6 ms·

I mean, I am not an industry shill, but I also believe that modern zoning and building codes (not the safety codes, but things like parking) make the kind of pl

by tmh79 7y ago

I mean, I am not an industry shill, but I also believe that modern zoning and building codes (not the safety codes, but things like parking) make the kind of places that I would enjoy living "illegal to build today". There are a lot of bad regulations in the building codes today. Fireproofing, egress, and siesmic stuff is great, absurdly low FAR in urban areas? 2 parking spaces per unit? That ruins any chance of walkability.

dhimes 7y ago
It may change in the future, but if you have a home with two working adults you need to allow for roughly two cars per family (like, 180 per 200 units). Otherwise you have serious community issues. I’ve been president of a community. There are reasons that these rules are asked for and obtained. I don’t like them all, but they solve problems. The setback shot showed pedestrians. What if there were cars in that street- and people in wheelchairs also trying to maneuver down the street?
- jefftk 7y ago
  Even places with public transit good enough that you don't have to have a car (ex: Somerville MA, where we live) generally require off street parking. Setbacks are not the same as sidewalks. You can allow buildings to run right to the sidewalk without pushing pedestrians/wheelchairs into the street.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    Indeed. I tell people that what the world knows about urban development comes from mistakes made in MA. I live here too. Not in Somerville- I’m up in Marblehead- but I moved from Gaithersburg MD. At first I was annoyed by the regs when I moved to MD, but then I came to understand why they are there. I love big brother...
    - jefftk 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you're saying; I don't think Somerville should require parking (though if you choose to build units without off-street parking I think there should be ineligible for on-street parking).
      - dhimes 7y ago
        So only people without cars would buy them? Do you think a developer would risk only selling to that market? It seems like that would limit what they could sell the units for, and as a buyer I would have to think carefully about being able to re-sell the unit.
        jefftk 7y ago
        > So only people without cars would buy them? I expect so. About 16% of Somerville households don't have a car (according to the census). > Do you think a developer would risk only selling to that market? Some developers would choose to build off-street parking anyway, even though it's not required, and that's fine. I'm saying we should remove the requirement to build parking. > It seems like that would limit what they could sell the units for, and as a buyer I would have to think carefully about being able to re-sell the unit. This is another way of saying that the units would be cheaper. That's a good thing!
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Parking minimums force low density and thus car dependency. Much better to build densely enough so that people don't need cars to live, and have many opt out.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  There are certainly families and communities that will want to live somewhere that has parking for two vehicles -- which is fine, because that means there will be demand to build such housing, and it will be available at a price that reflects the cost of doing so. But what's the excuse for passing a law that prohibits the alternative? Can't we have both?
  - dlgeek 7y ago
    > But what's the excuse for passing a law that prohibits the alternative Avoiding a tragedy of the commons. If you don't make parking mandatory in building code, people won't build it and everyone will try to park on the street in public property, which leads to a bunch of other issues. By mandating the off-street parking by code, you're preserving the city right of ways and ensuring things like fire services, street sweeping, etc. aren't constantly dodging (potentially illegally) parked cars filling every inch of space.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Why isn't a better solution to enforce an aggressive towing policy with parking fines sufficient to pay for the enforcement? Then people who own a car without a parking space will get tired of having their car towed every single day and move into housing that has parking, and the housing without parking will be left occupied by people who don't have cars.
      - dhimes 7y ago
        You make it sound easy. There is a huge fight in my town right now about exactly that. You see, when you develop land, that land is being used. You can't go ahead and develop the same land another way. The people in "Old Town" have no off-street parking and never will. Back in the day when the town was less densely settled it was easier to find something to do with their car. But now those resources are scarcer and people are angry that they aren't allowed to park overnight on the street during the winter (another regulation- sheesh). And it can be damn hard to move. I think it's better to prevent the problem by ensuring developers plan on enough space. Another thing that's sometimes required is to ensure access by car (the developers may be required to rework an intersection). Again, for good reason. These regulations were born of seeing things that were wrong and trying to fix them. Not perfect, but it's an attempt. Nobody's trying to be evil, they are just trying to make it so that people can live places easily and have their needs accounted for.

by tmh79 7y ago

dhimes 7y ago

It may change in the future, but if you have a home with two working adults you need to allow for roughly two cars per family (like, 180 per 200 units). Otherwise you have serious community issues. I’ve been president of a community. There are reasons that these rules are asked for and obtained. I don’t like them all, but they solve problems. The setback shot showed pedestrians. What if there were cars in that street- and people in wheelchairs also trying to maneuver down the street?

jefftk 7y ago
Even places with public transit good enough that you don't have to have a car (ex: Somerville MA, where we live) generally require off street parking. Setbacks are not the same as sidewalks. You can allow buildings to run right to the sidewalk without pushing pedestrians/wheelchairs into the street.
- dhimes 7y ago
  Indeed. I tell people that what the world knows about urban development comes from mistakes made in MA. I live here too. Not in Somerville- I’m up in Marblehead- but I moved from Gaithersburg MD. At first I was annoyed by the regs when I moved to MD, but then I came to understand why they are there. I love big brother...
  - jefftk 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you're saying; I don't think Somerville should require parking (though if you choose to build units without off-street parking I think there should be ineligible for on-street parking).
    - dhimes 7y ago
      So only people without cars would buy them? Do you think a developer would risk only selling to that market? It seems like that would limit what they could sell the units for, and as a buyer I would have to think carefully about being able to re-sell the unit.
      - jefftk 7y ago
        > So only people without cars would buy them? I expect so. About 16% of Somerville households don't have a car (according to the census). > Do you think a developer would risk only selling to that market? Some developers would choose to build off-street parking anyway, even though it's not required, and that's fine. I'm saying we should remove the requirement to build parking. > It seems like that would limit what they could sell the units for, and as a buyer I would have to think carefully about being able to re-sell the unit. This is another way of saying that the units would be cheaper. That's a good thing!
CydeWeys 7y ago
Parking minimums force low density and thus car dependency. Much better to build densely enough so that people don't need cars to live, and have many opt out.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
There are certainly families and communities that will want to live somewhere that has parking for two vehicles -- which is fine, because that means there will be demand to build such housing, and it will be available at a price that reflects the cost of doing so. But what's the excuse for passing a law that prohibits the alternative? Can't we have both?
- dlgeek 7y ago
  > But what's the excuse for passing a law that prohibits the alternative Avoiding a tragedy of the commons. If you don't make parking mandatory in building code, people won't build it and everyone will try to park on the street in public property, which leads to a bunch of other issues. By mandating the off-street parking by code, you're preserving the city right of ways and ensuring things like fire services, street sweeping, etc. aren't constantly dodging (potentially illegally) parked cars filling every inch of space.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Why isn't a better solution to enforce an aggressive towing policy with parking fines sufficient to pay for the enforcement? Then people who own a car without a parking space will get tired of having their car towed every single day and move into housing that has parking, and the housing without parking will be left occupied by people who don't have cars.
    - dhimes 7y ago
      You make it sound easy. There is a huge fight in my town right now about exactly that. You see, when you develop land, that land is being used. You can't go ahead and develop the same land another way. The people in "Old Town" have no off-street parking and never will. Back in the day when the town was less densely settled it was easier to find something to do with their car. But now those resources are scarcer and people are angry that they aren't allowed to park overnight on the street during the winter (another regulation- sheesh). And it can be damn hard to move. I think it's better to prevent the problem by ensuring developers plan on enough space. Another thing that's sometimes required is to ensure access by car (the developers may be required to rework an intersection). Again, for good reason. These regulations were born of seeing things that were wrong and trying to fix them. Not perfect, but it's an attempt. Nobody's trying to be evil, they are just trying to make it so that people can live places easily and have their needs accounted for.