Thanks to Dan and Benjamin for separately tipping me off to this link:
AP: Cities rethink wisdom of 50s-era parking standards
Like nearly all U.S. cities, D.C. has requirements for off-street parking. Whenever anything new is built — be it a single-family home, an apartment building, a store or a doctor’s office — a minimum number of parking spaces must be included. The spots at the curb don’t count: These must be in a garage, a surface lot or a driveway.
Parking requirements — known to planners as “parking minimums” — have been around since the 1950s. The theory is that if buildings don’t provide their own parking, too many drivers will try to park on neighborhood streets.
In practice, critics say, the requirements create an excess supply of parking, making it artificially cheap. That, the argument goes, encourages unnecessary driving and makes congestion worse. The standards also encourage people to build unsightly surface lots and garages instead of inviting storefronts and residential facades, they say. Walkers must dodge cars pulling in and out of driveways, and curb cuts eat up space that could otherwise be used for trees.
“Half the great buildings in America’s great cities would not be legal to build today under current land use codes,” said Jeff Speck, a planning consultant. “Every house on my block is illegal by current standards, particularly parking standards.”
Opponents also say the standards force developers to devote valuable land to parking, making housing more expensive.
“We’re forcing people to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people,” she said. “There’s no way to recover that use.”
Benjamin Hemric says
September 22, 2008 at 4:19 pmThe article has a number of good quotes. Here’s the one that might have originally jumped out at me the most:
“[Former Milwaukee mayor, John] Norquist, who today heads the Chicago-based Congress for the New Urbanism, described a lot [in Milwaukee] that sat vacant for decades after a historic building burned down. The required parking [which, of course, is a child of orthodox urban planning] made it unfeasible to build anything new there, he said. After officials relaxed the parking requirement, a thriving restaurant sprang up.”
To me, this is a good illustration of some of the problems with orthodox city planning –- which, as Jane Jacobs points out, is really suburban and utopian at its core and as a result doesn’t understand, or care to understand, how cities actually work in real life and how successful cities change and/or grow organically. It’s a neat example of city planning impeding useful city development — and planning the life out of cities.
Benjamin Hemric says
September 22, 2008 at 4:19 pmThe article has a number of good quotes. Here’s the one that might have originally jumped out at me the most:
“[Former Milwaukee mayor, John] Norquist, who today heads the Chicago-based Congress for the New Urbanism, described a lot [in Milwaukee] that sat vacant for decades after a historic building burned down. The required parking [which, of course, is a child of orthodox urban planning] made it unfeasible to build anything new there, he said. After officials relaxed the parking requirement, a thriving restaurant sprang up.”
To me, this is a good illustration of some of the problems with orthodox city planning –- which, as Jane Jacobs points out, is really suburban and utopian at its core and as a result doesn’t understand, or care to understand, how cities actually work in real life and how successful cities change and/or grow organically. It’s a neat example of city planning impeding useful city development — and planning the life out of cities.
Benjamin Hemric says
September 22, 2008 at 4:19 pmThe article has a number of good quotes. Here’s the one that might have originally jumped out at me the most:
“[Former Milwaukee mayor, John] Norquist, who today heads the Chicago-based Congress for the New Urbanism, described a lot [in Milwaukee] that sat vacant for decades after a historic building burned down. The required parking [which, of course, is a child of orthodox urban planning] made it unfeasible to build anything new there, he said. After officials relaxed the parking requirement, a thriving restaurant sprang up.”
To me, this is a good illustration of some of the problems with orthodox city planning –- which, as Jane Jacobs points out, is really suburban and utopian at its core and as a result doesn’t understand, or care to understand, how cities actually work in real life and how successful cities change and/or grow organically. It’s a neat example of city planning impeding useful city development — and planning the life out of cities.
Bill Nelson says
September 22, 2008 at 5:29 pm“We’re forcing people to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people,” she said. “There’s no way to recover that use.”
This is like saying:
– My kitchen is for food, not a refrigerator
– The bathroom is for waste, not for a toilet
– Etc.
In all of these cases, we are talking about tools that people use. Automobiles do not compete with people, they are used by people.
The article you cite has little to do with free markets. Instead, it seems like more of a plan for a utopian imposition of someone’s romanticized fantasy of what a city ought to look like.
Now, if I’m correct that most people actually like to have a convenient place to park their car, I would guess that reducing the number of parking spaces in cities will be yet one more thing that will make them unappealing to the millions of people who gladly deserted them as soon as they acquired sufficient affluence.
For every person who enjoys a daily stroll to the undersized and overpriced local grocery store, there are probably many others who prefer driving to their door from Costco. And still many others who would want their friends, relatives, service people, delivery people, home-care workers, etc., etc. to be able to park nearby.
If there is a demand for city life and less obtrusive parking, markets will figure out the solution. But generally, the market for convenient parking seems to be stronger than the market for no-parking.
Drop the minimum requirements and let’s see what happens.
Bill Nelson says
September 22, 2008 at 5:29 pm“We’re forcing people to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people,” she said. “There’s no way to recover that use.”
This is like saying:
– My kitchen is for food, not a refrigerator
– The bathroom is for waste, not for a toilet
– Etc.
In all of these cases, we are talking about tools that people use. Automobiles do not compete with people, they are used by people.
The article you cite has little to do with free markets. Instead, it seems like more of a plan for a utopian imposition of someone’s romanticized fantasy of what a city ought to look like.
Now, if I’m correct that most people actually like to have a convenient place to park their car, I would guess that reducing the number of parking spaces in cities will be yet one more thing that will make them unappealing to the millions of people who gladly deserted them as soon as they acquired sufficient affluence.
For every person who enjoys a daily stroll to the undersized and overpriced local grocery store, there are probably many others who prefer driving to their door from Costco. And still many others who would want their friends, relatives, service people, delivery people, home-care workers, etc., etc. to be able to park nearby.
If there is a demand for city life and less obtrusive parking, markets will figure out the solution. But generally, the market for convenient parking seems to be stronger than the market for no-parking.
Drop the minimum requirements and let’s see what happens.
MarketUrbanism says
September 22, 2008 at 6:15 pmBill,
I think I see what you are pointing out – that her logic is flawed: both uses are for people one way or another. But, it’s the word “forced” that relates to point I’d like to convey…
Whether it’s parking minimums or maximums, it is an imposition of someone’s romanticized fantasy of what a city ought to look like. That has everything to do with free markets.
Now, if I’m correct that most people actually like to have a convenient place to park their car…
Given out free, most (probably all) people would take the convenient free parking. However, most people also like Cheetos, but that doesn’t mean a Cheeto minimums should be imposed.
Yes, people use cars, and that’s good. There are many uses (all used by people) each piece of land could serve, such as housing, office, factories, parks, drainage, roadways, parking, etc. The market for these uses determines the highest-and-best use for each piece of land in a free market. Imposition of minimums or maximums of one particular use constrains the market and causes inefficiencies.
In the case of parking minimums, developers are forced to provide more parking on their land than they would provide otherwise. This creates an over-investment in parking and underinvestment in other uses. The constraints this imposes on developers cause them to build less densely as they need to spend more money on parking. This makes potential developments less feasible at higher densities.
Thus, I agree with your conclusion: “Drop the minimum requirements and let’s see what happens.” At the same time I would oppose the pendulum swinging the other way towards parking maximums…
MarketUrbanism says
September 22, 2008 at 6:15 pmBill,
I think I see what you are pointing out – that her logic is flawed: both uses are for people one way or another. But, it’s the word “forced” that relates to point I’d like to convey…
Whether it’s parking minimums or maximums, it is an imposition of someone’s romanticized fantasy of what a city ought to look like. That has everything to do with free markets.
Now, if I’m correct that most people actually like to have a convenient place to park their car…
Given out free, most (probably all) people would take the convenient free parking. However, most people also like Cheetos, but that doesn’t mean a Cheeto minimums should be imposed.
Yes, people use cars, and that’s good. There are many uses (all used by people) each piece of land could serve, such as housing, office, factories, parks, drainage, roadways, parking, etc. The market for these uses determines the highest-and-best use for each piece of land in a free market. Imposition of minimums or maximums of one particular use constrains the market and causes inefficiencies.
In the case of parking minimums, developers are forced to provide more parking on their land than they would provide otherwise. This creates an over-investment in parking and underinvestment in other uses. The constraints this imposes on developers cause them to build less densely as they need to spend more money on parking. This makes potential developments less feasible at higher densities.
Thus, I agree with your conclusion: “Drop the minimum requirements and let’s see what happens.” At the same time I would oppose the pendulum swinging the other way towards parking maximums…
Market Urbanism says
September 22, 2008 at 6:15 pmBill,
I think I see what you are pointing out – that her logic is flawed: both uses are for people one way or another. But, it’s the word “forced” that relates to point I’d like to convey…
Whether it’s parking minimums or maximums, it is an imposition of someone’s romanticized fantasy of what a city ought to look like. That has everything to do with free markets.
Now, if I’m correct that most people actually like to have a convenient place to park their car…
Given out free, most (probably all) people would take the convenient free parking. However, most people also like Cheetos, but that doesn’t mean a Cheeto minimums should be imposed.
Yes, people use cars, and that’s good. There are many uses (all used by people) each piece of land could serve, such as housing, office, factories, parks, drainage, roadways, parking, etc. The market for these uses determines the highest-and-best use for each piece of land in a free market. Imposition of minimums or maximums of one particular use constrains the market and causes inefficiencies.
In the case of parking minimums, developers are forced to provide more parking on their land than they would provide otherwise. This creates an over-investment in parking and underinvestment in other uses. The constraints this imposes on developers cause them to build less densely as they need to spend more money on parking. This makes potential developments less feasible at higher densities.
Thus, I agree with your conclusion: “Drop the minimum requirements and let’s see what happens.” At the same time I would oppose the pendulum swinging the other way towards parking maximums…
Bill Nelson says
September 23, 2008 at 12:48 amI liked your Cheetos* analogy so much that I came up with my own:
If everything in the supermarket is free, and people choose Cheetos, then they would probably be willing to pay more for Cheetos too.
That refers to the way that parking is underpriced — as is public transportation, highways, runway allocation, etc., etc., etc. So, if people choose to drive-and-park in a huge transportation free-for-all, then I would guess that they would pay for it, too.
In fact, the principle behind transportation “policy” is to subsidize all of it.
Put another way, the govt is paying people to travel with other people’s money. I would think that with congestion problems (and global warming hysteria), the govt would at least allow people to make a more rational decision to stay home when travel is not economical.
But then, govt was never really about logic anyway.
*The proper spelling of the snack to which you refer is “Cheetos”. I had to refer to the Cheetos web site to learn that fact, as I am not a Cheetos aficionado. (I see that you aren’t, either…)
Bill Nelson says
September 23, 2008 at 12:48 amI liked your Cheetos* analogy so much that I came up with my own:
If everything in the supermarket is free, and people choose Cheetos, then they would probably be willing to pay more for Cheetos too.
That refers to the way that parking is underpriced — as is public transportation, highways, runway allocation, etc., etc., etc. So, if people choose to drive-and-park in a huge transportation free-for-all, then I would guess that they would pay for it, too.
In fact, the principle behind transportation “policy” is to subsidize all of it.
Put another way, the govt is paying people to travel with other people’s money. I would think that with congestion problems (and global warming hysteria), the govt would at least allow people to make a more rational decision to stay home when travel is not economical.
But then, govt was never really about logic anyway.
*The proper spelling of the snack to which you refer is “Cheetos”. I had to refer to the Cheetos web site to learn that fact, as I am not a Cheetos aficionado. (I see that you aren’t, either…)
MarketUrbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 12:57 amI actually love Cheetos (and thought everyone did…), especially the red-hot Cheetos! I guess I just rip the bag open so quickly that I don’t notice the spelling.
Thanks for the correction. If you don’t mind, I’ll edit my spelling.
And if Cheetos are free at your supermarket, you get pissed when other supermarkets charge for them. Just like people who get all upset at being charged for parking. It’s so subsidized some people think it’s a god-given right. I know people who refuse to pay even $2 to park in some places…
MarketUrbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 12:57 amI actually love Cheetos (and thought everyone did…), especially the red-hot Cheetos! I guess I just rip the bag open so quickly that I don’t notice the spelling.
Thanks for the correction. If you don’t mind, I’ll edit my spelling.
And if Cheetos are free at your supermarket, you get pissed when other supermarkets charge for them. Just like people who get all upset at being charged for parking. It’s so subsidized some people think it’s a god-given right. I know people who refuse to pay even $2 to park in some places…
Market Urbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 12:57 amI actually love Cheetos (and thought everyone did…), especially the red-hot Cheetos! I guess I just rip the bag open so quickly that I don’t notice the spelling.
Thanks for the correction. If you don’t mind, I’ll edit my spelling.
And if Cheetos are free at your supermarket, you get pissed when other supermarkets charge for them. Just like people who get all upset at being charged for parking. It’s so subsidized some people think it’s a god-given right. I know people who refuse to pay even $2 to park in some places…
Dave Reid says
September 23, 2008 at 3:11 amOne of the terrible things about minimum parking requirements is how they are determined. Basically the logic of how many parking spots per use/ft is truly arbitrary. If anything minimums should be done a way with and maximums put in place.
Dave Reid says
September 23, 2008 at 3:11 amOne of the terrible things about minimum parking requirements is how they are determined. Basically the logic of how many parking spots per use/ft is truly arbitrary. If anything minimums should be done a way with and maximums put in place.
Dave Reid says
September 23, 2008 at 3:11 amOne of the terrible things about minimum parking requirements is how they are determined. Basically the logic of how many parking spots per use/ft is truly arbitrary. If anything minimums should be done a way with and maximums put in place.
Dave Reid says
September 23, 2008 at 3:11 amOne of the terrible things about minimum parking requirements is how they are determined. Basically the logic of how many parking spots per use/ft is truly arbitrary. If anything minimums should be done a way with and maximums put in place.
MarketUrbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 3:26 pmThanks Dave,
Nice blog! By the way, I’m a big fan of Milwaukee. I studied architecture at UWM before I switched to engineering and came back to Chicago. And my sister is at Marquette now…
Usually the minimums are pushed by politicians pandering to constituents who are used to suburban oversupply of parking.
I can’t favor maximums, but I’d favor any efforts to enable market forces to bring the costs of driving decisions to drivers, not taxpayers and developers.
MarketUrbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 3:26 pmThanks Dave,
Nice blog! By the way, I’m a big fan of Milwaukee. I studied architecture at UWM before I switched to engineering and came back to Chicago. And my sister is at Marquette now…
Usually the minimums are pushed by politicians pandering to constituents who are used to suburban oversupply of parking.
I can’t favor maximums, but I’d favor any efforts to enable market forces to bring the costs of driving decisions to drivers, not taxpayers and developers.
Market Urbanism says
September 23, 2008 at 3:26 pmThanks Dave,
Nice blog! By the way, I’m a big fan of Milwaukee. I studied architecture at UWM before I switched to engineering and came back to Chicago. And my sister is at Marquette now…
Usually the minimums are pushed by politicians pandering to constituents who are used to suburban oversupply of parking.
I can’t favor maximums, but I’d favor any efforts to enable market forces to bring the costs of driving decisions to drivers, not taxpayers and developers.
Rationalitate says
September 24, 2008 at 4:20 amI think it’s a little lazy to just say, “okay, they’re all underpriced, so now it’s even!” Some may be more underpriced than others. There are A LOT of automobile-centric regulations on the books.
Stephen Smith says
September 24, 2008 at 4:20 amI think it’s a little lazy to just say, “okay, they’re all underpriced, so now it’s even!” Some may be more underpriced than others. There are A LOT of automobile-centric regulations on the books.