NYT Critic Calls For End to Parking Minimums
In a piece advocating for architects and planners to start conceiving of (primarily underused) parking spaces as potential public spaces, the Times’ new architecture critic Michael Kimmelman writes that New York zoning should stop requiring developers to build a certain number of parking spaces along with new buildings: For big cities like New York it…
In a piece advocating for architects and planners to start conceiving of (primarily underused) parking spaces as potential public spaces, the Times’ new architecture critic Michael Kimmelman writes that New York zoning should stop requiring developers to build a certain number of parking spaces along with new buildings:
For big cities like New York it is high time to abandon outmoded zoning codes from the auto-boom days requiring specific ratios of parking spaces per housing unit, or per square foot of retail space. These rules about minimum parking spaces have driven up the costs of apartments for developers and residents, damaged the environment, diverted money that could have gone to mass transit and created a government-mandated cityscape that’s largely unused. …Cities should let the free market handle the construction of new parking spaces. People who buy or rent new homes can pay extra if they want someplace to park a car. Municipalities can instead cap the maximum number of lots or the ratio of spaces to dwellings and offices.
Kimmelman cites a recent Crain’s article that said spaces in the mandated parking garages at new Downtown Brooklyn developments Avalon Fort Greene and 80 Dekalb Avenue are only half leased.
Paved, but Still Alive [NY Times]
Photo by gawillia2
Architect66 – I get what you are trying to say (i.e. if you eliminate the viability of automobiles, then the pressure to add alternatives will be so great as to finally get results)
but
Your water/public health analogy is ridiculous – they are completely different animals
and
I think that your belief that making car transport too expensive for the middle and upper middle class (the only people who can afford a car now anyway) will quickly result in new transportation alternatives is somewhat utopian.
Architect66 – I get what you are trying to say (i.e. if you eliminate the viability of automobiles, then the pressure to add alternatives will be so great as to finally get results)
but
Your water/public health analogy is ridiculous – they are completely different animals
and
I think that your belief that making car transport too expensive for the middle and upper middle class (the only people who can afford a car now anyway) will quickly result in new transportation alternatives is somewhat utopian.
I agree that the city/state are NOT doing much to increase public transport use (subway is being expanded a bit tho) – I am simply saying I would support more such efforts
– this is why I dont think simply dropping parking minimums makes alot of sense at this point.
As to your point about congestion pricing I disagree. No ‘non-rich’ NYC resident is driving into Manhattan below 86th St (M-F – 6-6) on a regular basis. Wealthy people yes, suburbanites maybe – other than that, not really. So what congestion pricing does is make the “limo/SUV driving superwealthy” (as you put it) PAY, for doing what they already are and thereby create a new revenue stream to help expand programs to get us to a no-car needed culture.
Almost all of the minimums are already done UNDER the new developments.
But I am not sure that this is such a good idea. If you eliminate all minimums then no matter what the scenario, the new residents/users of a building will to some proportion be demanding parking (100% of residents/users visitors will not take public transport) – if a building makes no provision, then that will put additional demand on existing parking infrastructure (street, garages, etc…) and sure eventually the free market will address to some extent but after numerous buildings are built, it is somewhat too late.
I also dont think that examples such as Dekalb and Avalon are good indicators for a number of reasons 1. These buildings are both NEW rental (less car owners for sure) 2. Both are exceedingly close to Manhattan, public transport and yellow cabs 3. They are NEW. As people live there longer, as new amenities open, as more buildings go up the demand for parking will no doubt increase and 4. Its always a function of price.
I am sure a rethink of the parking minimums can yeild more efficient results – but simply eliminating parking from new developments is a utopian idea that does not mesh with the reality of our current society.
Not sure how your response even addresses what I said.
However, right now free (or near free) public parking is still offered and the next “horseless carriage” has not yet been developed; so for the vast majority of the next 50yrs people will still utilize (to some extent) automobiles.
Therefore to simply eliminate parking minimums (as opposed to adjust them for factors such as proximity of public transport or other provided amenities -lets say bike rooms or shared car parking etc…) is shortsighted because in the near term, the lack of any parking in a new development will simply shift the burden to the community as a whole.(which isnt necessarily a benefit)
People are always railing against new development for the strain it puts on existing infrastructure yet for the most part a new development is not in a position to build a sewage treatment facility for itself, or a school or a firehouse for its own use ….but here the development is in the perfect position to create for itself some portion of garage space necessary to offset the inevitable increase in demand the new development will create.
I am more than happy for the city/state to then go about creating disincentives (and incentives) to moving to a no-car culture (congestion pricing, expensive street parking, higher registrations,improved bus and subway, etc….) but until the later is in place, a complete elimination of all parking minimums could result in simply more people trolling around looking for parking and odd allocations of private and public lots for parking purposes.