3 ms·

> where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually i

> where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings), and so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings) If there is only one tall building in the area, its shadow will be cast in different places throughout the day, not overly burdening any of them. If there is a cluster of tall buildings, this is even better, because another tall building will be the thing most of the adjacent building's shadow is cast on, and high density buildings will have wide streets between them to carry the traffic anyway, which also allows in light and air. A sensible way to do this is to require larger offsets for taller buildings, which then allow wider streets and sidewalks in areas with many tall buildings. But that's typically not how the rules work when their true purpose is to limit construction; they just prohibit the taller building entirely. > so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in. They would have parking in their own building, if they paid the extra cost needed to provide that. Why should that be mandatory? Many people in a city may be content to not have a car.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  My impression is that neither of us knows much about these issues (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be interesting to see the rules for such buildings, and the reasonings behind them. Beyond that, at least I am not in a position to say what's sensible. IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly. Public parking in a rural or suburban area is a commons. You provide some free parking as a convenience because land isn't at a premium. Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. You can still have some street parking provided by the government (whether it's metered or not) but anybody objecting that there isn't enough parking is invited to take advantage of the high demand by building a parking garage. > IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. The issue is that part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property or the amount of rent they can charge. But this is an unsympathetic motive, so they find various pretexts to thwart construction and pass rules with a different underlying goal than the stated one.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. True to a degree, but not nearly effective (not every market is a perfect one). Most dense cities don't have nearly enough parking for the demand. Also, there is a much larger commons than I think you imply. I actually object to parking requirements for another reason: It creates more demand for real estate and drives up rent and purchase costs for everyone. I'd prefer more public transport. > part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property I'm not sure they are less sympathetic than most others, who also have self-serving motives. Regardless, you don't get to say whose interests are valid (and neither do I), thankfully.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > True to a degree, but not nearly effective (not every market is a perfect one). Most dense cities don't have nearly enough parking for the demand. You can measure demand relative to supply by observing pricing. But if the price is high then it would be profitable to build more parking garages. The sort of thing preventing this from working would be if you would e.g. prohibit people from building parking garages. But you don't have to prohibit them in order to not require them. Requiring them is a subsidy. > I'm not sure they are less sympathetic than most others, who also have self-serving motives. "Landlords want rents to be high" is an extremely unsympathetic motive, especially in cities where a large proportion of the voters are tenants. That's the reason for the pretexts. Otherwise they would just say "let's inhibit new construction so landlords can charge higher rents" instead of needing to launder it through another policy objective. The former is often exactly what happens in the suburbs where policies are put into place with the express purpose of increasing "home values" i.e. housing costs, because the majority of voters there are property owners and the prospective buyers don't already live in the jurisdiction to vote against them -- often because they can't afford housing there. But because the true motive is often hidden, anyone opposed to astronomical housing costs has to be wary of policies that limit construction even when the stated rationale is something else.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings) If there is only one tall building in the area, its shadow will be cast in different places throughout the day, not overly burdening any of them. If there is a cluster of tall buildings, this is even better, because another tall building will be the thing most of the adjacent building's shadow is cast on, and high density buildings will have wide streets between them to carry the traffic anyway, which also allows in light and air. A sensible way to do this is to require larger offsets for taller buildings, which then allow wider streets and sidewalks in areas with many tall buildings. But that's typically not how the rules work when their true purpose is to limit construction; they just prohibit the taller building entirely. > so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in. They would have parking in their own building, if they paid the extra cost needed to provide that. Why should that be mandatory? Many people in a city may be content to not have a car.

wolverine876 3y ago
My impression is that neither of us knows much about these issues (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be interesting to see the rules for such buildings, and the reasonings behind them. Beyond that, at least I am not in a position to say what's sensible. IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly. Public parking in a rural or suburban area is a commons. You provide some free parking as a convenience because land isn't at a premium. Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. You can still have some street parking provided by the government (whether it's metered or not) but anybody objecting that there isn't enough parking is invited to take advantage of the high demand by building a parking garage. > IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. The issue is that part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property or the amount of rent they can charge. But this is an unsympathetic motive, so they find various pretexts to thwart construction and pass rules with a different underlying goal than the stated one.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. True to a degree, but not nearly effective (not every market is a perfect one). Most dense cities don't have nearly enough parking for the demand. Also, there is a much larger commons than I think you imply. I actually object to parking requirements for another reason: It creates more demand for real estate and drives up rent and purchase costs for everyone. I'd prefer more public transport. > part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property I'm not sure they are less sympathetic than most others, who also have self-serving motives. Regardless, you don't get to say whose interests are valid (and neither do I), thankfully.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > True to a degree, but not nearly effective (not every market is a perfect one). Most dense cities don't have nearly enough parking for the demand. You can measure demand relative to supply by observing pricing. But if the price is high then it would be profitable to build more parking garages. The sort of thing preventing this from working would be if you would e.g. prohibit people from building parking garages. But you don't have to prohibit them in order to not require them. Requiring them is a subsidy. > I'm not sure they are less sympathetic than most others, who also have self-serving motives. "Landlords want rents to be high" is an extremely unsympathetic motive, especially in cities where a large proportion of the voters are tenants. That's the reason for the pretexts. Otherwise they would just say "let's inhibit new construction so landlords can charge higher rents" instead of needing to launder it through another policy objective. The former is often exactly what happens in the suburbs where policies are put into place with the express purpose of increasing "home values" i.e. housing costs, because the majority of voters there are property owners and the prospective buyers don't already live in the jurisdiction to vote against them -- often because they can't afford housing there. But because the true motive is often hidden, anyone opposed to astronomical housing costs has to be wary of policies that limit construction even when the stated rationale is something else.