4 ms·

> The vehicular capacity [28 spaces] is far below the city’s required zoning for 80 spaces. Holy cow, mandating that many parking spaces is outrageous. That's

> The vehicular capacity [28 spaces] is far below the city’s required zoning for 80 spaces. Holy cow, mandating that many parking spaces is outrageous. That's four parking spaces per unit.

arcticbull 4y ago
Yep minimum parking mandates are wild. Imagine how few buildings you'd have in Manhattan with those kinds of mandates.
- StillBored 4y ago
  Manhattan isn't the bay area, which has better transit than most places but cars are still needed to go many places. 4 spots is very reasonable for a midside+ single family home if you consider two adults and a child or two of driving age, or visitors. Given that this appears to be basically 5 single family townhomes, and 15 apartments, its probably going to cause real parking nightmares for people who live there if any of those single bedroom units have two adults living in them. Its going to require a hard cap of 1 car per apartment unit and 2 cars per townhome which leaves 3 spots for visitors. I hope the people who live there enjoy walking to the closest public transport because some number of them aren't going to have any choice unless the place is full of single adults who never have live in friends. Except its the bay area, 800sf apartment will probably be full of couples, invariably with kids. So that isn't to say 80 is the right number either, but i'm guessing anything below 1.5 spots per apartment and 3 spots per townhome (~40 total) is legitimately too few.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    I lived in a townhouse complex in Sunnyvale which had either 1 or 2 spots per ~1500 sqft unit, and it was totally fine. Most homes were occupied by couples, most whose kids had long since moved out and a few who had small children. I lived in a two-spot unit and had either one (when I lived alone) or two (when my girlfriend moved in) cars during the ten years I lived there.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Surely the developers would know how many spaces are going to be demanded. They wouldn't be able to rent out/sell the units if they build too few. Mandating that no one is allowed to live with less than 3 parking spots per house is utterly absurd. Not every single house is going to have two adults and a teenager who all have their own car.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
remarkEon 4y ago
Yep, you'll find this all over California. I don't have the numbers handy, but the way the math works out ... the only way the economics make sense in a number of different neighborhoods is if lux condos/highrises are built. Otherwise developers don't have a way to recoup the ~$200k/door cost requirement of building that much parking (I think it was $200k, someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Fatnino 4y ago
One for your car, one for your wife's car, one for your weekend sports car and one for the maid.

> The vehicular capacity [28 spaces] is far below the city’s required zoning for 80 spaces. Holy cow, mandating that many parking spaces is outrageous. That's four parking spaces per unit.

arcticbull 4y ago

Yep minimum parking mandates are wild. Imagine how few buildings you'd have in Manhattan with those kinds of mandates.

StillBored 4y ago
Manhattan isn't the bay area, which has better transit than most places but cars are still needed to go many places. 4 spots is very reasonable for a midside+ single family home if you consider two adults and a child or two of driving age, or visitors. Given that this appears to be basically 5 single family townhomes, and 15 apartments, its probably going to cause real parking nightmares for people who live there if any of those single bedroom units have two adults living in them. Its going to require a hard cap of 1 car per apartment unit and 2 cars per townhome which leaves 3 spots for visitors. I hope the people who live there enjoy walking to the closest public transport because some number of them aren't going to have any choice unless the place is full of single adults who never have live in friends. Except its the bay area, 800sf apartment will probably be full of couples, invariably with kids. So that isn't to say 80 is the right number either, but i'm guessing anything below 1.5 spots per apartment and 3 spots per townhome (~40 total) is legitimately too few.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  I lived in a townhouse complex in Sunnyvale which had either 1 or 2 spots per ~1500 sqft unit, and it was totally fine. Most homes were occupied by couples, most whose kids had long since moved out and a few who had small children. I lived in a two-spot unit and had either one (when I lived alone) or two (when my girlfriend moved in) cars during the ten years I lived there.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Surely the developers would know how many spaces are going to be demanded. They wouldn't be able to rent out/sell the units if they build too few. Mandating that no one is allowed to live with less than 3 parking spots per house is utterly absurd. Not every single house is going to have two adults and a teenager who all have their own car.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

remarkEon 4y ago

Yep, you'll find this all over California. I don't have the numbers handy, but the way the math works out ... the only way the economics make sense in a number of different neighborhoods is if lux condos/highrises are built. Otherwise developers don't have a way to recoup the ~$200k/door cost requirement of building that much parking (I think it was $200k, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Fatnino 4y ago

One for your car, one for your wife's car, one for your weekend sports car and one for the maid.