Jersey City has been posted on this community a few times.
I’ve read somewhere that if an apartment builder builds a park next to the building, they get a lot of incentives including tax breaks. I really like that rule. It must be worth it since almost all the new big builds I see, there is usually a park next to it.
It also helps grease the wheels for communities to approve the building permit. Not even so they get a new park, but so they’re current park that they use doesn’t get overcrowded.
Jersey City, in Journal Square, when they adopted the JSQ 2050plan in like 2008, included mandatory zero parking.
There are community bonuses for things like parks and theaters that allow developers greater density and height. There’s a million bonuses, not all necessarily community giveback, but with an idea around building a more walkable city.
The amount of pushback they’ve gotten since then had been crazy, but it’s been great to watch their boards and council be pretty good about sticking to it. It’s a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand, but if you build it, they will come very much applies to parking.
Jersey City has really tried to push itself to the forefront of smart planning over the last 20 years, modeling ordinances around things they’ve seen around the country that have worked, as well as taking a hard line on certain ideas. Project Zero has been huge in JC, and while they’re not there yet, taking a city that, 30-40 years ago, was dangerous as fuck and recovering from being essentially a train depot that built Manhattan, they’ve come a long way. I’ve gotten to watch a lot of this take place from up close and it’s been a real pleasure.
I appreciate the info. I didn’t know the name of the plan and other details.
DYK Chicago sold their street parking to Morgan Stanley for 75 years for $1 billion? It took Morgan 15 years to recoup their money and now it’s all profit. If Chicago wants the parking for a parade, maintenance access, etc, they have to pay.
If Chicago wants the parking for a parade, maintenance access, etc, they have to pay.
and get preapproval. it’s ridiculous.
Whats worse is the parking was sold seperately by the developers from the units because the law said you had to have the parking but did not require it to be coupled to the units. I did not mind the parking requirment but my big beef was it should stay with the unit and the unit owner should not be limited to only putting a car in the space (which most buildings restricted it to).
So you’d rather force blind, epileptic, vertigo, mobility impaired and many other suffering people to pay more on essential living needs for utilities that they cannot ethically or legally use?
I in no way said that. I said I did not mind the requirement. Space is limited in a condo so a cheap per square foot but not climate controlled bit that you can put a storage pod on is nice but when its limited to only having a car there is the real problem.
Is that even legal in the US? Here in Germany it’s definitely illegal to use a parking spot - including your garage - for storage. It’s considered an unauthorized special use.
The reason is because parking spots and garages face different regulation than living spaces. For example, you cannot construct a shed on the edge of your property but you may build a garage there.
I wish it was illegal in the state’s to use your garage as storage.
I live in suburbia and everyone parks on the fucking street because they buy so much shit, that a regular house is not enough to store it, that they have to use their garage too.
Then I have to play frogger just to get to my house.
And most of the hem.jave huge fucking trucks to comuite in.
BITCH, you ain’t hauling shit, you are all hat and not cattle, basic-ass motherfucker.
It might be illegal but its stupid to limit space like this with a condo.
And unfortunately they often do. We’re only allowed to keep bikes or motorcycles in our parking spots at my building (besides cars of course)
We can’t even do bikes and motorcycles
The requirement is the problem. Why would you force someone who cannot use a parking spot to pay for one? It’s a waste of money and resources that could go into many other things, like buying a bigger condo!
Storage pods don’t make up for it, and it’s illegal for good reasons (fire and health hazard).
Instead of developing a car spot only to redevelop it for another use, just build what you want at the start.
Thing is that the cost per square foot is way cheaper and its only a few square feet. You could not buy an appreciably bigger condo with the construction costs but you get a decent sized storage footprint. I don’t see why a storage pod should have some sort of fire and health hazard that would not apply to storing in things in your condo. So I don’t see good reason for it.
Yeah. And ill pay more for the world to be more accessible for them even though i dont need it.
There’s 0 chance these units are any cheaper because they lack parking space. This just allows developers to charge even more money from vast majority of people.
If there was only a way to take that into consideration while building cities based on all people. Shucks best we do is just give them an extra car.
I would just like to be able to take the train everywhere personally… but can’t do that in the US. The apartments that do have parking don’t ever have enough if they’re “affordable” enough and the ones that have none at all are the same price anyway. Nothing makes sense right now. Nothing.
Hell yeah!! My city!!!
deleted by creator
Chicago is already a reasonable place to be car free. Much more so than most of the US.
deleted by creator
now people can move in, have nowhere to park and expect parking violations and impound fees that they didn’t account for.
IME, there is usually paid parking nearby.
…and ample access to a reasonably well-functioning public transit system.
hopefully. I’ve seen first hand when they don’t have anything outside the ‘express’ first thing and last night of the day.
What we need is less cars, more bikes, and more people walking. Approaching everything from a carcentric point of view is how we got here.
My job, my father’s job, and my fiances job would not exist if not for cars. It would next to impossible for any of us, in 3 different fields, to complete our jobs without cars.
Your family probably wouldn’t exist if not for horses. We don’t need a stable in every newly-built house.
Also, having fewer cars is still a win. We don’t need 0 cars.
Cars are great. Building your whole society around cars is shitty and inefficient. Basically what you are saying is
My job, my father’s job, and my fiances job would not exist if not for digging holes and filling them back in again. It would next to impossible for any of us, in 3 different fields, to complete our jobs without digging holes and filling them back in again.
Even a child can understand that this kind of inefficiency is a waste of valuable time, energy, and resources. If your job requires a car to do (like conducting research in remote wildlands, or picking up garbage), then… great. No one has a problem with that. But if what you are saying is “if society didnt waste billions of dollars requiring people to have cars, then my job wouldnt exist”, then your job shouldnt exist. Thats fine. All the people employed in these fields can find different jobs that make the world better instead of worse.
Right, bcz we have created a society that demands that. Doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.
New construction isnt required to build parking. That doesn’t mean they won’t build parking. Instead, they will build the amount of parking they expect to be profitable. This is very reasonable. At a certain point, a given amount of building space will be worth more for car storage than human living space. At this point, the developer will build parking instead of housing. Thus, an appropriate amount of parking is built at an appropriate price for the community, and housing becomes significantly cheaper.
parking violations and impound fees that they didn’t account for.
Yes, because as everyone knows, you lose all your ability to make good parking decisions when you live in housing without attached parking.
“Ohhh nooo, I was going to park a block away and pay the meter, like I do literally every time I drive anywhere, but now I have to leave my car in the middle of the street! I can’t help myself!”
So these buildings can only be sold to people that don’t own cars and are barred from owning cars while they live there?
barred from owning cars while they live there?
Yeah, just like how if there isn’t a bus stop at the door of the building, that means anyone who lives there is barred from taking a bus. /s
Oh, no, we’ll have to build trains in Chicago.
Have you ever drove in Chicago? It’s the worst thing about Chicago.
Indiana resident, can confirm
Had to pick my sister and niece up from O’hare. I was a little nervous on the way there, but once they were in the car with me I was terrified.
No, its just that if you own a car there you’ll have to put it elsewhere, whether that’s buying a parking spot elsewhere or finding street parking.
I live in an apartment without parking (ok there are spots for more than I’m willing to pay extra) and so I park a ways away and am more of a walker than a driver.
If new buildings dont have spots, and everyone parks on the street, and there is finite street space; how do you continue to park your car?
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.
