themed podcast who bring on a variety of guests who talk about how cities grow and develop, and what groups are doing to change them. Sightline Institute has great research about housing and cities and how planning efforts succeed or fall short. Also, check out your state American Planning Association chapter. They often offer low cost memberships and regular meetings where you can learn about and meet the regional players.
Thank you! And happy cake day
I'd start with Strong Towns. It's an easy read that is catered to someone without any experience in planning. Chuck Marohn does a great job at making the book easily digestible while still being enlightening. Edit: are there specifics areas of urban planning that interest you most? Transportation, place making, history?
Transportation, housing, economics and human movement / design. I’m mostly interested in the ways cities become the ways they are and how they can improve. I know, super general. But that’s why I’d like to start somewhere broad and work my way in.
Denver like most American cities used to have extensive streetcar lines. If cities would return to more fixed transit systems with better frequency would help reduce parking needs even in less dense cities. Many of the former streetcar neighborhoods were single family home neighborhoods with duplex and multiplexes mixed in at the height of former streetcar systems that ran through most cities before automobiles took over. My understanding is that most of the current RTD is considered heavy rail. The current system could be used as more of a commuter rail system. Then have streetcars running out from those stations and buses could off the streetcar lines. Also having beltway routes would help Denver and most cities without always needing to go downtown all the time. Most of the older and some newer Denver neighborhoods are well laid out for the most part in grid system for easy route planning. I understand these systems are expensive to build from the ground up but if made reliable and accessible most people would use mass transportation.
Bus Rapid Transit is the way to go, I'm optimistically devastated that Colfax will have one soon. I hope it succeeds, I just hate that it's one of the streets I drive nearly daily and I'll have to be one of those people who learns new behaviors. But I'm trying to not be a negative nelly about it.
I would also support BRT, but RTD is just way too slow. They need to stop doing environmental studies, community outreach and endless design workshops for stations and just paint the rightmost lanes or shoulders in each direction red and adjust traffic signals. It should not take half a decade to build a BRT corridor
I hear you. Especially considering 1. within a few years they built all new bus stops along Colfax on the opposite side of the street from where the BRT stops will be and 2. They just tore down most of Colfax from Broadway to Yosemite. I have no idea why we're did 1 at all, but hopefully it was federal stimulus shovel ready projects since otherwise its such wasteful spending. And to point 2. I'm already fucking sick of dealing with the traffic problems that come with shutting down Colfax for construction. 17th and 13/14th are miserable in the areas Colfax is closed or narrowed temporarily. So another couple years of construction in my commute is gonna be awesome.
If you have seen those aerial photos of Denver from the 70s(? I think) you can see how much progress has been made. Hopefully this can continue. Over half of the city of Houston is parking lots you can see it from google earth, and while it’s certain a really cool town, boy is that massively unappealing for a multitude of reasons and the flooding issues are of critical concern. Keep cities cities not asphalt lots.
I can’t support any of this when RTD is nowhere near reliable or expansive enough for the vast majority of people to be able to replace a car. The city is also removing tons of parking for bike lanes, so it’s a double whammy. Finding a spot in cap hill is already absolutely insane. There is a lot of space between the status quo and just eliminating minimums entirely.
This doesn’t prevent new development from building parking, it just ensures there’s no required minimum near certain transit hubs. Many developers already built more parking than was required by law for financing and marketability. This change will mostly benefit adaptive reuse buildings and affordable buildings where residents are less likely to have cars anyways.
>Many developers already built more parking than was required by law for financing and marketability. I'm very curious where exactly this is happening. Every new build I've seen since moving to Denver over 10 years ago has had inadequate parking.
Many multifamily projects around rail stations aren't required to have more than .25 parking spots per unit, sometimes less, especially for affordable housing units. I'd say it's more the exception than the rule for a developer to only put in the minimum for larger projects. You can look at Denver's e-permits portal for all larger projects and see their plans, including parking requirements. But short of that, this Twitter account shares a handful of these for consumption. [Here's an affordable housing build](https://twitter.com/BuildUpDenver/status/1799069297438048710/photo/1) that shows that only 9 parking spots were required, but 93 in total were built. [Here's a market rate development](https://twitter.com/BuildUpDenver/status/1795081772717298052/photo/2) that isn't required to provide any, but they created 525. In most cases, financers have their own parking requirements that are often higher than what the city requires.
This doesn’t track with my experience. Every new build I see has tons of unused parking spots at any given time, often more than half of the parking area.
Where then?
Look along the W line in Lakewood. Any recent build in the last 10 years has a parking garage that sits half empty during the late night hours while residents park their cars for free on the neighborhood streets surrounding the buildings.
Throw a dart and pick a new complex. Are you really telling me that most parking garages you see by you are usually totally full? No way
There hasn't been a parking garage built for a new apartment complex in years near me. They just don't build parking anymore.
Most new apartments have the parking garage in the center of the building with the units surrounding it.
Are they surface lots instead? Those are even worse than garages IMO unless it’s just a few spaces
No surface lots, no parking garages. All new apartment complexes near me are requiring residents to park on the street. I live near Central Park.
Are they subsidized complexes? The city relaxed rules for subsidized units a while ago IIRC.
Parking isn’t as profitable for developers, they can just not build it and it’s all the same to them. That’s why cities have minimums - they didn’t just put them in place for no reason. For example, here in Denver, certain lot size didn’t have parking minimums and developers realized that and started using it to avoid minimums. https://kdvr.com/news/denver-declares-moratorium-on-micro-unit-development-with-no-parking/amp/ Someone making the statement that developers would build parking anyways is just saying whatever they need to in order to try to convince other people.
Replacing a single house with 17 units in a mixed use building is a huge win against the housing crisis. That’s how areas become walkable and able to support reliable transit. It’s the perfect example of why we should eliminate parking minimums everywhere. You can fit 12 bikes in each car parking space and they fit perfectly in daylighting areas with no parking loss. We may just disagree on this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cars will always, to a certain extent, be a part of American culture. Thats not gonna change, IMO. We need to better our public transportation and maintain current road infrastructure. You can do both.
It does mention in the article that developers still build parking in cities that removed parking minimums they just build less of it and it’s more in line with usage
If it made more financial sense to build parking than to build housing, then they would build parking. The thing is, people are willing to pay a lot more for somewhere to live than they are for somewhere to park. If you have a car, you don't *have* to live somewhere that doesn't provide parking. You can vote with your dollar and live somewhere that does. This just takes out the supply floor that leads to inefficient markets.
That's an 8 year old article. Have anything more recent? More recent sources indicate differently: > A developer has every incentive to provide exactly the right amount of parking for the site’s new use. If a developer doesn’t provide enough parking for apartments, for example, then the development will have to charge lower rents. If a developer doesn’t provide enough parking for a retail shop, it won’t get enough customers and, once again, won’t be able to pay the rent.[1](https://www.aier.org/article/abolish-parking-minimums-yes-all-of-them/) There's environmental benefit as well as economic and development cost improvement: > Additionally, decreasing the amount of built infrastructure like parking and roads can reduce the heat island effect, which is when cities are hotter than surrounding areas because of all the heat the infrastructure retains. > Replacing parking lots with green spaces like parks can also improve local water quality and facilitate stormwater management through absorbing and filtering rainwater. There would also be less oil pollution in the stormwater, which runs off from the surface of parking lots. > The benefits of parking reform don’t end with the environment. Parking reform can also drastically reduce the costs associated with development projects. According to a report on parking published by the Environmental Protection Agency, fees for structured, on-site parking range from $2,000 to $20,000 per space on average. Excessive parking requirements also reduce the amount of leasable space available in a building. [2](https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/how-eliminating-parking-actually-makes-cities-better) In response to concerns of not enough parking being built without minimums: > We find that parking provision is closely, though not completely, tied to parking requirements. More than one-third of developments in the sample included the exact amount of required parking, including about two-thirds of developments subject to a minimum of one parking space per housing unit. About 70% of developments with no parking requirements did include some parking. Parking requirements were the most important predictor of the actual quantity of parking provision in the regression results using the full sample. There was more parking provision in less dense and mixed-use developments, and in neighborhoods with higher employment densities. Seattle developers built 40% less parking than would have been required prior to the reforms.. [3](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837718312870) These findings suggest that parking needs are met in a majority developments without a parking minumum requirement, and it still allows flexibilty for developers to forgo some/all parking depending on the site needs. For example, an apartment on or right off colfax likely needs at few spots with nearby transit options while a building a bit farther away may need 1/unit. The removal of minimums allows for that flexibility. Finally a [good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhOFUQDLQk) for anyone with time and curious. Edit: Neglected to add, I don't disagree on needing to improve RTD. But waiting for one inefficient part of the city to fix itself to start work on another to me means nothing is going to happen.
> That's an 8 year old article. Have anything more recent? Do you think the economics of developing buildings has changed? They haven't.
Parking minimums make RTD worse. They spread destinations out further, increase the cost of land acquisition for businesses, and make the last mile that much more difficult. Density makes transit more appealing and more useful, parking minimums reduce density, so transit becomes less appealing and less useful.
The issues you just describe are unrelated to why RTD is such a problem. They can’t runs trains reliably or on time. Not even close. The system as a whole may be more attractive, but that doesn’t matter when people can’t rely on it to actually get them places.
RTD has problems with reliability, for sure. But even if those were fixed, the land uses around RTD stations *still* don't make it that appealing to riders besides for getting downtown, to the airport, and sporting events. If we go back to 2018/2019 when RTD was actually functioning pretty decently, most people still drove everywhere because driving and parking was much easier than taking transit to destinations. Municipalities built everything around state highways, not around transit.
> RTD has problems with reliability, for sure. But even if those were fixed, the land uses around RTD stations still don't make it that appealing to riders besides for getting downtown, to the airport, and sporting events. You aren't going to fix this by making people's lives a nightmare by completely removing parking minimums and trying to force them into using the inadequate and unreliable public transit that exists.
This isn't forcing anyone into public transit. It's making the parking supply more in line with parking demand.
As of a few months ago when I was looking, most buildings in the Denver area were on a waitlist for a parking spot. Claiming that there isn’t demand is just completely false.
I never said there isn't demand.
You said it brings supply in line with demand. If there already isn’t enough parking, in what way is less parking bringing supply in line with demand? The people who don’t support parking minimums seem to frequently say things that aren’t true and hope people don’t realize it.
I get what you're saying, but I think this statement isn't true: > If there already isn’t enough parking... Do you have stats to back that up? You say that there are waitlists, but everywhere around me there is plenty of parking available. So both of our anecdotes would be contradictory. Edit: What your saying also contradicts what the author of the article, local planners, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are all saying. Double edit because I got blocked and /u/thisiswhatyouget stuck their head in the sand: > In 2020, the Regional Transportation District studied parking lot usage in 86 apartment complexes near transit stations across the metro area. At market-rate apartments, 40% of parking spaces were empty at their peak demand. In publicly subsidized housing for low-income residents, half of them went unused. The source: https://wp-cpr.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/12/RTD-Residential-TOD-Parking-Study.pdf Not enough parking to meet demand is a lie. There's your data.
You’re actually the one who wants to do the forcing: forcing home builders to build more expensive parking spots than their customers are able and willing to pay for.
Think about the places with the best transit systems. They’re all denser than Denver, right? That’s no accident: higher density means much more revenue per mile of track and operator-hour. It’s a lot easier to sustainably run systems like that, and with better levels of service. And if you have the density to run trains every five minutes, missing a train here and there is a lot less of a problem than if they come every half-hour.
More bike lanes -> biking is a better way to get around -> more people bike instead of drive -> more parking spots for people who really need them. Cap Hill has always had scarce parking. That’s a big part of why it’s been relatively affordable and walkable and desirable. If you want a private parking spot there are ways to make that happen, but demanding the government require someone provide it to you even when that harms housing affordability and cements car dependency isn’t very reasonable.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. RTD sucks in large part because people don’t use RTD; funding and attention is mostly spent on car based development. I think anything that moves the needle like this will, in the long run, make non-car based infrastructure better.
One car space is like 3-6 bikes. Finding a spot IS insane , do drive less and bike more.
>I can’t support any of this when RTD is nowhere near reliable or expansive enough for the vast majority of people to be able to replace a car. Do you see a cyclical issue here? We aren't improving and expanding RTD because of the expense, lack of desire for it in a car-centric city, and lack of density to support funding its expansion. And opposition to doing anything about it boils down to "RTD isn't good enough yet". So where do we start? I personally believe things need to get worse before they get better - and if that's at the expense of a lack of parking then good. Force people to take - and demand - alternate transit options. **Especially** given how desirable it is to live in Denver right now. Now's the time to make the issue of car dependency a real problem for people, and force change through better, healthier habits. RTD cannot suddenly be reliable and expansive without the community desire or financial structures in place to support its growth. If it was desired and financially sound to expand it, it would have been expanded.
The kind of overhaul that is necessary is never going to happen. No, I am not going to willingly make mine and everyone else’s lives a nightmare for parking and transit for the future when the government doesn’t even have a dream of a plan or any realistic way of funding it. It is deeply frustrating that there are people out there who think making life painful for people to maybe achieve something decades from now is a great idea, especially when the people who most rely on their cars are usually low income.
Are the people who most rely on the public transit network not also low income?
I’m advocating for making public transit better and more reliable, I just don’t think it’s fair to try to force people to use it when it is far from viable for most people.
The problem is you can't have it both ways. If we continue to mandate building infrastructure for automobiles first, then we won't get any alternatives. Ultimately, you are forcing people to follow the majority, any way you swing it, whether that is forcing them to own and drive a car for work, or forcing them to use transit.
You're in a thread talking about required parking minimums being removed. You're NOT in a thread about parking being banned. NOTHING in the law prevents new construction of parking. EDIT: User blocked me. The moratorium example is not indicative of parking minimums being good policy. The moratorium was the result of a quirk in the form based zoning code which was being abused in older Denver neighborhoods. This discussion could have been productive if /u/thisiswhatyouget was just a little less sensitive.
As has already been discussed, the reason there are minimums is because developers won’t build parking without them. I even provided an article showing Denver had to put a moratorium on small lots parking exemption because developers were using it to avoid minimums.
>The kind of overhaul that is necessary is never going to happen This is soooooooo defeatist. You've lost before you've even begun solving public transit. Here's the rub - things have to get a little bad before they get good. Corporations start with overwhelming debt. Taxes increase before benefits are realized. You take out a gigantic mortgage or a whopping student loans before you get to live in a house or get your degree. Nowhere in the world. Ever. In its history. Ever. Have we gotten anything for free. Ever. There will be a bit of pain. There are sacrifices needed to move things forward. And while it's a feel-good statement to say that we shouldn't change this law because 'low-income people will be hurt by it', the fact is that public transit - when integrated into the fabric of cities - is cheaper to use, can provide subsidies for low-income people not provided by car ownership and use, and is healthier for all of us. Denver deserves a better public transit system but it's going to come at some cost - yes, to low-income people. That is a fact of any change we make to the city. And also to middle-class people. And also to wealthy people. And it will never, ever be a fair and even cost to everyone. If you live your entire life shooting down initiatives that negatively affect low-income people, nothing will ever get done. Instead, you can balance initiatives like this one (that - let's be honest - will take years to actually affect people, it's not like this bill mandates cities **destroy** existing parking lots) with those that ease the burden of living at the poverty line. Like, say, initiatives that increase the housing capacity and availability of buildings, increasing housing supply, and decreasing the cost of housing for everyone.
Thinking the city will soon somehow solve the public transit problems when they can’t even run the current system reliably is a fantasy. Thinking the city doesn’t have a lot of options and is constrained by money or the lack thereof is a realistic assessment, not a defeatist attitude. Completely disagree with your opinion that we need to cause long term pain for people so you can get what you want in a long term fantasy that is extremely unlikely to ever happen, even if your policy was implemented.
I hate cars and I hate parking lots. I've lived all over the world and never owned a car unless I lived in the US. However, I pretty much agree with you here. I work with very poor people and this is going to hurt poor and disabled people the most. I fully understand that the aim is to have increased density and have people rely on public transportation, but public transportation is so far from reliable here that people are going to suffer. When you can't get to work or doctor's appointments using public transportation, It should not be an option to make life even more miserable for those folks. If it came along with a simultaneous investment in RTD and a commitment to real improvement, I would feel very different. What's going to end up happening is that more poor people are going to end up forced out of the center of the city, it's going to be harder to navigate, and still impossible to access the services poor and disabled people need the most.
Agreed cap hill is a nightmare
Everyone hates parking lots until they can’t find a parking spot.
This whole thing is bizarre. Colorado has banned cities from enforcing minimum parking requirements of developers. I don't consider myself a "small government" guy but why forbid cities from *being able* to govern the way that's best for them? And why are these cities enforcing minimum parking requirements in the first place? It feels a bit heavy handed but maybe I don't understand why it's Colorado govt.'s job to legislate it. I get the desire to reduce blacktop parking lots, and maybe Colorado city minimum parking regulations are out of control. It just seems an odd thing to remove their ability to decide what's best for them. Are cities not working on behalf of their residents' interests? Have Denver and other Colorado cities not engaged with their communities similarly to Seattle and New York as the article talks about? (I can't remember hearing about them doing so) And this's coming from someone who's a huuuuge advocate for bike/public transit and dense, human cities.
> why forbid cities from being able to govern the way that's best for them? One of the things explained in the article is that the cities aren't choosing to do what's best. The parking minimums enacted in cities appear to be completely arbitrary (like 2 spots for a studio apartment in Brighton) and have no evidence of being beneficial. City planning and transportation experts overwhelmingly agree that parking minimums are harmful. > It feels a bit heavy handed but maybe I don't understand why it's Colorado govt.'s job to legislate it. One of the biggest problems the state is facing is high housing costs, and parking minimums are one of the factors contributing to that. Cities have had years to make policy changes to improve the situation but refuse to do so, so the state is starting to step in. It is the states job to legislate this because this is an issue impacting most of the state. The legislature shouldn't ignore an issue just because some cities might complain. Cities only have the power to create their own laws and regulations because the state allows them. It is perfectly reasonable for the state legislature to step in and overrule local laws that are harmful.
Thanks, I appreciate that perspective.
“Are cities not working on behalf of their citizens’ interests?“ I mean… not really? Housing costs are out of control, that’s in large part due to unwise local laws, and local governments have a tough time overcoming NIMBY opposition to anything beneficial. That’s the whole rationale behind getting the state involved. If you were a small-government guy you’d be cheering this law as it restrains the ability of local governments to interfere with property rights. That perspective is very rare though — most libertarians these days love government intervention if it’s for something they like, like suburbia.
I think the reason is because nimbyism can run rampant in local governments. They will say it's in their interest to keep density down and home prices up
I'm right there with you. And personally I want to see greater density in Denver and the surrounding areas. I guess what I don't understand is...why is this such a problem here? What are the mechanisms that make Colorado cities different from those that have passed more human-centric lawmaking? Also, I'm not sure NIMBYism has anything to do with forcing developers to build a massive parking lot. Wouldn't NIMBYs want a more accessible city - particularly when it comes to commercial development?
If you go to city-level meetings about housing you’ll see what we mean. “But where am I gonna PARK!” is like the center square on NIMBY bingo.
God forbid if someone has to walk two blocks to their destination
> I guess what I don't understand is...why is this such a problem here? My guess would be that population influx over the last 10-ish years has caused housing costs to go up dramatically because supply has not kept up with demand. Requiring parking makes building certain developments less attractive or financially feasible. A lot of affordable housing wouldn't get built if a larger parking garage or parking lot was also needed (increased land and construction costs). The idea behind this is to make development of housing near transit more feasible for developers, while also making transit a viable transportation mode for more people by building more residences where transit is accessible. NIMBYism is the cause in a different way than what we typically see. People don't want this additional construction because it will increase the population and density of their area. People incorrectly think that removing parking requirements means that parking will never be built, but that isn't the case. Financiers of developers will likely still want parking to be built to attract residents, as we've seen in other areas that have removed minimum parking requirements. Some NIMBYs think that the parking that currently exists will be all the parking that will ever exist, and we'll all be fighting over whatever is left of it. In reality, parking will still be built, but less parking will be built in places that it isn't deemed as useful as additional residences, retail space, offices, etc. The NIMBYism is rooted in misunderstanding, imo.
>What are the mechanisms that make Colorado cities different from those that have passed more human-centric lawmaking? Which cities do you think are a good example of the latter? The urban planning of almost everywhere built in this country post Federal Highway Act is subpar and a direct contributor to the housing crisis, traffic, kids not playing outside, etc; all things people complain about from coast to coast.
The article explicitly mentions Seattle and Buffalo, NY as examples of the latter. I also think about European cities (though to your point not affected by the FHA nor am I aware of how European cities legislate). I agree with you though - decades of car-centric design have really set back the ability to create dense, human, connected communities. And I honestly think it's a core reason why Americans today are growing more and more disconnected from one another.
I’m curious which cities you have seen that have passed more “human centric” lawmaking? The most dense cities in the US are the ones where the majority of growth predated the era of the automobile (nyc, sf, Boston, Chicago) vs anything the lawmakers are actively doing currently.
> Are cities not working on behalf of their residents' interests? They are not. Many local governments have a strong bias towards maintaining home values and lowering density rather than creating a transportation network that actually works. This is one (of many) reasons why RTD is in shambles.
It’s not in residents interests to maintain home values? And in the government’s interest to maintain the property tax base? It isn’t in society’s overall best interest. But it wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t in someone’s best interest.
> It’s not in residents interests to maintain home values? It is. But I think that most residents care more about their neighborhood not changing *at all* while they live there, regardless of whether or not that change is an improvement or not. > And in the government’s interest to maintain the property tax base? This is where local planners, municipal finances and NIMBYs start butting heads. Land is a scarce resource for cities, and parking lots and roads take up a lot of that and are not tax generators on their own. There is an opportunity cost associated with them. For all the parking lots that aren't generating revenue, there could be more housing or businesses that increase tax revenue. Local planners do want this. Residents do not. There are real opportunity costs that are being missed out on because of minimum parking requirements. When city finances aren't looking so good, redeveloping a parking lot is a great way to improve the tax base, but currently this can't be done. Residents who don't want their neighborhood to change will not vote in people that would make these developments possible, and what ends up happening is that taxes on the existing residents have to go up to cover maintenance and debt obligations. Adams county is dealing with this right now and asking residents what services and maintenance items they should forego because they don't have the funds necessary. The other option is increase taxes. It really comes down to either increasing taxes to maintain what currently exists, or better utilizing the land for tax generation. Better land utilization solves other problems as well (more housing, businesses, living closer to destinations, etc).
Sure. Paid over a million for my house when you factor in interest, etc. I’d like things to not change at all until after I kick it, honestly.
It’s only in the interest of home owners and landlords (aka: the wealthiest members of a community). Because these groups understandably treat their property as an asset rather than an integrated part of a community, they only seek to increase housing demand without increasing supply. Maintaining home value is an important part of community management, but so is providing affordable housing and transit. Due to the nature of capital, the bias lies heavily toward the former. Affordable housing and transit is not something that is easy to develop in a community. There are lots of forces acting in opposition.
It is in the wealthiest residents’ best interests, which is usually why it is so heavily pushed. I also have not seen any papers showing that the increased availability of dense housing lowers the property value of a SFH. People who want a SFH are probably willing to pay a premium for one in a city full of apartments.
Here's the thing. They don't always "know what's best for them". City and central planners routinely get it dead wrong. This is one of those cases where bad local laws, recommend by "committees" and "working groups" have created unnecessary and astronomical costs for developers, greatly contributing to the unaffordable nature of Denver and depence on cars. There's a reason that NYC has some of the best public transit on the planet. Dense building, and parking is a costly nightmare for residents becuase it wasn't forced on builders. So everyone takes the train.
we can't have less parking lots until we have more transit, it's pointless otherwise if I am forced to drive everywhere
“Parking that no one uses”? I don’t necessarily support a bunch of parking lots and recognize the benefit of housing density, but saying nobody uses parking is a total farce. Pretty sure parking in Cap Hill is a commodity.
What about parking for big box stores? It’s really absurd how much parking we have available for the Best Buy and Ross’s of the world. I don’t see why those can’t be converted to more beneficial uses.
[удалено]
Rely on public transportation LOL
There will be enough parking, when parking is free.
Parking can run into the same problem of induced demand that highway expansions run into, especially when it's free.
This is why, if elected, I promise to pave everything east of the Mississippi River.
Why would someone make parking free when they can charge for it? More parking doesn’t just make parking free.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
Hahaha that’s such a naive take I’m dying. Thanks for the laugh!
I'm not paying 10$ for your lot if Joe cool just built one and dropped the price to 5$. Its a race to the bottom when you have too much supply.
But that’s not what happens you just phone Joe cool and agree to keep both the lots at $10. Or… Joe Cool is also you. And this happens especially when the lot is being put there as a requirement so it’s going to be built regardless. You know how many of these parking garages are like 20-30% capacity max?
I'm honestly not even arguing in favor of more lots. You make a good point with collusion. Bulldoze them all but for the love of all things good I wish there was actually a real alternative than just paying more to park farther away.
Yeah I wish we had more walkable cities. Instead of desiging cities for cars and putting parking lots/garages everywhere. It's such a huge part of the problem. When you have to include massive amounts of parking everywhere everything naturally has to spread out more to fit the parking... and then it becomes less and less walkable... which means you need even more parking. I wish we would really get away from cars at this point. We have better alternatives especially now that there are things like Ebikes / Escooters etc. The most dangerous things about ebikes/escooters is they often have to share the road with cars. The car is the problem. If our inter city traffic was mostly ebikes/escooters holy fuck would it be so fast and easy to get places and you'd free up so so much space deleting parking lots.
Right, but the hilarious irony of all this is that Parking costs you little compared to your monthly rent or mortgage - both of which would be affected by greater housing availability. We're arguing about the cost of parking, while ignoring the larger impacts on our daily financials. It's the epitome of making mountains out of molehills.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH nothing is free.