4 ms·

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 aro

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.

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.