Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57825
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
You were right, it's "same old, same old".
Incidentally, that $24,000 for "aboveground" parking means a structure, not a surface lot; a surface space is about an order of magnitude cheaper.
But in some cities, like Seattle, lots are no longer viable. The land is too valuable for high rise condos or offices, so the surface lots are going extinct.
As for schools, the people without kids still benefit, by having educated people working in the jobs they need for their services, lower crime, and if the schools are good, higher property values. Fire and police services are not paid for when used, you are paying to have them available when and if needed. Just like you pay an alarm company even if never burglarized, and insurance if you never have a claim. Look at any utility bill and you have a basic charge before you use any water, electricity or natural gas, just for having it available.
We've discussed this before. It's always the same. People who disagree with the "urbanist" position get their intelligence insulted. Nothing gets resolved.
You mean like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
And I'm always amused to see a complete lack of ability to make a connection between Concept A and Concept B.
I will agree that many municipalities mandate more parking spaces for residential and commercial developments than probably are necessary. That does not mean parking is not necessary, nor does it equate parking with the end of the world as we know it.
Whether you like it or not, people drive cars, and those cars need slots in which to park when their owners are at work, at home, out shopping, or elsewhere. Planning, for better or worse, must allow for the maximum number of parking spots based on use. Commercial developments generally have parking requirements based on square footage. Residential developments must plan as though each dwelling will have at least one car, perhaps two, plus spaces for visitors.
Why the must? Planning could choose to leave it to the market, a large inconvience to car owners will result, but that doesn't equate to a necessity. Residential developments could plan to tie a lot of the on-street parking instead. Old city neighborhoods with less parking than you described are certainly functional; annoying for drivers, often more practical for pedestrians.
I would object to parking requirements less if planning would also mandate to an extent a design where walking could be convenient (for example, make sure pedestrians don't have to make circuitous detours, don't allow densities to get too low or commercial and residential to be too distant).
I'm always amused to see the complete lack of logic on this forum. Yes, we all pay for schools even though many of us don't have children.What does that have to do with parking? That's just an illogical argument. I'm sure everyone has a laundry list of things that they don't think they should pay for, even if they support public education. Just because public education is worthy of subsidy doesn't mean parking is too. It just doesn't follow from the premises.
It may be that people who don't have cars should be forced to pay for others parking spots - I mean, I certainly don't think so, and I've never heard a compelling argument as to why they should, but I'm open to an actually good argument for it. "But you also pay for schools you don't use!" however is not at all a good argument.
And:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Oh no, I see the connection that you think you are making, it's just that your argument makes no sense and it's hilarious that you still can't recognize it. As I already said, just because people pay for schools that they don't use doesn't mean that people should pay for parking they don't use. You could use the "but you already pay for schools you don't use!" argument to justify anything.
Person A: The widget industry is dying because not enough people are buying widgets. Therefore the government should require more people to buy widgets.
Person B: But I have no use for widgets. Why should I have to pay for something I'll never use?
Person A: Well you already pay for schools you don't use, so you can't complain about paying for widgets you won't use.
Your argument is just as unsophisticated as Person A's.
There MIGHT be reasons that widgets or parking are so important that we should require people who don't use them to pay for them, but you can't know those reasons just based on the fact that we require people to pay for schools. So your first post makes no sense. It's a non sequitur.
Why the must? Planning could choose to leave it to the market, a large inconvience to car owners will result, but that doesn't equate to a necessity. Residential developments could plan to tie a lot of the on-street parking instead. Old city neighborhoods with less parking than you described are certainly functional; annoying for drivers, often more practical for pedestrians.
I would object to parking requirements less if planning would also mandate to an extent a design where walking could be convenient (for example, make sure pedestrians don't have to make circuitous detours, don't allow densities to get too low or commercial and residential to be too distant).
Why does the wheel constantly need to be reinvented? We do know what works; how far people are usually willing to walk on average, how many people each unit produces and how many cars, etc. The market can't wave a magic wand and create more parking after the fact.
The links are all discussing places where land values are too high for surface lots.
Chicago? Seems unlikely. And the Citylab article looked at all of King County, which is quite a bit larger than Seattle. They also used a tool from an anti-car policy institute to estimate costs; when monthly parking can be purchased in Manhattan for $275, I'm not going to believe a _cost_ of $250 for Seattle.
Because some view basic education and safety as something very different from parking? Not very hard, regardless of whether it's useful for business I don't connect the two.
Basic education means K-12, not free pre-school, not free community colleges, and absolutely not free 4-year university educations paid by taxpayers. It is the responsibility of the attendees, and if their parents want to pay, they can do so.
I worked first and paid to put myself through a 4-year university and graduate school. Working first (low pay, but interesting job) worked out well, and I graduated with honors. I did not go to a party school or live in a dorm.
Why should I pay for everyone else's children to get more free basic education than I had, especially when the family is large, with many children?
Basic education means K-12, not free pre-school, not free community colleges, and absolutely not free 4-year university educations paid by taxpayers. It is the responsibility of the attendees, and if their parents want to pay, they can do so.
I worked first and paid to put myself through a 4-year university and graduate school. Working first (low pay, but interesting job) worked out well, and I graduated with honors. I did not go to a party school or live in a dorm.
Why should I pay for everyone else's children to get more free basic education than I had?
I don't feel like nitpicking what counts as "basic education" for the purpose of subsidy, I purposefully didn't specify as it was besides the point. This is the urban planning forum.
Why does the wheel constantly need to be reinvented? We do know what works; how far people are usually willing to walk on average, how many people each unit produces and how many cars, etc. The market can't wave a magic wand and create more parking after the fact.
And we know the pre-parking requirement neighborhoods work fine.
Sometimes the market squeezes in parking behind existing buildings; however that creates a net loss of green space. And I've seen individual parking spaces for rent or private lots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
