5 ms·

The "StrongTowns/NotJustBikes" crowd populating these threads believes that the lack of parking actually increases a retail shop's patronage.

bobthepanda 3y ago
Parking availability can increase retail patronage but the parking actually has to turn over. Free street parking that is occupied all day by the same car results in at most one net new customer, which isn’t good, and most street parking in the US is either free or priced low enough that people park too long.
- pandaman 3y ago
  These retail places have no parking at all usually. Some have parking in the garage of the building where they are located but this usually involves driving around the block, taking one specific entrance and then driving inside the garage to a designated spot following cryptic signs, it's not unheard of having to take a ticket to be validated by a shop later. These arrangements are not much better than just plain absence of parking, IMHO. Almost as bad is street parking: even if it's turning over it does not matter since you have a very limited number of spots and no place to wait for a spot so most people will just move on if they don't find a spot (and won't go to such a place intentionally as the chance of catching a free spot is miniscule).
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    at least part of the idea is that the area should become dense enough that foot traffic either from the home or transit should become the lion's share. At the end of the day parking lots are worth less and generate less tax than developments. with most of America though, it's hard work because actually getting to that level of density is chicken and egg; and then of course in California the ghost of Prop 13 rears its head and discourages residential densification in particular.
    - pandaman 3y ago
      I can only talk about the observable reality, where a retail shop without parking is a very low revenue enterprise even in an expensive area. E.g. West Los Angeles has plenty of dinky shops with no customer in sight next to busiest places in the city. It's pretty hard to raise money for a business on the hope that Santa Monica will turn into Manhattan, I imagine.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        I mean, Los Angeles and other places do not build housing at sufficient scale, hence the state going after cities with SB 9 and whatnot. It’s certainly possible; Seattle and Portland have dense commercial centers outside of downtowns that are lively with little net new parking.
eru 3y ago
Parking costs a lot of surface area. Especially parking lots. If you just removed the parking and replaced it with nothing, that wouldn't increase patronage. But if you used that area to increase density instead, that could increase patronage. Especially if you go dense enough for the area to become a destination in itself and to make public transport a sensible option.
- pandaman 3y ago
  But there are no parking lots to remove in these first-floor retail spaces so you cannot increase density. The outdoor shopping malls, on the other hand, with enormous parking lots and no housing nearby somehow manage to get a lot of custom. It could be that the idea that a retail without parking is set to thrive is just wrong?
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Malls in the US are suffering from a retail apocalypse as well. Really the root issue is that there is too much retail square footage in the US. Retail sq ft per person is 23 sq ft, compared to 2-5 in Europe and Japan. In that context building new retail is a fool’s errand. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per-capita-selected-countries-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
    - pandaman 3y ago
      Malls - yes, outdoor malls - no.
  - userinanother 3y ago
    Those spaces are wacky. There isn’t enough density to support wages of a person working there and not enough parking to pull in outside customers. They would make good personal studios for the locals but the landlords want too much or too onerous of a lease agreement.
    - pandaman 3y ago

bobthepanda 3y ago

Parking availability can increase retail patronage but the parking actually has to turn over. Free street parking that is occupied all day by the same car results in at most one net new customer, which isn’t good, and most street parking in the US is either free or priced low enough that people park too long.

pandaman 3y ago
These retail places have no parking at all usually. Some have parking in the garage of the building where they are located but this usually involves driving around the block, taking one specific entrance and then driving inside the garage to a designated spot following cryptic signs, it's not unheard of having to take a ticket to be validated by a shop later. These arrangements are not much better than just plain absence of parking, IMHO. Almost as bad is street parking: even if it's turning over it does not matter since you have a very limited number of spots and no place to wait for a spot so most people will just move on if they don't find a spot (and won't go to such a place intentionally as the chance of catching a free spot is miniscule).
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  at least part of the idea is that the area should become dense enough that foot traffic either from the home or transit should become the lion's share. At the end of the day parking lots are worth less and generate less tax than developments. with most of America though, it's hard work because actually getting to that level of density is chicken and egg; and then of course in California the ghost of Prop 13 rears its head and discourages residential densification in particular.
  - pandaman 3y ago
    I can only talk about the observable reality, where a retail shop without parking is a very low revenue enterprise even in an expensive area. E.g. West Los Angeles has plenty of dinky shops with no customer in sight next to busiest places in the city. It's pretty hard to raise money for a business on the hope that Santa Monica will turn into Manhattan, I imagine.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      I mean, Los Angeles and other places do not build housing at sufficient scale, hence the state going after cities with SB 9 and whatnot. It’s certainly possible; Seattle and Portland have dense commercial centers outside of downtowns that are lively with little net new parking.

eru 3y ago

Parking costs a lot of surface area. Especially parking lots. If you just removed the parking and replaced it with nothing, that wouldn't increase patronage. But if you used that area to increase density instead, that could increase patronage. Especially if you go dense enough for the area to become a destination in itself and to make public transport a sensible option.

pandaman 3y ago
But there are no parking lots to remove in these first-floor retail spaces so you cannot increase density. The outdoor shopping malls, on the other hand, with enormous parking lots and no housing nearby somehow manage to get a lot of custom. It could be that the idea that a retail without parking is set to thrive is just wrong?
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Malls in the US are suffering from a retail apocalypse as well. Really the root issue is that there is too much retail square footage in the US. Retail sq ft per person is 23 sq ft, compared to 2-5 in Europe and Japan. In that context building new retail is a fool’s errand. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per-capita-selected-countries-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058852/retail-space-per...
  - pandaman 3y ago
    Malls - yes, outdoor malls - no.
- userinanother 3y ago
  Those spaces are wacky. There isn’t enough density to support wages of a person working there and not enough parking to pull in outside customers. They would make good personal studios for the locals but the landlords want too much or too onerous of a lease agreement.
  - pandaman 3y ago