In San Jose, we have this lovely chart showing just how detailed these ridiculous requirements can get:
Anyway, it’s finally over. You almost don’t notice the problem until you really pay attention, but once you do you wonder: why are there these endless empty parking lots in one of the most expensive areas in the country? How could it possibly be worthwhile to have them? Oh, right: dumb laws. Hopefully, some of them can now be filled in with useful things, like housing.
Come and work in London and the opposite applies. Hardly anyone in the central area has their own parking. Some hotels do have a basement parking garage, but the charge for using it is extortionate. Parking spaces in garages at office blocks are a highly valued perk and often restricted to the most senior executives.
Taking cars into central London is actively discouraged and there is a “congestion charge of £15 a day”. If you drive an older (polluting) car, an additional £12.50 is also charged. Parking is also expensive with on-street spaces at between £2.50 and £5.00 an hour (if you can find one) and car parks between £11.00 and £24.00 per day.
Well Paris removed tens of thousands of spots recently, so clearly someone is uttering it. Just likely not the people who would prefer the space allocated for their own inefficient use.
The key to revitalizing the central city is to make it as difficult as possible to drive to venues there. San Jose is to be applauded for taking the next logical step.
Good. I recall reading a story many years ago about how Washington DC wanted Target to build a store. Target wanted to to build one too but there was a costly minimum parking requirement. The store Target wanted to build was located on top of a subway station served by two lines, adjacent to a million bus lines in the middle of one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the city. Target figured most customers wouldn’t be in cars and they refused to build the underground parking garage that would be necessary. I understand the city paid to build the garage, Target built the store. Despite very low parking fees, the garage went almost unused. Target was right. The city lost buckets of money on the garage but hopefully learned a valuable lesson.
Requirements shouldn’t be necessary because, as a retailer, I’d realize that people who can’t park will not shop in my store. It’s that simple. A huge, empty lot isn’t to my benefit, either.
I think the difference is that in larger cities, you might get some restaurant built, but have very little parking nearby. Which isn’t a problem in Manhattan or downtown San Francisco, but it’s a huge problem if you’re in Uptown Dallas or somewhere else like that where it is neither walkable nor has effective public transit. Some minimum parking requirements are probably a good thing there.
But it’s also equally absurd when you go further out of the city center and you end up with suburban cities with large parking requirements that are far in excess of the number of people who will ever attend that business except maybe for a week or so preceding Christmas.
It seems like there should be some sort of evidence-based guideline from some urban planning institute or transportation authority. There ought to be a happy medium between parking up and down residential streets because there’s no dedicated parking nearby (see Greenville Ave in Dallas), and having half-full parking lots for 99% of the time (see places like Frisco and Plano, TX) because the requirements are too demanding.
Consider it a proxy for our real problem: too many cars, driving an overemphasis on car-based infrastructure. If anything, you’d think cities would be substantially limiting parking so as to encourage greater use of mass transit and other options. Of course part of the problem is, cities have sprawled out in many cases to make those “other options” (walking, biking) impractical, and the infrastructure to support either that or mass transit just isn’t there for the same reason the parking lots are: too much emphasis on cars, not enough on alternatives.
Why? If the issue is that people are parking on residential streets and crowding out residents’ personal vehicles, why should the residents have their parking spaces paid for by other people’s money? The city is already paying to maintain the part of the street dedicated to private use (I assume this is not paid parking, or that if it is paid parking, it doesn’t cover its costs), so why should businesses have to pay even more to keep the taxpayer-funded parking spaces empty?
But that’s to do with deterring traffic, and making the city greener and more pedestrian friendly. Not because people think it’s a waste of space. Most of those parking spaces are on-street parking.
The residents are taxpayers. It is being paid for by their money.
I guess the question is why do you think that residents should have to pay for the parking of business customers? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the people who use those spaces to pay for them?
I think there’s a bit of confusion in this thread. The new law doesn’t forbid developers from creating as much parking as they think is truly needed. It just repeals the city’s minimum parking requirement.
Bear in mind, San Jose is not at all like those European cities mentioned above. It’s more like one gigantic suburb, with a very small downtown core. In most of the city, there are gigantic parking lots that are never even close to full.
The point is that a lot of that space could be better used as actual housing units. That’s something there really is a shortage of here.
In San Jose? Those just aren’t that common around here. They only make sense where the land, construction costs, etc. are cheap. And that is not the case here, where a modest condo might go for ~$1M.
Not to mention that by lowering the density, you end up needing cars because the city becomes less walkable/bikeable, and public transport less useful, and so on. It’s a self-sustaining problem brought on by arbitrary choices made half a century ago.
Again, those are the same thing. Wasting space lowers the density, which makes things less walkable.
