Because new buildings don’t need spots there becomes less need for cars. This stage is awkward for some people but part of it is thst places like this are supposed to be places not everyone needs a car.
Less parking spots … ? … Less need for cars. Im not really connecting the dots here. I live in a place where lots of hlusing was built pre war without parking spots. There are not less cars there, just greater competition for street parking in those neighborhoods. Its actually more car dense brcause there is nowhere else for the cars to gonother than the street (and crosswalks, and hydrants, etc).
In the nieghborhoods with newer buildings that have parking, there are less cars taking up space on the road.
Was public transit builr there? I live somewhere built around a public transit system, but around the edge of it. The people who live and work deeper in the city don’t need cars, but the people whose lives revolve around further from the city do. This allows for less raw space taken up by things like a metric fuckton of parking like it was back when I lived in a city that was anomalously large to not have a light rail at all by American standards.
What does that actually mean though? Neighborhoods deeper in the city can fit a lot more stuff within walking distance, while here you’re walking past a fair bit of parking lot as you walk around, but much further out going without a car means you’re either biking or you’re hiking
Public transit exists for sure, but it does not connect in infinite ways. Its just not possible to beat the freedom and concenience of personal transport. Public transport has ita place and is very important. The better connected it is, the more options one has to use it over their cars. Bikes are cool, if you are fit enough to use them. Motorcycles and scooters are cool if you dont have to bring home a bunch of groceries, etc.
I have a car, but i dont use it 100% of the time. Sometimes it juat makes sense to use PT. I would never want to be without the car though because it just so much more efficient in terms of time for most cases. Keyword here is most.
Here is my understanding: If everyone needs a car, then you need a lot of parking. If you need a lot of parking, then buildings end up being farther apart because the parking fills up space between them. The farther apart the buildings are, the more spread out everything is. The more spread out everything is, the more necessary a car becomes. And the more necessary a car becomes, the more parking you need. It’s a vicious cycle.
By the way, I quite recently lived in a prewar apartment, that was built without parking spots. But it was next to a private parking lot. They are rezoning and turning half of that parking lot into a building. I don’t think it will increase competition for street parking because that lot was hardly ever full. Clearly my experience is different from yours.
This makes sense when it comes to sprawling parking for sure. Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
I think noone can deny the towns built post war to accomidate cars were done very poorly, becase they were built for cars at the expense of literally everything else. Going the opposite way is just a different kind of nightmare. We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
Underground parking tends to be expensive to build. IIRC in the US it’s typical for underground parking to cost over $100,000 per space to construct. Multistory garages are cheaper per space, but still more expensive than surface lots. Case in point: at my university, there was a chronic parking shortage, and it was difficult to find space for a new garage because of all of the politics over space in general. Eventually a new garage went up, but the capacity it added was nowhere near enough to alleviate the parking shortage.
Placing parking at ground level sounds like a practical way to boost capacity. But will it add enough spaces to solve all of our parking problems? I’ve seen quite a few buildings with that feature, but I’m not entirely sure who is allowed to park there. E.g. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
I would argue that when you design one part of a town, you make a tradeoff between drivability and walkability. How you make the tradeoff depends on which part of town you are looking at. E.g. where I am, if you go to the geometric center of the city, it is decently walkable, because that is where pedestrians are greatest in number. But there are fewer lanes for traffic and less parking. If you venture a little farther out, you’ll find lots of lanes for cars, strip malls with big parking lots, etc. that are more convenient for drivers but awkward to walk through. In other words, oftentimes needs are not accommodated in an equal way. Most places have to make a decision about who they prioritize. If you try to make everything exactly equal for everyone, the result may very well be an awkward compromise. E.g. the so-called “Stroad” is a classic example of a design that tries to cater to both drivers and pedestrians, and delivers a solution that is mediocre for both groups of people.
. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
Sure it will! Think of all of those residents who are now not taking up a spot on the street.
But yes there are tradeoffs when accomidating everyone. Want to live downtown? Might need to park your car at a municiple garage at the edge (i saw this in spain alot). Medium density after that maybe shared driveways (nyc has a lot of these, 1 driveway for all the houses on one side of the block), and finally light density single family homes. The trick with this though is not to make any of these zones toooo large. Should be able to walk from light to downtown in < 30 min. Cluster these together with larger roads between them.
Its unfortunate how much was built soley with cars in mind, but i wouldnt want to live the opposite either.
Because new buildings don’t need spots there becomes less need for cars. This stage is awkward for some people but part of it is thst places like this are supposed to be places not everyone needs a car.
Less parking spots … ? … Less need for cars. Im not really connecting the dots here. I live in a place where lots of hlusing was built pre war without parking spots. There are not less cars there, just greater competition for street parking in those neighborhoods. Its actually more car dense brcause there is nowhere else for the cars to gonother than the street (and crosswalks, and hydrants, etc).
In the nieghborhoods with newer buildings that have parking, there are less cars taking up space on the road.
Was public transit builr there? I live somewhere built around a public transit system, but around the edge of it. The people who live and work deeper in the city don’t need cars, but the people whose lives revolve around further from the city do. This allows for less raw space taken up by things like a metric fuckton of parking like it was back when I lived in a city that was anomalously large to not have a light rail at all by American standards.
What does that actually mean though? Neighborhoods deeper in the city can fit a lot more stuff within walking distance, while here you’re walking past a fair bit of parking lot as you walk around, but much further out going without a car means you’re either biking or you’re hiking
Public transit exists for sure, but it does not connect in infinite ways. Its just not possible to beat the freedom and concenience of personal transport. Public transport has ita place and is very important. The better connected it is, the more options one has to use it over their cars. Bikes are cool, if you are fit enough to use them. Motorcycles and scooters are cool if you dont have to bring home a bunch of groceries, etc.
I have a car, but i dont use it 100% of the time. Sometimes it juat makes sense to use PT. I would never want to be without the car though because it just so much more efficient in terms of time for most cases. Keyword here is most.
Here is my understanding: If everyone needs a car, then you need a lot of parking. If you need a lot of parking, then buildings end up being farther apart because the parking fills up space between them. The farther apart the buildings are, the more spread out everything is. The more spread out everything is, the more necessary a car becomes. And the more necessary a car becomes, the more parking you need. It’s a vicious cycle.
By the way, I quite recently lived in a prewar apartment, that was built without parking spots. But it was next to a private parking lot. They are rezoning and turning half of that parking lot into a building. I don’t think it will increase competition for street parking because that lot was hardly ever full. Clearly my experience is different from yours.
This makes sense when it comes to sprawling parking for sure. Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
I think noone can deny the towns built post war to accomidate cars were done very poorly, becase they were built for cars at the expense of literally everything else. Going the opposite way is just a different kind of nightmare. We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
Underground parking tends to be expensive to build. IIRC in the US it’s typical for underground parking to cost over $100,000 per space to construct. Multistory garages are cheaper per space, but still more expensive than surface lots. Case in point: at my university, there was a chronic parking shortage, and it was difficult to find space for a new garage because of all of the politics over space in general. Eventually a new garage went up, but the capacity it added was nowhere near enough to alleviate the parking shortage.
Placing parking at ground level sounds like a practical way to boost capacity. But will it add enough spaces to solve all of our parking problems? I’ve seen quite a few buildings with that feature, but I’m not entirely sure who is allowed to park there. E.g. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
I would argue that when you design one part of a town, you make a tradeoff between drivability and walkability. How you make the tradeoff depends on which part of town you are looking at. E.g. where I am, if you go to the geometric center of the city, it is decently walkable, because that is where pedestrians are greatest in number. But there are fewer lanes for traffic and less parking. If you venture a little farther out, you’ll find lots of lanes for cars, strip malls with big parking lots, etc. that are more convenient for drivers but awkward to walk through. In other words, oftentimes needs are not accommodated in an equal way. Most places have to make a decision about who they prioritize. If you try to make everything exactly equal for everyone, the result may very well be an awkward compromise. E.g. the so-called “Stroad” is a classic example of a design that tries to cater to both drivers and pedestrians, and delivers a solution that is mediocre for both groups of people.
Sure it will! Think of all of those residents who are now not taking up a spot on the street.
But yes there are tradeoffs when accomidating everyone. Want to live downtown? Might need to park your car at a municiple garage at the edge (i saw this in spain alot). Medium density after that maybe shared driveways (nyc has a lot of these, 1 driveway for all the houses on one side of the block), and finally light density single family homes. The trick with this though is not to make any of these zones toooo large. Should be able to walk from light to downtown in < 30 min. Cluster these together with larger roads between them.
Its unfortunate how much was built soley with cars in mind, but i wouldnt want to live the opposite either.