No Parking: Condos Leave Out Cars

[Jularc]

No Parking: Condos Leave Out Cars


http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/12/realestate/12nati.2.600.jpg
FEWER CARS There are no parking spaces for the condos bought by Annemieke Clark and Daniel Pasley in
downtown Portland, Ore.


By LINDA BAKER
November 12, 2006

PORTLAND, Ore. ANNEMIEKE CLARK and her boyfriend, Daniel Pasley, do not spend a lot of time driving. Ms. Clark, a 29-year-old nursing student at Oregon Health and Science University, takes the bus to school. Her boyfriend is a “crazy bike rider,” she said.

So when they decided to buy their first home last winter, they chose a one-bedroom unit in the Civic, one of the first new developments in Portland to market condominiums without parking spaces.

Ms. Clark said they bought the $175,000 condo, which will be ready next summer, because “it was absolutely the cheapest one selling.” Mr. Pasley also hoped a unit without parking would inspire Ms. Clark to sell her 1992 Subaru.

“So, part of it was idealism — that we would get rid of the car,” Ms. Clark said.

Although condominiums without parking are common in Manhattan and the downtowns of a few other East Coast cities, they are the exception to the rule in most of the country. In fact, almost all local governments require developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for each unit — and to fold the cost of the space into the housing price.

The exact regulations, which are intended to prevent clogged streets and provide sufficient parking, vary by city. Houston’s code requires a minimum of 1.33 parking spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a three-bedroom. Downtown Los Angeles mandates 2.25 parking spaces per unit, regardless of size.

Today, city planners around the country are trying to change or eliminate these standards, opting to promote mass transit and find a way to lower housing costs.

Minimum parking requirements became popular in the 1950s with the growth of suburbia, said Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking” (American Planning Association, 2005). “They spread like wildfire,” he said.

But in the 21st century, skyrocketing housing prices and the move toward high-density urban development are bringing scrutiny to the ways in which cities and developers manage the relationship between parking and residential real estate. Once a tool of government, parking requirements are increasingly driven by the market.

Last year, for example, Seattle reduced parking requirements for multifamily housing in three of the city’s major commercial corridors. Next month, the City Council will vote on a proposal to eliminate minimum parking requirements in Seattle’s six core urban districts and near light-rail stations. In June, San Francisco replaced minimum requirements downtown with maximum standards allowing no more than 0.75 parking spaces per unit. In Portland, where central city parking minimums were eliminated six years ago, developers are breaking ground on projects with restricted parking.

“In the future,” Dr. Shoup said, “we will look back at minimum parking requirements as a colossal mistake. Change will be slow, but it’s happening now.”

The Civic, a 261-unit project, includes 24 condos without parking. The building is six blocks from downtown and near a major bus and light-rail line, and will offer residents a rental-car-sharing arrangement.

“We’re always looking for ways to promote smart growth,” said Tom Cody, a project manager of the Gerding/Edlen Development Company, which developed the Civic. “We decided to test the water and see if there was a market for units without parking spaces.” The 24 condos sold out, he said.

In San Francisco, more downtown housing has been approved over the last few years than in the last 20 years combined, said Joshua Switzky, a city planner. The booming real estate market there inspired local officials to revoke minimum-parking requirements in the central core, Mr. Switzky said. “The city’s modus operandi is ‘transit first,’ ” he said. “Everyone recognized the existing rules didn’t match the policy.”

Under San Francisco’s new parking maximums, downtown developers are also required to “unbundle” the price of parking from the price of the condo. “Buyers aren’t obligated to buy a parking space, and developers don’t have the incentive to build spaces they can’t sell,” Mr. Switzky said.

Sustainable development is not the only factor driving changes to parking standards. “We talk about affordable housing as the most critical thing facing cities and the nation,” Mr. Cody said. “But we never talk about the costs of the automobile.” Since individual parking spaces cost about $40,000, reducing or eliminating parking is an effective way to lower housing prices, he said.

At the Moda condominiums, a development under construction in Seattle, only 43 out of 251 units have assigned parking. Eighty-three units have no parking and the remainder have access to a permit parking system. The building is in the downtown Belltown neighborhood, where the average condo has one and a half parking spaces.

“I wanted the least expensive unit,” said Mary Stonecypher-Howell, a computer database specialist who bought a Moda studio without parking for $170,000. Ms. Stonecypher-Howell said it was the only downtown condo she could find for less than $200,000. “In the city, it’s simpler not to have a car,” she said. Moda units with parking cost about $30,000 more than units without.

Lenders traditionally balk at financing projects without parking, said David Hoy, who developed the Moda condos. The concern is that they would be difficult to resell. “But in a high-density urban environment, there’s a strong demand and a shortage of supply,” Mr. Hoy said. Moda, which is financed by United Commercial Bank, sold out in less than a week, he said.

Other cities are also reconsidering parking standards. In Houston, for example, a committee is reviewing parking minimums along the light-rail line, according to Suzy Hartgrove, a spokeswoman for the city’s planning and development department.

But not everybody is enthusiastic about the piecemeal changes taking place around the country, especially because often-arcane parking codes vary from district to district and city to suburb.

In the Rincon Hill neighborhood of San Francisco, where the new luxury tower One Rincon Hill is selling for $1,000 a square foot, parking standards allow a maximum of one space per unit. Just a few blocks away, downtown requirements undercut that figure by a quarter, making One Rincon Hill more attractive to buyers with cars.

“It gives them a marketing advantage,” said Victor Gonzalez, director of development for Monahan Pacific, a local company that has built condo properties downtown. “You’d be killed if you tried to do a project in the suburbs without parking,” he added.

Others point to the free-market parking situation in Manhattan, where monthly rates now exceed $500 a month.

Planners are undeterred. In the United States, “housing is expensive and parking is cheap,” Dr. Shoup said. “We’ve got it the wrong way around.”


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[J. Will]

I've never heard of bundling parking with units and requiring people to buy a spot. Who's bright idea was that?

[mhays]

Seattle hasn't required parking for downtown projects for decades, if ever. While most projects have parking, numerous ones don't, generally in the lower part of the price scale and usually rentals. We also have higher end buildings with no parking -- generally these are historic conversions and they have deals with nearby garages.

Also, the story said Belltown condos typically have 1.5, which is pure BS except at the high end. For mid-priced units typical would be closer to 1.2. Moda isn't breaking ground at all with its 0.65 ratio, given the price range of the condos.

[Terminus]

I've never heard of bundling parking with units and requiring people to buy a spot. Who's bright idea was that?

Unfortunately, it's done in almost every American city.

I work for an architecture firm in Atlanta and we've been pushing our clients to unbundle parking, yet many banks won't finance mortgages without parking, which grealty limits potential buyers. They make people buy spaces (one per bedroom) even if they don't have cars. I lease out my space to neighbors with an extra car, but many can't.

Atlanta has no minimum parking requirements in the urban cores and actually has caps of 1/bedroom. Developers always provide that amount. The city needs to require unbundling. I'm sending this article to my friends at City Hall.

[AZheat]

There's really not that many people who don't own cars and I personally wouldn't buy a condo that didn't have a place to park. There may be a small market for condos without the parking spaces in places like Portland but there's really just a few cities like New York or Chicago where this might be common. I also thought there was a slight condescending snotty tone to this article which implies that those of us who drive need to be dealt with in the same manner as smokers whose bad habits have been banned from most pubic places.

[coyotetrickster]

There's really not that many people who don't own cars and I personally wouldn't buy a condo that didn't have a place to park. There may be a small market for condos without the parking spaces in places like Portland but there's really just a few cities like New York or Chicago where this might be common. I also thought there was a slight condescending snotty tone to this article which implies that those of us who drive need to be dealt with in the same manner as smokers whose bad habits have been banned from most pubic places.

As one of the residents in one of the aforementioned cities, I heartily endorse the uncoupling of parking from residential development. The majority of new residential high-rises underconstruction have a ratio of one space to every 3.5 residents (go figure who the .5 is). The tone of the article is not so much snotty as realization maybe we can stop accommodating the car and get back to people. And yes, the fact that all services (e.g. groceries, retail shopping, recreation) are within a few blocks of my flat or a quick 10-minute walk to a transit station (Fillmore & Geary), allow that stance. It wouldn't work in sprawl. However, once gas stabilizes at $4 to 5 a gallon, we'll see how the residents of sprawl like the autonomy tradeoff. But that's not the same as the public health decision to restrict smokers.

[AZheat]

CoyoteTrickster,
When gas prices reach 4 or 5 dollars it won't change the fact that most Americans will still need to drive. You're fortunate to be within walking or commuting distance of the places you need to go to. However, most of us are not situated in similar circumstances. I'm completely dependent on my vehicle because there's no mass transit whatsoever where I live in the far southern part of the Phoenix metro area. And to be honest, isn't the pricing of condos driven by the market and economics? It seems obvious to me that this whole issue is really a ploy by developers who are trying to maximize their profits.

[bryson662001]

I think this subject should be governed by market conditions instead of laws. There is a market for both with and without parking. If someone needs parking, they won't buy a unit that doesn't have it. Someone who doesn't need it will. Pretty simple. Btw that looks like a nice buiding offering a studio for only 170K.

[LostInTheZone]

I think that laws requiring parking are ridiculous, and come from a backward, outdated system of thought- just like minimum setbacks from the street in the interest of "greenspace". However, from a practical perspective, if you buy a unit with a parking space you don't use, you can rent it out, in some cities for quite a bit of money, and have a steady stream of supplimental income.

[mhays]

I rent mine out for $140/mo.

The market is limited because, like any condo, ours is a secure building and we can't let outsiders rent spaces.

[The Cheat]

The #1 complaint that people who live in Center City Philadelphia have is "not enough parking". There's actually plenty of parking, it's just not cheap. So the city councilmembers pass laws saying that new construction over a certain size must have one parking space per unit. It's the easy way out, and the politicians get the votes because they're doing something about the parking situation.

The minimum setback requirements almost always end up being used for parking, and then you have driveways everywhere and it's not pedestrian friendly.

[John R]

Fort Worth also doesn't require parking in the downtown area, and recently has put in a maximum number of spaces allowed per project throughout the city.

[J. Will]

There are plenty of people in the inner city without cars. One of the biggest benefits of living in or near a downtown is that you don't need a car (well, some do, but many don't).

[BnaBreaker]

There should only be as much accomodation for the automobile as is absolutely necessary. Afterall, over-accomodation for the automobile has a great deal to do with why so many cities began declining in the first place.

[brian_b]

All this talk of required parking reminds me of a popular bar back in college. It was extremely crowded and ended up buying the 2nd floor of the building next to it with plans to expand. Then the city stepped in and denied their building permits - because they weren't going to have enough parking. FOR A BAR.

Here in Chicago there is an auction every so often where the developers of new buildings try to get any money at all for the extra spaces they didn't sell. I've noticed that in some buildings the sales people will give you a hard sell to get you to buy a parking space. "Oh what a beautiful, fantastic condo this is. We have parking for an additional $35,000. Oh you don't want parking? Oh my, you really must buy parking, you'll never be able to sell the condo without a parking space!"

[brian_b]

There are plenty of people in the inner city without cars. One of the biggest benefits of living in or near a downtown is that you don't need a car (well, some do, but many don't).

Definitely. I rent a car about every other month and stock up on all the heavy things, go out to IKEA, etc. I put the money I would be spending on cars into my special Porsche fund; in 10 or 20 years I'm buying something I don't need. :D

[Taller Better]

Wow, I just assumed all condos had a space available. I don't know about the market, but it might make it harder to resell your unit if there is no parking spot.

[DeadManWalking]

The first condos with no parking at all will open on the plaza in KC soon. This is extremely rare for Kansas City, which is the most car dependent city imaginable. I guess there really is nowhere else in the city where you could live so comfortably without a car.

[mariokarter]

I reall don't see why this would be an issue that requires government regulation. Regardless of the amount of parking spots in condos, the amount of meter spots on streets is not going to change. I don't think there is any situation where they required developers to build more parking spots, and then took away spots on the street.

[J Church]

CoyoteTrickster,
When gas prices reach 4 or 5 dollars it won't change the fact that most Americans will still need to drive. You're fortunate to be within walking or commuting distance of the places you need to go to. However, most of us are not situated in similar circumstances. I'm completely dependent on my vehicle because there's no mass transit whatsoever where I live in the far southern part of the Phoenix metro area. And to be honest, isn't the pricing of condos driven by the market and economics? It seems obvious to me that this whole issue is really a ploy by developers who are trying to maximize their profits.

We're talking about urban cores--you know, where too many cars can create crippling congestion, making the whole notion that Americans have a god-given right to drive door-to-door no matter where they live or work a bit, um, unworkable--so you've nothing to worry about it.

The idea that developers are pushing parking caps is certainly an interesting one given the intensity of their opposition here.

[Chicago Shawn]

This one area where Chicago is so far behind. We still have a minuim requirement of 1 space per unit in most zoning classifications for residential or residential-mixed use. Most new high-rises are planned developments which are customized zoning, and most follow a 1 to 1 or close to it ratio. Under the new zoning, anything above 1 to 1 counts agianst FAR in the planned developments I believe. Alderman and NIMBY groups always bitch about not enough parking provided. Chicago is still very much a car loving city who worships the parking god. We still sacrafice buildings for the god make daily offerings in the meters and build monumential garage-mahals downtown to appease it.

[AZheat]

J.Church,
I understand what you're saying and I think that Bryson has the most sensible approach which is just to let the market dictate how many condos need parking spaces and how many don't. Also, it would seem to me that developers would make more profit by selling the ones without parking since they could squeeze more units into each building. That's why I suggested that developers would try to promote this concept. I just find some of the anti-car rhetoric to be a little irritating sometimes since most of us are so dependent on our vehicles. I actually have my house up for sale and I'm going to move to the Nashville area when it sells. I'm going to find a house that's situated within walking distance of stores, etc. and is also near a bus line. However, it will have a parking space.:)

[fflint]

^The article doesn't address people living in your physical environment, AZheat. This isn't about you and what you need and what you want. Whatever "anti-car rhetoric" you're conjuring up in the piece in no way includes you. The article, and the changes to parking construction it notes, concern people who live in large condo towers in downtown cores in urban cities where there is excellent public transit and all needed services nearby. Changing regulations to no longer require bundling parking with housing units in such places means residents there--there, not where you are--no longer would be forced to shell out an additional $40,000 just for a parking space they don't want or need.

[aion26]

I think that this is something the market could sort out and also agree that there should not be codes requiring condos to have parking spaces. I find this form interesting, but also find a lot of the anti-car rhetoric a bit rabid (and I don't even own a car), some cities are built in such a way as to make it easier not to have a car than others, in those cities, you'll find people who don't car so much about if their apartement or condo has parking, nor do they expect it, in other cities, good luck trying to get anywhere reasonabily without regular access to a car.

Personally, I'm rather used to living without a car and will probably do so for the forseeable future as long as there are things known as 'car rental companies' that exist, if I were ever in a position to afford a downtown condo, I wouldn't want to pay the extra 20-40k for the parking space, I'd rather save the money and rent a car down the street either through zipcar or one of the biggies (hertz, etc) if I needed one.

[Chicago103]

This one area where Chicago is so far behind. We still have a minuim requirement of 1 space per unit in most zoning classifications for residential or residential-mixed use. Most new high-rises are planned developments which are customized zoning, and most follow a 1 to 1 or close to it ratio. Under the new zoning, anything above 1 to 1 counts agianst FAR in the planned developments I believe. Alderman and NIMBY groups always bitch about not enough parking provided. Chicago is still very much a car loving city who worships the parking god. We still sacrafice buildings for the god make daily offerings in the meters and build monumential garage-mahals downtown to appease it.

The lowest minimmum parking requirements in Chicago are for downtown zoning districts with a dash 10, 12, or 16 which requires a minimum of only 0.55 spaces per dwelling unit, thats not bad but still too high IMO.

Hypothetically if I went through with my Sears Tower condo conversion proposal I wouldnt build a single new parking space, just provide the current underground parking in the building (less than 200 spaces) and part of the parking garage accross the street as our off street parking. Its the commercial tenants that would suffer the most under this plan but I would only be providing parking for residents as required by law. The parking spots would be sold sold separately of course and would fetch hefty prices as per demand especially for the underground spots which would be amoung the most expensive in the city whereas my condos would be as cheap as possible as converting the Sears Tower could be. This would not be a project marketed to drivers at all given all of the Loop CTA lines and all the metra terminals are within walking distance (all but Randolph Street would be within a few blocks). I believe a market for no and/or minimum parking condos exists in Chicago and I wish the city would simply allow it, if you want parking there would be plenty of other places to go. Parking in a building owned by me would be a luxury item akin to having your condo with all the latest furnishings. I dont think this project would even fall within WILCO's (NIMBY group) boundaries and I dont think anyone even lives within 250 feet of the Sears Tower, so ha!

I hate it when people get all hyper senstive about this subject and see it as something personal where we are trying to take away their precious "freedom" to drive. Honestly I am not advocating a nationwide maximum parking standard in places that are very auto-centric, rather I advocate market based solutions to this problem. Meaning if you live in the Phoenix metro area even without minimum parking standards in place by the government developers will supply some parking simply out of market demand. In downtown Chicago there is a market for no parking residential developments and a market for parking developments. I am against government subsidization of auto-centric culture. The more urban and public transit oriented a place is the moreso this applies. In downtown Chicago driving is a luxury plain and simple in the same sense that wanting to eat Beluga Caviar or drink a bottle of Dom Perion is. The price of Beluga Caviar or Dom Perion is not infringing on one's freedom to consume those products but rather are driven by market forces of supply and demand and thus no-government interference resulting in a parking shortage in downtown Chicago is not infringing upon one's freedom to drive but rather letting the market determine the price of parking and driving. Thus if parking is $400 a month and you cant afford that then tough shit, thats what the market determines it to be and dont expect the government to bail your lazy ass out. I usually am a fairly liberal person but when it comes to parking I am a stone hearted libertarian that doesnt want my tax dollers to help people who drive at all. We live in a society with upside down values when people dont want to pay for other people's medicine to keep them alive or provide for senior citizens that have paid their dues but when it comes to parking those same people run to the government for help like spoiled children. Its so pathetic that it is beyond words. In part its because people's minds are so warped that they dont even realize how assinine what they are proposing is, when it comes to driving and parking their brains just go into automatic robot mode.

Thus to me government enforced minimum parking standards in downtown Chicago is as absurd as the government having price controlled Beluga Caviar or Dom Perion for the public, it makes no sense and only provides government welfare to people that dont need it and have other options at their disposal. Now I wish people would shut the fuck up about their "freedom" when it comes to driving before they start to give freedom a bad name.

[AZheat]

Chicago 103,
If some of your comments were directed towards me I think you have completely misunderstood my statements and maybe it's my fault for not stating them more clearly. As others have pointed out these particular zoning regulations have no impact on my personal situation whatsoever and I knew that from the beginning. I was just making an observation and had no intention of leading this thread off on a tangent. You'll notice that I agree with your opinion that the market should determine how many condos are built with or without parking spaces. I can't imagine that Portland, Oregon would have a huge market for condos without spaces but they've obviously got some buyers so I think that's great. I'm not a big fan of traffic jams myself nor do I find multistory parking lots to be particularly attractive. If I lived in Chicago I doubt very much that I'd have a car. The mass transit is very good in that city and I COMPLETELY AGREE that the government should not be subsidizing anyone in regards to their vehicle. I think I just expressed frustration because I am so dependent on my vehicle and the total lack of mass transit in this city. I hope that clears it up. If you read any of my posts you'll notice that I never make insulting or derogatory remarks to anyone and I'm not going to start now. I'm sorry if I've veered this thread off topic with my remarks.

[Chicago103]

Chicago 103,
If some of your comments were directed towards me I think you have completely misunderstood my statements and maybe it's my fault for not stating them more clearly. As others have pointed out these particular zoning regulations have no impact on my personal situation whatsoever and I knew that from the beginning. I was just making an observation and had no intention of leading this thread off on a tangent. You'll notice that I agree with your opinion that the market should determine how many condos are built with or without parking spaces. I can't imagine that Portland, Oregon would have a huge market for condos without spaces but they've obviously got some buyers so I think that's great. I'm not a big fan of traffic jams myself nor do I find multistory parking lots to be particularly attractive. If I lived in Chicago I doubt very much that I'd have a car. The mass transit is very good in that city and I COMPLETELY AGREE that the government should not be subsidizing anyone in regards to their vehicle. I think I just expressed frustration because I am so dependent on my vehicle and the total lack of mass transit in this city. I hope that clears it up. If you read any of my posts you'll notice that I never make insulting or derogatory remarks to anyone and I'm not going to start now. I'm sorry if I've veered this thread off topic with my remarks.

The only part about what you posted that I did not understand was when you said "this article has a condesending tone that makes it seem like drivers are like smokers that need to be put in their place". Thats not the impression I got from this article at all since this is not about banning cars but rather giving people the freedom to live in a place where they dont have to subsidize parking they dont use. So in a way stubborn auto-centric people do need to be put in their place not because I want to take away their freedom but rather that the scale is tipped to much in their favor already and the playing field needs to become more level. Now since auto-centrism is the status quo any attack on said status quo can easily be misinterpreted as hampering on other people's freedom.

Also to edit what I said about converting the Sears Tower to condos, there is a way you can do that and have no parking or minimalist parking if you apply for a planned development and since noone currently lives within 250 feet of the building there would be noone who can legitimately complain. Imagine having 700 condominium units but only 160 parking spaces (the number in the Sears Tower's underground garage) and after that gets fillled people will simply have to find a monthly space at a nearby garage.

[cornholio]

Im not for the market deciding how many parking spaces need to be built since the market can oversuply BUT more importantly undersuply, in which case it would compensate by building parkades, garages or extra spots for rent in new developments. How ever this takes away from the neighbourhoods livability since people might need to park their vehicles away from their apartment, find a space somewhere etc. The cost of a parking space is not huge especialy when you add it to a already pricy unit, and in my opinion a city is beter of having extra spaces where people might need them rather than having a shortage or having the spaces scatered throughout the city. Personaly I dont think its a good idea to screw planing and let the markets decide. You just watch some of these people living in these developments in Portland and Seattle have serious problems and headaches in the future with parking.

[passdoubt]

"Headaches with parking" are part of living in the city. You want easy parking, move to the burbs.

I've never lived in a building with off-street parking. Circling for a spot is life. But I only use my car about once a month, so no big.

[AZheat]

Chicago 103,
I just read the article very carefully and to be honest I think my remark about a condescending attitude really wasn't warranted (damn it, I hate to admit I might be wrong!). When I started reading it the first time I just thought I picked up the anti-car sentiment and didn't really take enough time to grasp what it was really saying. So I was wrong, I'm tired and I'm going to bed.:)

[J. Will]

"Im not for the market deciding how many parking spaces need to be built since the market can oversuply BUT more importantly undersuply, in which case it would compensate by building parkades, garages or extra spots for rent in new developments."

I don't buy that at all. No one wants to walk three blocks every time they need their car. If someone needed a car and a building didn't have parking they'd just buy in another building that does have parking. The building without parking would sell to people who don't need cars.

[cornholio]

"Headaches with parking" are part of living in the city. You want easy parking, move to the burbs.

I've never lived in a building with off-street parking. Circling for a spot is life. But I only use my car about once a month, so no big.

So your saying headaches are part of the city. City planers should just give up and face the fact that people will have headaches in a city no mater what and will have to search for parking for who knows how long so they can go home or get somwhere. Well guess what it doesnt have to be this way cities are suposed to be stress free livabel and more convenient then suberbs. But then I guess thats why so few people want to live in American cities since no body gives a crap about making them actualy livabel and atractive.

[J. Will]

It (headaches) would have nothing to do with "city planners" were parking minimums abolished. If you needed a parking space (largely defeating the purpose of living in the city in the first place, but that's your choice) you'd buy a unit in a building that did have parking.

[cornholio]

It (headaches) would have nothing to do with "city planners" were parking minimums abolished. If you needed a parking space (largely defeating the purpose of living in the city in the first place, but that's your choice) you'd buy a unit in a building that did have parking.

I realy dont want to sound like an ass but im just giving my opinion. The reason I think America is filled with so many crapy downtowns and iner cities where no one wants to live is because they let the markets decide to much, there is not enough intervention and it results in run down none livabel city centers.

[fflint]

So your saying headaches are part of the city. City planers should just give up and face the fact that people will have headaches in a city no mater what and will have to search for parking for who knows how long so they can go home or get somwhere. Well guess what it doesnt have to be this way cities are suposed to be stress free livabel and more convenient then suberbs. But then I guess thats why so few people want to live in American cities since no body gives a crap about making them actualy livabel and atractive.
Do you live in a dense, pedestrian- and transit-oriented downtown core of an urban city? You know, like the areas that are the very specific subject of this thread?

[cornholio]

Yes I have although now i live in the burbs although still dense with high density and a under 5min walk to the metro station. I live in Vancouver where there is alot of planing involved in all devlopments and theres alot of rules, if there wasnt then the downtown wouldent be as sucsesful as it is. There realy is a huge difference between American cities and Canadian cities the later generarly being beter in terms of livability(you know its true). The difference is between heavy involvment by the cities and alowing the market to decide.

Now there are many nice dense neighbourhoods in America dont get me wrong but very few of them seem like they ever took the actual people that were going to live there in to consideration, they just dont seem to work properly from what i have always seen. By the way there are many crapy neighbourhoods in Canada as well its just that theres less of them.
By the way the reason im saying what im saying is because i dont believe that alowing the market to decide regarding parking spaces is a good idea.

[Chicago103]

Yes I have although now i live in the burbs although still dense with high density and a under 5min walk to the metro station. I live in Vancouver where there is alot of planing involved in all devlopments and theres alot of rules, if there wasnt then the downtown wouldent be as sucsesful as it is. There realy is a huge difference between American cities and Canadian cities the later generarly being beter in terms of livability(you know its true). The difference is between heavy involvment by the cities and alowing the market to decide.

Now there are many nice dense neighbourhoods in America dont get me wrong but very few of them seem like they ever took the actual people that were going to live there in to consideration, they just dont seem to work properly from what i have always seen. By the way there are many crapy neighbourhoods in Canada as well its just that theres less of them.
By the way the reason im saying what im saying is because i dont believe that alowing the market to decide regarding parking spaces is a good idea.

Well I am usually a person who believes in a fair amount of (but smart) government intervention but when I think about parking more and more and especially in regards to the american situation where the government often mandates minimum parking it would actually make sense to just let the market decide. True, that would have the disadvantage of not having maximum parking ratios but it would be offset by not having annoying minimum parking ratios and actually tap into what I believe to be the untapped market of no or limited parking residential developments.

[mhays]

Im not for the market deciding how many parking spaces need to be built since the market can oversuply BUT more importantly undersuply, in which case it would compensate by building parkades, garages or extra spots for rent in new developments. How ever this takes away from the neighbourhoods livability since people might need to park their vehicles away from their apartment, find a space somewhere etc. The cost of a parking space is not huge especialy when you add it to a already pricy unit, and in my opinion a city is beter of having extra spaces where people might need them rather than having a shortage or having the spaces scatered throughout the city. Personaly I dont think its a good idea to screw planing and let the markets decide. You just watch some of these people living in these developments in Portland and Seattle have serious problems and headaches in the future with parking.

You don't need to make a guess. Seattle has a long history of buildings with little or no parking, and it's a successful model. People adapt. The ones who really care don't live in those buildings.

[fflint]

So far, the resistance in this thread to the trend of uncoupling tens of thousands of dollars' worth of unwanted and unnecessary private auto storage from the overall cost of housing units in transit-rich urban sections of Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco seems to be coming from forumers who ignore how this impacts real people in the real places where it is occurring in order to speculate on how the trend would impact precisely those areas where it is neither happening, nor proposed to happen.

This thread isn't about people who drive everywhere, or want to. It has nothing to do with automobile-oriented neighborhoods, or areas underserved by transit, or areas that lack significant pedestrian amenities. Arguing against what is currently happening in real places in order to benefit real residents in meaningful ways by indulging in conjecture about how it wouldn't work in some other place dominated by cars is a pointless diversion.

[MarkDaMan]

I can't imagine that Portland, Oregon would have a huge market for condos without spaces but they've obviously got some buyers so I think that's great

Actually Portland is leading an effort to seperate humans from their cars. We have organized car 'diets' where you turn over your car keys for a month at a time to see you can actually survive without a car.

I spent several years in a suburb of Phoenix so I can understand why the thought of not owning a car can seem limiting, but it isn't. Portland has a tight Urban Growth Boundry bringing the density to the core instead of paving over desert like in Gilbert or Anthem. In fact, Portland has over 20 condo towers under construction today, with about 50 completed in the last 7 years. Our downtown has been revived since the 70s, and our mass transit takes you to forest land and parks so you aren't 'stuck in the city'. Add in the Flex Car sharing program and you can go to Multnomah Falls or the coast for the day any day you'd like.

About the headaches. I get a chauffered ride home everyday whizzing past cars at 55 MPH that are stopped dead on the freeway, thanks to the MAX light rail. It would take me 45 minutes, minimum, a day to drive into downtown, and than I'd have to pay $8.50 per day for parking. Instead my work pay's 100% of my transit commuting costs, and I make it home in 30 minutes.

[soynog]

A lot of the large Philly condo projects try and pressure you into buying a second or third parking space for around 30K each in Center City. This is in additiona to the one that comes with your unit.

As mentioned earlier, Philadelphia does require one parking space for each unit in larger new development. I'm not sure if that requirement is for the builder or the owner though. (If you didn't want the one maybe you could theoretically take the price down a notch and the developer could sell the extra space to someone else, but I'm not sure if thats legal and the developer would have no incentive to do this.)

The one thing for all condo developments to keep in mind is that--unless the specific parking space is "deeded"--you as an individual owner don't have any parking spaces. The lot/garage is up to the whims of the condo associaton :yuck: as "common space". This is an important distinction when buying if you want a space.

[BTinSF]

I rent mine out for $140/mo.

The market is limited because, like any condo, ours is a secure building and we can't let outsiders rent spaces.

Depends on the design. My 450 unit building is "mixed use" with ground floor retail and "mezzanine" (really, second floor) offices. It has 2 levels of underground parking with the lower level for residents only and the upper level having spaces that rent by the month to people working in the retail and offices and also quite a bit of valet parking for customers of both. There is an electric gate on the ramp between the two levels requiring a card key to open. And elevators from the residents' parking level don't stop until they reach the residential lobby on the third floor.

My building was also about the only one built when it was built in the early 80's that did NOT have a space deeded to the buyer of each unit. Our CC&R's require a space be made available to each unit for rent at 80% of the market rate for parking in SF, a figure which has predictably risen steadily over the years. As a result, I would say my unit is worth at least $100K - $150K less than it would be if a deeded parking space were part of it. There is a similar building up the street that does have deeded parking and that seems to be the differential.

I actually no longer keep a car in SF. When I'm there, I rely on a combination of public transportation, walking and ZipCar (there is a ZipCar lot half a block away). I therefore do not have to rent a parking space. However, if I had been given a chance to buy a space when I bought my unit, I would have done it and I would still do it even though I have no car. Such spaces are readily rented to unit owners with more than one car and have been a pretty good investment. Furthermore, if you have no space and none is available for rent, it seems to me it would significantly limit the marketability of your unit if you wanted to sell. It seems to me it would rule out at least half the potential buyers even in a place like San Francisco where many downtown residents do without cars as I do.

Much as I support excellent public transit, I do think it's typically foolish and excessively bureaucratic of city governments like San Francisco's to tell developers how much parking--either maximums or minimums--their buyers are likely to want. I think there are other ways to deal with the issue--parking taxes and/or development fees for parking for example.

[Ronin]

I checked out this place in SF near Union Square. www.odeonsf.com

Upwards of 800K for 1 BR, and no parking? Last I heard, they were selling rather poorly.

[BTinSF]

I checked out this place in SF near Union Square. www.odeonsf.com

Upwards of 800K for 1 BR, and no parking? Last I heard, they were selling rather poorly.

I'm not sure what that means, assuming they in fact aren't selling. First of all, as everyone knows, this is the worst real estate market in many years. Second, this location is very unusual: It IS near Union Square but it's also on the edge of the Tenderloin and on a street with a dicey reputation--O'Farrell-- which may keep quite a few people from even looking. By contrast, I know of some new apartments fronting on one side on a decent part of Turk St and on the other on a little known side street and the developer chose to make the address of the building on the side street to avoid a Turk St. address.

Anyway, from the web page these also appear to be the sort of lofts built all over SOMA in the late 90's, quite a few of which are likely to be on the market right now in competition.

On the good side, though, if you lived there you'd have a lot of good Indian food within walking distance. ;)

Anyway, they may not be selling now, but eventually they will and for a lot of money whether it's $800K or somewhat less.

[BTinSF]

:previous: By serendipity, I just ran across this at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/24/carollloyd.DTL

Numbers from San Francisco tell a similar story. As a whole the city has only seen a 13.6 percent decline in sales since last October.

But that doesn't give a fair picture of what's happening in the trenches. According to Alexander Clark, founder of sfnewsletter.com a customized newsletter service for real estate professionals, the market probably hardest hit by the new housing paradigm is the cookie cutter lofts in SOMA." Not the new loft developments but the ones that are all alike and a little older are selling the slowest," he says.

And many of these "cookie cutter lofts" have parking, by the way, whereas some of the newer buildings like the one you looked at, don't.

[Chicago103]

Here in Chicago there is an auction every so often where the developers of new buildings try to get any money at all for the extra spaces they didn't sell. I've noticed that in some buildings the sales people will give you a hard sell to get you to buy a parking space. "Oh what a beautiful, fantastic condo this is. We have parking for an additional $35,000. Oh you don't want parking? Oh my, you really must buy parking, you'll never be able to sell the condo without a parking space!"

Ive never heard of that being the case downtown, but the again I have never even tried to buy a condo. In the Hancock building the prices are never bundled together or even advertised together. I would hate the notion of being pressured to buy a parking space, someone like me would probably be somewhat stretching to buy a condo anyways, so why would I voluntarily add an extra $35K to my mortgage for a slab of concrete I wont use? I hate it how everything is associated with the resale value (more likely the sales people are just trying to get more commission) and I dont like the implication that I must whore myself to car culture for economic gain. Thats why there is a percieved housing affordability problem, either you encounter people who have so much money that they can shell out money for parking spaces that cost more than a new car or they just tend to be renters. I am glad that parking costs are high but I cant comprehend paying that much just to drive, but many others cant comprehend not driving and thus look at a downtown condo and say "its so expensive with parking and all".

Parking considerations are becoming the bain of urban planning and zoning in Chicago, the suburban minded transplants are becoming like a cancerous growth on the population reaching an incomprehensible level of idiocy that makes it difficult for public servents like myself to not look down at them. Condos and other residential developments without parking are the only way to cure this problem, we must starve the parking beast and survival of the most urban minded should be our credo, people need to either change their habits or put up or shut up.

[zilfondel]

In Portland, they strongly encourage bicycle parking (I would also like scooter/motorcycle parking, but who knows if they're allowed to mix) in all higher density buildings, but developers can still skip those and build without any parking whatsoever - they just won't get the FAR/height bonuses they would otherwise get.

[Marcu]

Condos and other residential developments without parking are the only way to cure this problem, we must starve the parking beast and survival of the most urban minded should be our credo, people need to either change their habits or put up or shut up.

That's a really extreme position. Would you be ok with the city having a declining population and declining retail revenue for the sake of upholding some political ideology about cars?

[mhays]

You're right. Though I'm a car-less eco-freak, I advocate a middle-ground. Don't require parking, particularly in downtowns, but allow it up to a certain ratio of spaces like 1.2 in-town and 1.5 for suburbs, plus a bonus fee system for additional spaces.

The Downtown Portland office market is a good study of what happens with parking limits. Downtown Portland had a hard limit of something like 40,000 parking spaces for I think 25 years. While some cities went through office construction booms, Downtown Portland's growth was very modest because, even with big improvements in transit, it was very hard to find tenants for the new space. Every new building significantly tightened the availability of parking not only for everyone. Along with strict height (or FAR?) limits, the result is that Downtown Portland is an excellent place in many ways, but not very big.

[Chicago Shawn]

That's a really extreme position. Would you be ok with the city having a declining population and declining retail revenue for the sake of upholding some political ideology about cars?


Its not a political ideology. The city grid was never designed for heavy automobile traffic. Building more parking spaces only induces more traffic into a fixed street capacity. Non-stop traffic jams will be in our future, and that WILL choke the future growth of the city. More investment is needed in grade seperated rapid transit, which of course in order to recieve funding for demand has to be present, which doesn't occur if more and more people cram into thier cars for most/all trips. All the additional cars also slow down existing transit because the buses share the same congested streets. We need stronger planning oversight in the central area to reduce the parking ratio, and increase density and mixed uses to encourage more trips to be made on foot, bike and transit. That is the only good way for the central area to grow. I am not calling for an outrigh ban, but the required parking ratio must come down, and developments without parking in the central area or near transit should be encouraged and expediated in the approval process.

[BTinSF]

Its not a political ideology. The city grid was never designed for heavy automobile traffic. Building more parking spaces only induces more traffic into a fixed street capacity. Non-stop traffic jams will be in our future, and that WILL choke the future growth of the city.

Let me play devils advocate on that one just a bit. In San Francisco, anyway, where I have read there are now more licensed cars than legal parking spaces, there is a huge problem with illegal parking including double parking, parking in the middle of streets (for locals, thinn Valencia St. on weekends), blocking fire hydrants and curb cuts for the disabled etc etc. A lot of this eactivity, especially the double parking, adversely effects transit to a huge degree as well as other vehicles. If often wonder if the city had more legal parking if traffic wouldn't flow more smoothly and transit work better.

Just a thought.

[Chicago103]

Let me play devils advocate on that one just a bit. In San Francisco, anyway, where I have read there are now more licensed cars than legal parking spaces, there is a huge problem with illegal parking including double parking, parking in the middle of streets (for locals, thinn Valencia St. on weekends), blocking fire hydrants and curb cuts for the disabled etc etc. A lot of this eactivity, especially the double parking, adversely effects transit to a huge degree as well as other vehicles. If often wonder if the city had more legal parking if traffic wouldn't flow more smoothly and transit work better.

Just a thought.

Thats when you have to make sure that cars are being ticketed for illegal parking and being towed. That will both provide more revenue for the city and solve the problems you mentioned. Anyone stupid enough to drive downtown and then illegally park is just up shit creek and will have to spend hundreds of dollars at the impound lot.

[passdoubt]

A friend of mine lives in Center City Philadelphia and works in a transit-hostile office park in the suburbs. He drives to and from work every day, and when he gets home he parks illegally about 25% of the time. Of the times he parks illegally, he gets a ticket about 50% of the time.

So he gets a ticket 12.5% of work days. But that's about the same cost as a space in a parking garage near his apartment. So he continues to park illegally, finding that his odds are getting better as he learns which illegal spots are more likely to be noticed by po po (back alleys/tiny streets are a good bet).

We are way too easy on people who make poor parking decisions. If I was god I'd be towing them left and right.

[Chicago103]

A friend of mine lives in Center City Philadelphia and works in a transit-hostile office park in the suburbs. He drives to and from work every day, and when he gets home he parks illegally about 25% of the time. Of the times he parks illegally, he gets a ticket about 50% of the time.

So he gets a ticket 12.5% of work days. But that's about the same cost as a space in a parking garage near his apartment. So he continues to park illegally, finding that his odds are getting better as he learns which illegal spots are more likely to be noticed by po po (back alleys/tiny streets are a good bet).

We are way too easy on people who make poor parking decisions. If I was god I'd be towing them left and right.

I am usually a guy with a fairly generous heart, I believe in helping out the poor, the sick and the oppressed of society like any liberal leaning person. However when it comes to parking I have a heart made out of stone akin to some of the most hard core social darwinest liberatrians. I think there should be all kinds of fees, taxes and ticketing associated with driving and parking, all traffic laws should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law. The city should hire more tow truck drivers and simply ticket and tow any cars in parking violation. When I hear about people in community organizations complaining about parking there is an evil side of me that just wants to relish in their suffering and hope things get worse much worse until they either adapt or die (figuratively speaking) via urban selection.

[Chicago Shawn]

Let me play devils advocate on that one just a bit. In San Francisco, anyway, where I have read there are now more licensed cars than legal parking spaces, there is a huge problem with illegal parking including double parking, parking in the middle of streets (for locals, thinn Valencia St. on weekends), blocking fire hydrants and curb cuts for the disabled etc etc. A lot of this eactivity, especially the double parking, adversely effects transit to a huge degree as well as other vehicles. If often wonder if the city had more legal parking if traffic wouldn't flow more smoothly and transit work better.

Just a thought.


That isn't a big problem here, because the city impund tow trucks circle the central area like vultures over a soon to be corpse in the desert. Most people know if the park illegally, thier car has a likley chance of not being there when they return. It cost $200 just to realese the car from the impund located under Lower Wacker Drive. Even City fleet vehicles get towed if parked illeagly. Heavy enforcement almost always solves this problem. If anyone plans to drive into Chicago and park on the street, I advise you to check for signs. If it says Tow Zone, or no parking durring rush hour (When some parking lanes become traffic lanes), or Snow Routes (no parking from December to April or when snow is more than 2" deep) the sign does not lie, YOU WILL BE TOWED.

[Chicago103]

Not to rant but I find it rather odd in this society that you encounter people who are very conservative economically, they dont like paying taxes for anything, they complain that they have to pay for other people's drugs via medicare, complain about food stamps so people wont starve, complain about public transportation, and in general believe in laziee faire (sp?) capitalism, worship the free market and supply and demand social darwinism as some virtual god and big corporations are its prophets.

However when some of these same people encounter problems parking, driving and gas prices with their cars in big cities suddenly there attitude becomes "OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO SOMETHING, MY CAR I MUST PARK MY CAR, THAT DEVELOPER DOESNT INCLUDE ENOUGH PARKING, THAT IS BULLSHIT!, CITY HALL PLEASE HELP US AND INFORCE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS, THOSE GREEDY DEVELOPERS ARE OUT TO DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND EVEN WORSE TAKE AWAY OUR PARKING, THE PARKING GOD WILL GET ANGRY IF WE DONT DO SOMETHING! WE MUST BUILD MORE PARKING GARAGE TEMPLES AND SACRAFICE A HISTORIC BUILDING OR TWO TO APPEASE THE PARKING GOD!

[J Church]

Please don't shout.

[JAM]

Please don't shout.

I didn't read it as shouting, I read it as the mimicking of the whining heard by the car people. The same ones who try to run me over on my walk to work everyday!!!

[Chicago103]

I didn't read it as shouting, I read it as the mimicking of the whining heard by the car people. The same ones who try to run me over on my walk to work everyday!!!

Car culture has become a borderline religion in this country and a bad one at that, parking is an opiate of the masses. It both keeps idiot politicans in power and at the same time gives those polticians a tool to keep the masses in line, as long as you provide parking the real problems of the city dont have to be addressed. Its also a tool of class warfare in cities where transit is not extensive and common place (which besides NYC, Chicago and a few other places is pretty much everywhere else), fear of the undesirables of society keeps car culture afloat and public transporation at bay.

Of course I say all of this half-jokingly in imitation of Marxism but in this context it actually makes some sense.

[Rail Claimore]

Any true libertarian or economic liberal (in the classical meaning of the word) would be abhored by just how much car culture is subsidized.

I've said it a million times before, and I'll say it again. If people think transit should be privatized, then that's fine by me so long as they privatize our ribbons of asphalt too! We'll see who wins in the economic efficiency department. But fair means fair, and transit almost always gets the shaft.

[JAM]

Any true libertarian or economic liberal (in the classical meaning of the word) would be abhored by just how much car culture is subsidized.

I've said it a million times before, and I'll say it again. If people think transit should be privatized, then that's fine by me so long as they privatize our ribbons of asphalt too! We'll see who wins in the economic efficiency department. But fair means fair, and transit almost always gets the shaft.

As* I mean, concrete has become "privatized" via toll roads in Texas cities such as Houston, Dallas and Austin. In Austin, quite a battle was fought, but in the end, people would rather jump in their car than stand at a train station and God-forbid, walk a bit. In Houston, it has been a wild success, and set the stage for Dallas and Austin. Unfortunately, it's really what the American people want, and until we run out of things to tax such as tabaco and alchohol, it will most likely continue to go this way.

Just point your politicians towards the Houston financial model and they will like what they see.

[Chicago103]

This is the first damn thing I think of when I hear people complain about the lack of parking anywhere in this city; why now? The answer is simple, contemporary people simply have different standards than people did decades ago and it changed because of the suburban mentality both from ex suburbanites moving into the city and long term city residents in places like Jefferson Park in Chicago that suburbanized because of their generation (basically baby boomers) and those of a pre-car culture generation are elderly and dying off unfortunatly.

Just think about it, in 1950 this city had 620,000 more people than it does today (assuming there are 3 million right now) and not only that but in a smaller built up area since areas out by Midway and O'Hare werent built up in terms of residential use until the early 1960's. That means alot of neighborhoods had higher population density than they do today, including many central neighborhoods. When I talk to my grandma and parents about what it was like in Chicago around 1950 they mentioned about how there was only a handfull of cars if that parked on any given block, everyone took transit (and where my family lived on the SW side this meant the bus at the time mind you) and riding in a car was a rare treat for kids and for a sizable chunk of both of my parents' childhoods there was no car in the household and when there was there was only one and it was only used to go on fishing trips to the suburbs or a ride out to Starved Rock or something, in other words it wasnt used everytime they needed to pick up milk. Cars were not a big part of people's lives at all.

So it is quite odd when all of a sudden parking is seen as such an immenent crisis now in areas where there are smaller families than once lived in those exact same houses. Also take a look at someone like Alderman Natarus who has been Alderman of the 42nd ward since 1971. I would love to ask him "Alderman, was parking a problem in your ward in 1971? I dont know about the current population but I do know that the 2000 population of the near north side was less than it was in 1970. In the Gold Coast and just east and north of the Hancock there are dense groupings of old highrise apartment buildings that certainly at the time they were built had limited parking, and alot of this was housing for the wealthy. In the building I used to live in at 1100 North LaSalle which was built in 1930 there was no parking for 300 rental units. Even in the building I live in now, the John Hancock Center there are currently two of the three elevators going from the lobby to the skylobby on 44 that also stop at the parking level, well guess what I heard that the condo board recently voted to have the third elevator stop at parking as well. I am like WTF? This building has been occupied by residents since 1970 so why all of a sudden does this bother people now after 36 years? The number of parking spaces in the building has stayed constant but the number of residential units has actually decreased due to people consolidating units into one.

The problem is though if you bring this up to people they will likely call you regressive "you want quality of life to go back to 1950 levels?!, you cant tell me that I must live like my grandparents did!", most people on here know what I mean by what I say but thats probably the reaction you will get from alot of the masses of today. Sure I do realize that transit was better in many regards in Chicago in 1950 but its not all that different as people make it seem and in some ways its gotten better, for instance the Orange Line didnt exist in 1950 but people on the southwest side still took buses, The blue line wasnt as extensive as it is now and the subway tunnels were brand new. All I am advocating for is for people to at least examine the way people used to live, I dont excpect people to fully embrace the way they lived but if people only met it halfway it would have a tremendous impact on congestion in this city and solve the so called parking problems.