L.A. Proposes Eliminating Parking Requirements Downtown

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

The result will also be buildings without parking. You can offer cheaper price points that way, particularly on small sites. The economics of micro units just about demands little or no parking, so you'll open up that potential in a big way.

None of this is theoretical, except how it applies locally.

Yes, fully agreed and I forgot to mention that in my earlier posts. There will be some buildings built without parking where it makes sense. Downtown areas, and areas with high walk scores or transit accessibility.

[ocman]

They better hurry up. A lot of developers will probably put their plans on hold to see how this plays out.

This might also help the housing crisis, not thinking in terms of just more development due to easing restrictions, but housing without reserved parking spots have to price their units more affordably, if they decide to cut costs of building without a garage.

For the most part, I don’t see this having any noticeable effect in DTLA. There’s incentive for the developer to build a garage. If we tell developers they have to bury any garage on a lower level, then this restriction lift could become really popular.

[Crawford]

I actually don't think this will change much of anything, from a functional perspective. LA is a market where attached 1:1 parking is necessary.

But from a regulatory perspective, it's great. I never understood the purpose of parking minimums. Clumsy tool that just drives up costs.

[Obadno]

Crawford, totally agree. Especially in Downtown they should not require parking but out of necessity most buildings will still have parking.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I actually don't think this will change much of anything, from a functional perspective. LA is a market where attached 1:1 parking is necessary.

This is binary thinking. The world isn't binary.

You can generalize that LA is car-oriented. But like any city it's also full of exceptions to the norm. Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of households in greater LA that don't have cars, many of which could afford them. Even a lot of people who currently have cars might like to live closer to work and ditch the cars, spurred by much lower prices.

The legislation would make it possible for a building to have double the units even if it's basically impossible to build double the parking. Absolutely a lot of developers (sooner or later) will go for it.

That little lot where parking and curb cuts are geometrically difficult? With the legislation it'll be redevelopable. You might get 50 units where none would have happened otherwise.

Some people are acting like this is a new thing. It's not. San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Boston, New York, and others routinely build with little or no parking, even though the typical resident of each (minus Manhattan) has a car.

A lesson from how this stuff actually works: A building doesn't need to appeal to everybody...just the people who will actually live there.

[JManc]

Agree with mhays, LA is massive enough to where there should be plenty of demand from those who want the development without the car.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's quite an indictment of a city, frankly. Several cities routinely do buildings with a lot fewer parking spaces than units, and sometimes none at all. It's bizarre when a major, growing downtown doesn't do the same.

I'd be optimistic that LA developers would jump on this more quickly than Miami developers. DTLA has a bigger job base, and the city has better transit. A lot of LA developers also work in other West Coast cities that have more-urban expecations.

It is the same with balconies. No one uses them, most are too small to have any practical purpose and they cost money to build but no developer will build a building without them. In a competitive market where the developers are trying to pitch random South American investors who have 0 intention of ever living in the unit anyway, things that are of actual practical use to residents are pretty irrelevant. Its all about check boxes that make a unit look a little better for resale/flipping before 5 sales later it finally lands with the end user/resident. Even for buyers who don't have a car, as long as the price difference isn't obscene, most would prefer to have a parking space because the when the time comes to sell it, the next buyer might want it, and in the mean time they can rent out that spot to someone who wants it. The only real solution would be to have parking maximums or bans.
3 recent towers have gone up without parking and a 4th is under construction but 90% of the new towers still have parking.

[mhays]

Many buildings in my area don't have balconies. Outside warm areas, with concrete buildings they also have the downside of the slab acting as a cooling fin. I do agree that balconies are more about the feeling of having one, not actually using it, especially the kind that stick out into space.

In the urban cities, parking maximums aren't terribly important...most developers build much less parking. If the condo is over a million maybe it has two spaces.

[sopas ej]

Funny regarding balconies; I guess I don't see a majority of people using them either, unless it's to store bikes or small patio furniture. A few weeks ago, I took pictures of this in Long Beach, CA:





That couple and their dog were the only ones on their balconies, at least when I snapped the pictures.

[SIGSEGV]

I see people on balconies fairly regularly in the summer.

[ltsmotorsport]

Sacramento has had zero parking requirements downtown since 2013. The city is just now seeing projects with no parking included; one was approved earlier this year and the other should be approved by the end of the year. The City Parking Division has also been very innovative in working with developers and property owners to help manage spaces around the central city. Point is, it can take a market a while to adjust, especially in car-dependent CA.

[mhays]

LA should be much faster than Sacramento.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I see people on balconies fairly regularly in the summer.

I notice people in colder climates use their porches and balconies more often than those in warmer climates. Here in Houston, I rarely see people use them even when it's not 90 degrees out but back home in NY, it's a common sight to see folks on them in the few warm months they have.

[caligrad]

^^^ I have to agree. It seems here in LA, yeah ofcourse people use thier balconies here and there but for the most part, i can find a balcony in any building (that isnt new and has strict HOA guidelines) where the balcony is simply used as storage. Meanwhile in NYC the balconies and etc are used as actual living/social places.

In regards to parking. LA can get rid of parking requirements altogether. But. Developers will still build it because of the demand for it. DTLA like someone else said is probably the only are of the city that will/can benefit from it. Anywhere else will be a little harder to accomplish if its not placed directly next to a metro station.

[Sun Belt]

Balcony use depends on the time of day and sun exposure. Notice that the balconies in the Long Beach picture above was fully exposed in sun. Balconies get hot when exposed to the sun. There's not much air flow and you're wrapped in a dark heat absorbing surface and we all know that coastal Californians complain when the temperature exceeds 80.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Balcony use depends on the time of day and sun exposure. Notice that the balconies in the Long Beach picture above was fully exposed in sun. Balconies get hot when exposed to the sun. There's not much air flow and you're wrapped in a dark heat absorbing surface and we all know that coastal Californians complain when the temperature exceeds 80.

Yes, those balconies are on the south side of the building, so they always get sun during the day.

And yes, we coastal Californians do complain when the temps exceed 80. At least I do. And when it drops below 55. For me, anyway. But hey, I've had visiting Chicagoans complain that it gets cold here. And I think I've figured it out. Looking at average daytime temps in Chicago in the winter, the night and day temps don't vary by a huge lot, whereas here in LA, even right now, during the middle of the day it's been 80 degrees, but in the early morning hours, it's 50 degrees. Whereas in Chicago in the winter, your body adjusts to the pretty much constant temperature the whole day long, here in LA, that 30 degree difference in day and night temps feels drastic, so that 30 degree drop will feel cold.

Originally Posted by JManc

I notice people in colder climates use their porches and balconies more often than those in warmer climates. Here in Houston, I rarely see people use them even when it's not 90 degrees out but back home in NY, it's a common sight to see folks on them in the few warm months they have.

I can only speak for myself, but growing up and continuing to live in the Los Angeles area, I'm hardly ever at home for a long period of time while I'm awake. My partner and I are always out and about, because our weather is conducive to it. That's why I wonder about small families or couples who want that "American dream" of a large house with big yards. It's like, are you gonna spend every day, all day, just inside your house? Unless you want to run an inn, or want your extended family to live with you, why do you need a huge 5 bedroom house??

[dave8721]

Those are also in a relatively low rise building which is not at all what i was referring to. I was talking about Miami's postage stamp sized balconies 50 to 60 stories up.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That's why I wonder about small families or couples who want that "American dream" of a large house with big yards. It's like, are you gonna spend every day, all day, just inside your house? Unless you want to run an inn, or want your extended family to live with you, why do you need a huge 5 bedroom house??

In most of America, weather is crap most of the year, so you're gonna spend time indoors. Coastal CA is a huge exception.

So it makes sense that a couple with two kids would have a 4 bedroom+ house (assuming they can afford it).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Those are also in a relatively low rise building which is not at all what i was referring to. I was talking about Miami's postage stamp sized balconies 50 to 60 stories up.

I probably would never use a balcony 50 stories up but if I were shopping around for a highrise condo, I would still opt for the building with them than one without. Kinda like buying a car with a sunroof I never use. In a climate like Miami where it's warm and breezy often, I would simply open the sliding glass door which I assume a lot of people actually do.

[mhays]

That's the point of the smallest balconies, including the extremes with a simple rail in front of the door. The point isn't to use it, but to open the door.