6 ms·

I don't understand why cities mandate so much surface parking. It makes the city worse for everyone, including drivers. Why not have the parking under buildings

I don't understand why cities mandate so much surface parking. It makes the city worse for everyone, including drivers. Why not have the parking under buildings? Sure it's a bit more expensive to build, but saves so much space! And the cars don't sit out in the sun while you shop. Maybe it would be best if there were no parking mandates at all and cities let the market figure out the right amount of parking space.

kube-system 5y ago
I’m not aware of any US cities that mandate surface parking. It is normally a denoted in a number of spaces per some estimate of what would be needed. The spaces can be configured however. Developers choose surface lots when the cost of land is less than the cost of a garage.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Oh that makes a lot of sense. Then perhaps the cost of land is just too low in US cities? How are parking lots taxed?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    They’re taxed as many different ways as there are cities. The main factor is the space available and the cost of the land when the parking was built. Density, land value, and taxes on that land tend to move together. Huge surface lots are most common in the sprawling parts of the US that were developed post-automobile: particularly suburbs and sprawling western cities. Some of that land that is now part of a city, wasn’t, when it was developed. It was cheap land outside of a city at the time.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    It’s crazy there are surface lots in Manhattan.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    > Then perhaps the cost of land is just too low in US cities? Land generally is cheap in the USA because the USA is pretty damn big. Europeans often don't think about how large the USA is. California alone is larger than every European country except Sweden, Spain, France, and Ukraine, and Texas is bigger than any of those. We have 10 states that are each bigger than the UK on their own. It's why nobody in the USA takes a train anywhere. Even with a 200 mph train, it would take 15 hours to cross the country, and that's assuming no stops. In some states, you could ride that train for 3 hours in a straight line and not even leave the state.
JonathonW 5y ago
Are surface parking requirements actually that common? My local codes (in Nashville, TN) [1] don't seem to care how you get your parking spaces as long as you meet the requirements for your building size and expected use, and buildings are frequently built over parking garages in the denser parts of town to maximize land use. Surface parking's still the norm here as you move out towards the suburbs and land becomes cheaper, but that's not a regulatory thing AFAICT-- parking garages are really expensive per-space, so surface parking is the standard here unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. [1] https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashville_and_davidson_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_TIT17ZO_CH17.20PALOAC_ARTIIPALORE_17.20.030PAREES https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashvill...
- mellavora 5y ago
  I think you answered your own question. The code doesn't specify above or underground because the economics do. However, the code does specify a minimum number of parking spaces based on size and use.
  - zip1234 5y ago
    Also, important point is that these minimum number of car parking spaces are completely made up pseudoscience bullshit. Nobody actually has any idea how much parking is 'needed' so you end up with a nail salon having a requirement for 1.25 spots per booth or something.
tomjakubowski 5y ago
In downtown Los Angeles, surface lots are quite valuable because film crews routinely set up base camp in them. They can't set up in a garage.
- dheera 5y ago
  Oh yeah I set up base camp for a filmed robotics publicity student in a garage once and they got angry.
  - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
    Film crews in LA are renting the lots for their production, not taking a ticket as if they are parking as a regular customer. I’m sure the garage would have been accommodating if you had asked to use the space.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Yeah, it's a different contract for film crews. I worked in DTLA for a few years and when you go to a lot or building that has been rented, there is always a bill posted on all entrances letting you know you may be filmed. I believe it's a permit given by the city. You can't just start filming or setting up without going through the proper channels.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
mateo1 5y ago
It's not just "a bit" more expensive to build. It's very expensive and also quite inconvenient to use. >Maybe it would be best if there were no parking mandates at all and cities let the market figure out the right amount of parking space. That's just hilarious. You should visit just about any city in central and souther europe. All were build either before cars were a consideration or without adequate planning. The result is that driving downtown is a nightmare. Having minimal parking works ok when the population density is high and public transportation is good, but in a car-centric country like the US it just wouldn't work. And having public transportation is another thing to consider when planning a city.
- adrianN 5y ago
  I actually live in a city in central Europe, which is why I'm baffled by US city planning. I've also lived in Tokyo for while, where there is much, much less surface parking available than in my home city. I liked that a lot actually.
- llampx 5y ago
  You're not doing your argument any favors by comparing to European cities, which have great public transportation for the most part, and heavily discourage car use. The entire point of a downtown is to have everything accessible for humans. If it was meant for cars, downtown would look like a highway with service stations and drive-thrus. I moved to Berlin a few years ago and aside from unplanned vacations into car-accessible destinations and heavy furniture pickup, don't miss having a car. > Having minimal parking works ok when the population density is high and public transportation is good, but in a car-centric country like the US it just wouldn't work. The US's design is not handed down from the Gods. It can and should change, for the livability of future generations if not the boomers who will cling to their coal-rolling machines as long as they can.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thecopy 5y ago
  >The result is that driving downtown is a nightmare Is.. this a bad thing? Why do you feel entitled to a great car driving experience in the densest part of downtown?
jraph 5y ago
Sometimes, the soil is loose, making it impossible to dig deep to build underground parkings (or subways, for that matter) because it would make buildings sink. I don't know how common it is, but my city is like this. The area being liable to flooding because of a dam nearby probably doesn't help. I believe pushing public transports and bikeways from "quite good" to "top notch, really convenient" and free (paid by taxes) would make a long way for all these issues (possibly mandating for cars to say out of the city for most use cases; it would make many situations more difficult to handle though). (European perspective)
- Xelbair 5y ago
  Soil mechanics have nothing to do with actual permits. There are way around that. And it's up to the investor to decide if it is worth it or not. What matters more for permits themselves, is the capacity of the nearby road network. Bigger parking lots, multilevel ones => more cars => congested network => traffic jams everywhere. (European perspective with civil engineering experience)
- Someone 5y ago
  > Sometimes, the soil is loose, making it impossible to dig deep to build underground parkings (or subways, for that matter) Not impossible. Amsterdam is built on peat, but has plenty of underground parkings and a subway. Google gave me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Pijp_metro_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Pijp_metro_station, which says “The lower level platform with southbound services to Zuid is 26.5 meters below street level”. That puts it way below sea level. That tunnel was bored, but parking garages (and home cellars) get dug out (typically, before digging starts, walls to prevent cave-ins are pushed into the ground and water pumps are started)
  - hetspookjee 5y ago
    Mind you that despite all best efforts and experts involved this project went trice over its head. I am very happy with the end result though
    - 5y ago
k8sToGo 5y ago
I live in Europe, but whenever I visit a larger city, I always go to a parking garage. Only once in my life have I ever parked on a regular public parking spot.
kodemager 5y ago
At the very least you should put solar cells above the parking lot.
stefs 5y ago
i'm not sure if i remember this correctly, but i think i read somewhere that the cost breakdown is roughly 10-fold per lot: * an above ground parking garage is ten times more expensive than surface parking * subterrain parking is ten times more expensive than an above ground parking garage
WHA8m 5y ago
"a bit more expensive to build" is an understatement.
hardwaregeek 5y ago
At least in New York there's so much stuff underground already. I don't think you can fit parking too. Better to just discourage cars and encourage public transportation.
Tiktaalik 5y ago
For housing affordability and CO2 reduction reasons, giant underground parking parking lots need to be less prevalent kinda soon. They require huge amounts of concrete, which has significant CO2 emissions, and they're so expensive to build they inflate the price of housing (one of these spots costs tens of thousands). Not to say that we need to go back to surface parking. No we just need to change our cities and transportation networks so that people don't need the parking to begin with.

kube-system 5y ago

I’m not aware of any US cities that mandate surface parking. It is normally a denoted in a number of spaces per some estimate of what would be needed. The spaces can be configured however. Developers choose surface lots when the cost of land is less than the cost of a garage.

adrianN 5y ago
Oh that makes a lot of sense. Then perhaps the cost of land is just too low in US cities? How are parking lots taxed?
- kube-system 5y ago
  They’re taxed as many different ways as there are cities. The main factor is the space available and the cost of the land when the parking was built. Density, land value, and taxes on that land tend to move together. Huge surface lots are most common in the sprawling parts of the US that were developed post-automobile: particularly suburbs and sprawling western cities. Some of that land that is now part of a city, wasn’t, when it was developed. It was cheap land outside of a city at the time.
- midasuni 5y ago
  It’s crazy there are surface lots in Manhattan.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > Then perhaps the cost of land is just too low in US cities? Land generally is cheap in the USA because the USA is pretty damn big. Europeans often don't think about how large the USA is. California alone is larger than every European country except Sweden, Spain, France, and Ukraine, and Texas is bigger than any of those. We have 10 states that are each bigger than the UK on their own. It's why nobody in the USA takes a train anywhere. Even with a 200 mph train, it would take 15 hours to cross the country, and that's assuming no stops. In some states, you could ride that train for 3 hours in a straight line and not even leave the state.

JonathonW 5y ago

Are surface parking requirements actually that common? My local codes (in Nashville, TN) [1] don't seem to care how you get your parking spaces as long as you meet the requirements for your building size and expected use, and buildings are frequently built over parking garages in the denser parts of town to maximize land use. Surface parking's still the norm here as you move out towards the suburbs and land becomes cheaper, but that's not a regulatory thing AFAICT-- parking garages are really expensive per-space, so surface parking is the standard here unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. [1] https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashville_and_davidson_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_TIT17ZO_CH17.20PALOAC_ARTIIPALORE_17.20.030PAREES https://library.municode.com/tn/metro_government_of_nashvill...

mellavora 5y ago
I think you answered your own question. The code doesn't specify above or underground because the economics do. However, the code does specify a minimum number of parking spaces based on size and use.
- zip1234 5y ago
  Also, important point is that these minimum number of car parking spaces are completely made up pseudoscience bullshit. Nobody actually has any idea how much parking is 'needed' so you end up with a nail salon having a requirement for 1.25 spots per booth or something.

tomjakubowski 5y ago

In downtown Los Angeles, surface lots are quite valuable because film crews routinely set up base camp in them. They can't set up in a garage.

dheera 5y ago
Oh yeah I set up base camp for a filmed robotics publicity student in a garage once and they got angry.
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  Film crews in LA are renting the lots for their production, not taking a ticket as if they are parking as a regular customer. I’m sure the garage would have been accommodating if you had asked to use the space.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Yeah, it's a different contract for film crews. I worked in DTLA for a few years and when you go to a lot or building that has been rented, there is always a bill posted on all entrances letting you know you may be filmed. I believe it's a permit given by the city. You can't just start filming or setting up without going through the proper channels.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

mateo1 5y ago

It's not just "a bit" more expensive to build. It's very expensive and also quite inconvenient to use. >Maybe it would be best if there were no parking mandates at all and cities let the market figure out the right amount of parking space. That's just hilarious. You should visit just about any city in central and souther europe. All were build either before cars were a consideration or without adequate planning. The result is that driving downtown is a nightmare. Having minimal parking works ok when the population density is high and public transportation is good, but in a car-centric country like the US it just wouldn't work. And having public transportation is another thing to consider when planning a city.

adrianN 5y ago
I actually live in a city in central Europe, which is why I'm baffled by US city planning. I've also lived in Tokyo for while, where there is much, much less surface parking available than in my home city. I liked that a lot actually.
llampx 5y ago
You're not doing your argument any favors by comparing to European cities, which have great public transportation for the most part, and heavily discourage car use. The entire point of a downtown is to have everything accessible for humans. If it was meant for cars, downtown would look like a highway with service stations and drive-thrus. I moved to Berlin a few years ago and aside from unplanned vacations into car-accessible destinations and heavy furniture pickup, don't miss having a car. > Having minimal parking works ok when the population density is high and public transportation is good, but in a car-centric country like the US it just wouldn't work. The US's design is not handed down from the Gods. It can and should change, for the livability of future generations if not the boomers who will cling to their coal-rolling machines as long as they can.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thecopy 5y ago
>The result is that driving downtown is a nightmare Is.. this a bad thing? Why do you feel entitled to a great car driving experience in the densest part of downtown?

jraph 5y ago

Sometimes, the soil is loose, making it impossible to dig deep to build underground parkings (or subways, for that matter) because it would make buildings sink. I don't know how common it is, but my city is like this. The area being liable to flooding because of a dam nearby probably doesn't help. I believe pushing public transports and bikeways from "quite good" to "top notch, really convenient" and free (paid by taxes) would make a long way for all these issues (possibly mandating for cars to say out of the city for most use cases; it would make many situations more difficult to handle though). (European perspective)

Xelbair 5y ago
Soil mechanics have nothing to do with actual permits. There are way around that. And it's up to the investor to decide if it is worth it or not. What matters more for permits themselves, is the capacity of the nearby road network. Bigger parking lots, multilevel ones => more cars => congested network => traffic jams everywhere. (European perspective with civil engineering experience)
Someone 5y ago
> Sometimes, the soil is loose, making it impossible to dig deep to build underground parkings (or subways, for that matter) Not impossible. Amsterdam is built on peat, but has plenty of underground parkings and a subway. Google gave me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Pijp_metro_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Pijp_metro_station, which says “The lower level platform with southbound services to Zuid is 26.5 meters below street level”. That puts it way below sea level. That tunnel was bored, but parking garages (and home cellars) get dug out (typically, before digging starts, walls to prevent cave-ins are pushed into the ground and water pumps are started)
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  Mind you that despite all best efforts and experts involved this project went trice over its head. I am very happy with the end result though
  - 5y ago

k8sToGo 5y ago

I live in Europe, but whenever I visit a larger city, I always go to a parking garage. Only once in my life have I ever parked on a regular public parking spot.

kodemager 5y ago

At the very least you should put solar cells above the parking lot.

stefs 5y ago

i'm not sure if i remember this correctly, but i think i read somewhere that the cost breakdown is roughly 10-fold per lot: * an above ground parking garage is ten times more expensive than surface parking * subterrain parking is ten times more expensive than an above ground parking garage

WHA8m 5y ago

"a bit more expensive to build" is an understatement.

hardwaregeek 5y ago

At least in New York there's so much stuff underground already. I don't think you can fit parking too. Better to just discourage cars and encourage public transportation.

Tiktaalik 5y ago

For housing affordability and CO2 reduction reasons, giant underground parking parking lots need to be less prevalent kinda soon. They require huge amounts of concrete, which has significant CO2 emissions, and they're so expensive to build they inflate the price of housing (one of these spots costs tens of thousands). Not to say that we need to go back to surface parking. No we just need to change our cities and transportation networks so that people don't need the parking to begin with.