parking podiums: tolerated compromise or the root of all evil?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by honte

A lot of people seem to enjoy complaining about parking podiums and their "ruining" of Chicago's neighborhoods, but without a solution.

I find it highly ironic that you posted this just beneath a rendering of SoNo, which handles the parking problem by moving the parking podium to the back and placing a tower along the street face. This solution would work at the JDL/Firehouse site as well.

[honte]

^ Sorry, I don't time my posts in accordance to the other information that is delivered here.

We are lucky at SoNo that they had room to make this outcome happen. The problem becomes much more difficult on tight sites, such as Illinois Street. Obviously, things like One Superior Place or Grand Plaza simply shouldn't happen, given the footprint, but saying that all parking should be hidden behind units is not the realistic answer to every situation.

[10023]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Sorry, I don't time my posts in accordance to the other information that is delivered here.

We are lucky at SoNo that they had room to make this outcome happen. The problem becomes much more difficult on tight sites, such as Illinois Street. Obviously, things like One Superior Place or Grand Plaza simply shouldn't happen, given the footprint, but saying that all parking should be hidden behind units is not the realistic answer to every situation.

Parking should be underground, period. Yes it's expensive, but developers would do it if the city mandated it.

The fact is that Chicago is getting plenty of quantity. The city doesn't need to worry if less developments happen because of stricter codes. A 20-30% reduction in the number of towers built would be well worth it for underground parking across the board.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by 10023

Parking should be underground, period. Yes it's expensive, but developers would do it if the city mandated it.

The fact is that Chicago is getting plenty of quantity. The city doesn't need to worry if less developments happen because of stricter codes. A 20-30% reduction in the number of towers built would be well worth it for underground parking across the board.

That's a good idea - another good idea would be eliminate the miniumum parking requirement, particularly for developments in the central core, and instead institute a maximum. Denver has done this, and any luxury high-rise developer in this city will tell you they sell less then 1-1 parking in their developments.

Not only does this take advantage of the substantial amount of people who don't drive, but it also has big support for low-income housing advocates who correctly point out that a mid-rise development with out parking vs. one with (and all the infrastructure/land development costs that go with that) can make the difference between an affordable home and one that isn't.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 10023

Parking should be underground, period. Yes it's expensive, but developers would do it if the city mandated it.

The more you require of developers, the more expensive the units they produce will be....thereby increasing the cost of living (Vancouver, anyone?)
And the more marginal developments are canceled, the lower the supply of units, driving the prices up further. And excavation in Chicago is very expensive, moreso than Vancouver or NY because our bedrock is so deep that its basically digging out mud and bracing it with giant raker beams...very time, labor, and material intensive.

Just so we're clear on that. One of Chicago's strengths is its relative affordability compared to its amenities. I wish more planner-types would understand the economics of their diktats. Some are certainly worth it for quality-of-life concerns, but I'm not convinced on "requiring all parking be underground in Chicago"

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

That's a good idea - another good idea would be eliminate the miniumum parking requirement, particularly for developments in the central core, and instead institute a maximum. Denver has done this, and any luxury high-rise developer in this city will tell you they sell less then 1-1 parking in their developments.

Fully agreed....DX and DR zones should have zero parking requirement, and R5 and R6 should be .5 or .75 per unit.

As it is right now, the only guarenteed reduction in parking requirement is from 1 to .75 per unit for developments within 600 feet of a rapid transit station.

[honte]

Originally Posted by 10023

Parking should be underground, period. Yes it's expensive, but developers would do it if the city mandated it.

The fact is that Chicago is getting plenty of quantity. The city doesn't need to worry if less developments happen because of stricter codes. A 20-30% reduction in the number of towers built would be well worth it for underground parking across the board.

Well, we've had this discussion several times in the past.

Personally, I wouldn't want anything that drastic to happen unless there were a seriously detailed economic analysis conducted. If we truly only saw a decline of 20-30%, with no sizable change in prices of units, then I would say we should go for it. But no one (to my knowledge) has studied how elastic the market is, etc. I personally think the impact would be much greater.

[MayDay]

"And excavation in Chicago is very expensive, moreso than Vancouver or NY because our bedrock is so deep that its basically digging out mud and bracing it with giant raker beams...very time, labor, and material intensive."

That's true of most Great Lakes cities, particularly those that lie directly south of the shorelines (due to the glaciers carving out the Lakes, then depositing the shale/sediment ("mud") after they receded.). In NYC, the bedrock is sometimes right at street level. For comparison's sake, some of the deepest caissons in the world are in downtown Cleveland (Terminal Tower - 280 feet, 200 Public Square - 290 feet).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

That's a good idea - another good idea would be eliminate the miniumum parking requirement, particularly for developments in the central core, and instead institute a maximum. Denver has done this, and any luxury high-rise developer in this city will tell you they sell less then 1-1 parking in their developments.

Not only does this take advantage of the substantial amount of people who don't drive, but it also has big support for low-income housing advocates who correctly point out that a mid-rise development with out parking vs. one with (and all the infrastructure/land development costs that go with that) can make the difference between an affordable home and one that isn't.

We have? This is news to me because the last I heard was that Denver's parking requirements remained 1.5 spots per each bedroom in new construction. But if it has changed to a maximum parking requirement that is great.

I would also say that a mid-rise development with with structured parking versus underground parking can make the difference between whether a home is middle class or luxury. Mandating underground parking without getting rid of parking requirements will only make city cores that much more unattainable to the majority of the populace.

[Boris2k7]

Parking should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In Calgary, we have had a variety of responses in recent years. Most sites don't face significant constraints and as a result only have underground parking. Some sites however have faced problems with the bedrock though, such as Colours in the Beltline, which is under construction (see image below)



For Colours, the developer couldn't go more than about 3 stories below grade before it became extremely expensive to develop. Having to make a decision between having a much shorter tower and all underground parking (with very expensive units) or a taller, more affordable tower with some above-grade parking, they came to a compromise with the community. 2 parking levels in the podium have been allowed, due to the developer's willingness to cover it with semi-transparent glass that will be something like an art piece. It is colourful, hence the name. The first floor will be entirely retail.

Furthermore, the Beltline Communities, where this development is U/C, has a special Aread Redevelopment Plan that is slightly out of sync with the rest of the Land Use Bylaw, since it falls within the Centre City Policy area. One of the results of this is that in the Beltline ARP, the requirement for parking is a minimum of 0.9 stalls per residential unit. Most developers in downtown Calgary do not provide more than this minimum. Instead, many of them choose to put in bike stalls.

[lawsond]

root of MOST evil though not quite all.
concrete street faces are the root of the other bit of evil

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

We have? This is news to me because the last I heard was that Denver's parking requirements remained 1.5 spots per each bedroom in new construction. But if it has changed to a maximum parking requirement that is great.

I would also say that a mid-rise development with with structured parking versus underground parking can make the difference between whether a home is middle class or luxury. Mandating underground parking without getting rid of parking requirements will only make city cores that much more unattainable to the majority of the populace.

Well, I did some work in the Central Platte Valley area, at the very northern end of the 16th street mall, and the parking was a 1-1 limit. IMO, regardless of whether there is ever a max figure, cities should never set min req's and should rather let the market dictate.

As far as podiums looking good, yes, it can happen (think Skybridge here in Chicago), but no matter how well they are integrated or set apart as part of a larger aesthetic composition, the result is a very identifiable 'dead zone' above the second floor running throughout our downtowns.

[aaron38]

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in here. As much as I like the 'form follows function' school of thought for buildings, it has limits. A building can express it's skeletal-muscualar structure in it's architecture and look tall and lean and strong. But the parking garage is a messy bodily function, to stretch the analogy, and nobody wants to see that.

If a parking podium is absolutely necessary, then you shouldn't be able to tell that it is a parking podium. I'm going full bore with the "ignorance is bliss" line of reasoning. I didn't even know that there was above ground parking in the Hancock building until last year.
I'm fine with that. Hell, give me fake windows and all. Make it streamlined so you don't see the building as a tower on top of parking garage. You just see a building.

Or, if the streetwall is sufficiently developed, this is acceptable:

Integrate the podium into the streetwall so that it disapears. But the visible sides need to look like the rest of the building - no blank walls.

[mhays]

Unfortunately what you just said is heresy to some architects. They think the exterior should "honestly express use" or some utter bullshit like that. The result is a lot of ugly parking pedestals that manage to be lifeless no matter how they tart them up.

[Boris2k7]

Honestly, I agree with them. I hate it when you get some kinda tacky facade on top, with the fake windows and bullshit. If it's going to be a parkade, show that it's a parkade, but pretty it up a bit. Throw on glass and bracing or whatever you need to do, but it's so dishonest to just cover it up and say "hey, there's no parking over here!"

[J. Will]

I don't buy that forcing parking underground will greatly decrease the number of highrises built. If that was the case how does Vancouver have over 40 highrises u/c (not including suburbs) in a city of 580,000? How does Toronto have over 90 highrises u/c just within city limits? If anything, it could lead to more development because if all parking garages are underground, it makes for a nicer neighbourhood to walk around, ceteris paribus.

The developers just pass on the cost of parking to residents anyways. So it doesn't really matter if it's underground. I'm just grateful that almost all of the parking garages here are underground. I think above-grade parking is ugly even if you try to disguise it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The more you require of developers, the more expensive the units they produce will be....thereby increasing the cost of living (Vancouver, anyone?)
And the more marginal developments are canceled, the lower the supply of units, driving the prices up further. And excavation in Chicago is very expensive, moreso than Vancouver or NY because our bedrock is so deep that its basically digging out mud and bracing it with giant raker beams...very time, labor, and material intensive.

Just so we're clear on that. One of Chicago's strengths is its relative affordability compared to its amenities. I wish more planner-types would understand the economics of their diktats. Some are certainly worth it for quality-of-life concerns, but I'm not convinced on "requiring all parking be underground in Chicago"

It would be worth it. As always, you get what you pay for.

And as someone else mentioned, it could also lead people to build units without parking, as long as the city doesn't mandate parking spaces, which may be more affordable than what it built now. If New Yorkers can live without parking then Chicagoans can too.

And who knows, maybe it would work out well? Chicago may see some real development inland from the lake, where I would assume bedrock is slightly closer to the surface, or you could relax the rules outside of the central core in neighborhoods that are currently in need of recovery to stimulate development.

[honte]

Originally Posted by 10023

If New Yorkers can live without parking then Chicagoans can too.

Right, it's just that simple, isn't it?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I don't buy that forcing parking underground will greatly decrease the number of highrises built. If that was the case how does Vancouver have over 40 highrises u/c (not including suburbs) in a city of 580,000? How does Toronto have over 90 highrises u/c just within city limits? If anything, it could lead to more development because if all parking garages are underground, it makes for a nicer neighbourhood to walk around, ceteris paribus.

The developers just pass on the cost of parking to residents anyways. So it doesn't really matter if it's underground. I'm just grateful that almost all of the parking garages here are underground. I think above-grade parking is ugly even if you try to disguise it.

Thus, affordable development goes right out the window...

If you get rid of parking requirements and let the market determine the appropriate level, you'll see more affordable units in the pipeline. But parking will become the premium amenity it should be in a city.

[dallasbrink]

Originally Posted by 10023

It would be worth it. As always, you get what you pay for.

And as someone else mentioned, it could also lead people to build units without parking, as long as the city doesn't mandate parking spaces, which may be more affordable than what it built now. If New Yorkers can live without parking then Chicagoans can too.

And who knows, maybe it would work out well? Chicago may see some real development inland from the lake, where I would assume bedrock is slightly closer to the surface, or you could relax the rules outside of the central core in neighborhoods that are currently in need of recovery to stimulate development.

I dont like chicagoans, lets call them Chi Towners, take a page from Kanye West!
Where as podiums with parking garages, i dont have a problem with it. We do it with all the new buildings in Dallas, and i dont think that you will se as many towers going up if you mandate that all parking be underground. This might work for office towers but i dont think it would work for the residential towers, would cost to much for rent if you were trying to make it affordable housing.