3 ms·

Because there isn't enough space. 4 or 5 parking spaces is the same footprint that a 1 bedroom apartment would consume, then multiply that by the number of flo

Because there isn't enough space. 4 or 5 parking spaces is the same footprint that a 1 bedroom apartment would consume, then multiply that by the number of floors which is often between 4 or 8 in the outer parts of "central" London. So 4 to 5x25000 for parking spaces, or 4 to 8x650000. Underground parking is possible but rare - you see it more these days, but then it costs significantly more than just a tarmac lot outside both to construct and to purchase a space in. Multistorey aboveground would take up space that would be used by apartments and would never get past planning approval in a residential area.

wasdfff 7y ago
You see both underground and multistory above ground in residential builds in LA. However I’m willing to bet that those 2-4 stories of parking make up most of the cost of building.
yellowapple 7y ago
> Underground parking is possible but rare - you see it more these days, but then it costs significantly more than just a tarmac lot outside both to construct and to purchase a space in. An apartment costs significantly more than just a tent outside, too. We still choose to build apartments instead because they're easier to build vertically and they're more attractive. > Multistorey aboveground would take up space that would be used by apartments and would never get past planning approval in a residential area. You can always build apartments on top of the multistory aboveground parking. That's pretty common in San Francisco. An ideal would be for every building to have parking underneath it at street level, and then for there to be an upper "street" dedicated entirely to pedestrian and bicycle traffic (and perhaps rail). It'd be a huge upfront cost (which is why very few - if any - cities actually do this), but it'd be a much better experience for pedestrians and drivers alike. It could also potentially pay for itself (by charging for parking), and having all cars underground could make it easy to recapture any automotive emissions (hopefully electric cars will mostly or fully displace ICE cars, but if not, then it's at least a lot easier to trap greenhouse gases in a tunnel than out in the open).
reportingsjr 7y ago
It sounds like the problem here is that cars just aren't feasible in semi-dense urban areas. Based on your comments you seem to feel that cars are pretty much the only solution to transportation. I think this is a pretty poor way of thinking that leads to US style cities where there are these "dense" urban areas that have oceans of lifeless areas and greatly increased cost due to the amount of space taking by car parking/storage areas.

wasdfff 7y ago

You see both underground and multistory above ground in residential builds in LA. However I’m willing to bet that those 2-4 stories of parking make up most of the cost of building.

yellowapple 7y ago

> Underground parking is possible but rare - you see it more these days, but then it costs significantly more than just a tarmac lot outside both to construct and to purchase a space in. An apartment costs significantly more than just a tent outside, too. We still choose to build apartments instead because they're easier to build vertically and they're more attractive. > Multistorey aboveground would take up space that would be used by apartments and would never get past planning approval in a residential area. You can always build apartments on top of the multistory aboveground parking. That's pretty common in San Francisco. An ideal would be for every building to have parking underneath it at street level, and then for there to be an upper "street" dedicated entirely to pedestrian and bicycle traffic (and perhaps rail). It'd be a huge upfront cost (which is why very few - if any - cities actually do this), but it'd be a much better experience for pedestrians and drivers alike. It could also potentially pay for itself (by charging for parking), and having all cars underground could make it easy to recapture any automotive emissions (hopefully electric cars will mostly or fully displace ICE cars, but if not, then it's at least a lot easier to trap greenhouse gases in a tunnel than out in the open).

reportingsjr 7y ago

It sounds like the problem here is that cars just aren't feasible in semi-dense urban areas. Based on your comments you seem to feel that cars are pretty much the only solution to transportation. I think this is a pretty poor way of thinking that leads to US style cities where there are these "dense" urban areas that have oceans of lifeless areas and greatly increased cost due to the amount of space taking by car parking/storage areas.