5 ms·

"Buffalo, like many other cities, let builders request special permission to deviate from city-determined parking ratios." Having an exception process seems li

"Buffalo, like many other cities, let builders request special permission to deviate from city-determined parking ratios." Having an exception process seems like a very logical approach to rolling back parking mandates gradually. I've seen both massive lots with no cars (clearly an outdated mandate in effect) as well as brand new suburban neighborhoods inundated with packed street parking (clearly a miss by the builder). It feels to me like rolling these rules back thoughtfully will be important to avoid companies from dropping parking from new low income housing that may legitimately need it.

davidw 2y ago
Most cities have had parking minimums for a while, so any new housing without parking is competing against existing housing with the imposed parking ratio. Meaning, if you are shopping around for housing, you can choose housing with more parking. Which means that to compete with it, housing with less parking will have to compete in other ways, like, say, lower prices. Which is more important than automobile storage in a lot of places with a housing shortage and the consequent skyrocketing prices. I wrote up something using that corny professor and the rocks analogy: https://bendyimby.com/2022/05/11/cities-are-for-people/ https://bendyimby.com/2022/05/11/cities-are-for-people/
- aidenn0 2y ago
  I heard a slightly different version of the jar story in which after the sand, the professor pours a beer into the jar, then the rest of the analogy is the same until the end when a student asks what the beer is supposed to represent, to which the professor says "That just shows that no matter how busy your life is, there's always time for a beer"
aidenn0 2y ago
Suburbs naturally need more parking, since they tend to be both further from mass transit and larger units.
- ars 2y ago
  Suburbs don't have this problem, there is plenty of parking automatically since people have more space there. I've started to notice that all the car problems are just in dense cities: Nowhere for kids to play, noise, lack of parking, cost, safety, etc etc. None of those issues exist in suburbs and rural. (PS. They don't need more parking just because they have larger units.) Once the city is dense enough then it's all mass transit. If it's not dense you use cars and there is no trouble with them. It's those cities right in the middle that have all the problems.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Sadly current rules make it hard to transition from low to high density
    - ars 2y ago
      Why would you want to? The people in low density like it that way, and the people in high density like it that way. It's a good thing that it's hard to change the city from under them! Leave the density alone and let people move to whichever they like better. Just be extra cautious about the medium density cities.
      - hombre_fatal 2y ago
        Who pays for low density? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/4/1/heres-the-real-reason-houston-is-going-broke https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/4/1/heres-the-real-...
      - CalRobert 2y ago
        There are lot of people in low density who would _like_ to be in high density. However, these places are absurdly expensive (despite often being more efficient and cheaper to provide with services) because they've been illegal to build for 70 years, so the stock has been stagnant or declined while the population has grown.
  - 2y ago
CalRobert 2y ago
"suburban neighborhoods inundated with packed street parking (clearly a miss by the builder)." That seems like a miss by the city planners, not the builder.
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
Having an exception process is ripe for abuse. We have laws for a reason: it is generally a good thing for the same rules to apply to everyone. When you require an exception, you can easily threaten and extort whatever you want, because the "default" is to deny an exception to a rule. We see this all the time with planning: planning commissions extract expensive "concessions" from developers all the time. "Oh, you technically can build that much, but it won't be profitable with all that parking we mandate. We'll gladly grant an exception, if only you capped heights, and have fewer studios."

davidw 2y ago

Most cities have had parking minimums for a while, so any new housing without parking is competing against existing housing with the imposed parking ratio. Meaning, if you are shopping around for housing, you can choose housing with more parking. Which means that to compete with it, housing with less parking will have to compete in other ways, like, say, lower prices. Which is more important than automobile storage in a lot of places with a housing shortage and the consequent skyrocketing prices. I wrote up something using that corny professor and the rocks analogy: https://bendyimby.com/2022/05/11/cities-are-for-people/ https://bendyimby.com/2022/05/11/cities-are-for-people/

aidenn0 2y ago
I heard a slightly different version of the jar story in which after the sand, the professor pours a beer into the jar, then the rest of the analogy is the same until the end when a student asks what the beer is supposed to represent, to which the professor says "That just shows that no matter how busy your life is, there's always time for a beer"

aidenn0 2y ago

Suburbs naturally need more parking, since they tend to be both further from mass transit and larger units.

ars 2y ago
Suburbs don't have this problem, there is plenty of parking automatically since people have more space there. I've started to notice that all the car problems are just in dense cities: Nowhere for kids to play, noise, lack of parking, cost, safety, etc etc. None of those issues exist in suburbs and rural. (PS. They don't need more parking just because they have larger units.) Once the city is dense enough then it's all mass transit. If it's not dense you use cars and there is no trouble with them. It's those cities right in the middle that have all the problems.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Sadly current rules make it hard to transition from low to high density
  - ars 2y ago
    Why would you want to? The people in low density like it that way, and the people in high density like it that way. It's a good thing that it's hard to change the city from under them! Leave the density alone and let people move to whichever they like better. Just be extra cautious about the medium density cities.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      Who pays for low density? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/4/1/heres-the-real-reason-houston-is-going-broke https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/4/1/heres-the-real-...
    - CalRobert 2y ago
      There are lot of people in low density who would _like_ to be in high density. However, these places are absurdly expensive (despite often being more efficient and cheaper to provide with services) because they've been illegal to build for 70 years, so the stock has been stagnant or declined while the population has grown.
- 2y ago

CalRobert 2y ago

"suburban neighborhoods inundated with packed street parking (clearly a miss by the builder)." That seems like a miss by the city planners, not the builder.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

Having an exception process is ripe for abuse. We have laws for a reason: it is generally a good thing for the same rules to apply to everyone. When you require an exception, you can easily threaten and extort whatever you want, because the "default" is to deny an exception to a rule. We see this all the time with planning: planning commissions extract expensive "concessions" from developers all the time. "Oh, you technically can build that much, but it won't be profitable with all that parking we mandate. We'll gladly grant an exception, if only you capped heights, and have fewer studios."