Comments on: Some Bay Area Developers Ditch the Extra Parking Spaces for More Units http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: taomom http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-55391 taomom Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:26:20 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-55391 Peak Oil will make the need for parking moot, except for lots and lots of bike parking. (In Copenhagen, they are putting in 7000 new bike parking spots at the train station.) Rather than demanding the city be designed to accommodate massive car use, people will begin to organize their lives so that work and errands can be performed conveniently without a car. This is actually one of the prime benefits of living in a city. The fact that daily life in San Francisco truly can be conducted without using oil will be one of things that keeps San Francisco economically viable in the decades to come. For families, Bakfiets are wonderful things. If you live up a hill, get one and put an electric assist on it. If you own a van or a SUV, I suggest selling it soon before it loses all value. If you haven't heard of Peak Oil, or you think I'm absolutely bonkers, it's time to do some research. As a quick primer: The US imports 70% of its oil. The US passed its peak oil production in 1970 and has been in decline ever since. World oil supplies are declining 5 - 6 % a year. The easiest oil--the cheapest to exploit--has all been found and much of it pumped. Mexico, the second largest supplier of crude oil to the US, will become an oil importer in less than five years. Chinese and Indian usage of oil is increasing 10% a year. Turning Canadian tar sands into oil requires massive energy and is incredibly bad for the environment. Electric cars will be introduced, but with Peak Credit and deep economic malaise few but the very rich will be able to afford them. (There are some do-it-yourself kits out there to take a car, rip out its internal combustion engine, and electrify it. If you're good at that sort of thing, go for it.) Peak Oil will make the need for parking moot, except for lots and lots of bike parking. (In Copenhagen, they are putting in 7000 new bike parking spots at the train station.) Rather than demanding the city be designed to accommodate massive car use, people will begin to organize their lives so that work and errands can be performed conveniently without a car. This is actually one of the prime benefits of living in a city. The fact that daily life in San Francisco truly can be conducted without using oil will be one of things that keeps San Francisco economically viable in the decades to come.

For families, Bakfiets are wonderful things. If you live up a hill, get one and put an electric assist on it. If you own a van or a SUV, I suggest selling it soon before it loses all value. If you haven’t heard of Peak Oil, or you think I’m absolutely bonkers, it’s time to do some research.

As a quick primer: The US imports 70% of its oil. The US passed its peak oil production in 1970 and has been in decline ever since. World oil supplies are declining 5 – 6 % a year. The easiest oil–the cheapest to exploit–has all been found and much of it pumped. Mexico, the second largest supplier of crude oil to the US, will become an oil importer in less than five years. Chinese and Indian usage of oil is increasing 10% a year. Turning Canadian tar sands into oil requires massive energy and is incredibly bad for the environment. Electric cars will be introduced, but with Peak Credit and deep economic malaise few but the very rich will be able to afford them. (There are some do-it-yourself kits out there to take a car, rip out its internal combustion engine, and electrify it. If you’re good at that sort of thing, go for it.)

]]> By: Alexei http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-55361 Alexei Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:07:52 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-55361 I do agree with StuartH that people's real needs should be considered, and cars will play a significant role in people's lives for the foreseeable future, so let's not adopt car-unfriendly policies for their own sake. That said, there are some things that are obvious: unlinking parking spots from condos, for example, as well as removing parking minimums (there are plenty of old houses in the Richmond without parking, and someone wants to build a new one I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to). I do agree with the idea of increasing the parking permit fee to 'market rate' (ie when there are a few free spaces on the street because people don't pay). What are they now-- $70? I think several hundred dollars would not be out of order. The proceeds can benefit public transit, which will help people give up their cars-- the carrot and stick approach. Everyone wins-- non-drivers get better service and drivers get better traffic and easier parking. I think most drivers would happily pay a dollar a day if it meant an easier time finding a space, and less traffic to contend with. I do agree with StuartH that people’s real needs should be considered, and cars will play a significant role in people’s lives for the foreseeable future, so let’s not adopt car-unfriendly policies for their own sake.

That said, there are some things that are obvious: unlinking parking spots from condos, for example, as well as removing parking minimums (there are plenty of old houses in the Richmond without parking, and someone wants to build a new one I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to).

I do agree with the idea of increasing the parking permit fee to ‘market rate’ (ie when there are a few free spaces on the street because people don’t pay). What are they now– $70? I think several hundred dollars would not be out of order. The proceeds can benefit public transit, which will help people give up their cars– the carrot and stick approach. Everyone wins– non-drivers get better service and drivers get better traffic and easier parking. I think most drivers would happily pay a dollar a day if it meant an easier time finding a space, and less traffic to contend with.

]]> By: Sprague http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-55231 Sprague Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:32:32 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-55231 As we all know, real estate in San Francisco is very expensive. In light of that, it makes little sense that on-street parking is so cheap. It's still affordable for most San Franciscans to own cars, even if many of us would be just as well served with a car-sharing account. The cost of driving (and parking) should more accurately reflect the damages they cause. Since current global gas prices aren't helping lessen our driving ways, local measures are the only way to go to reduce driving. As we all know, real estate in San Francisco is very expensive. In light of that, it makes little sense that on-street parking is so cheap. It’s still affordable for most San Franciscans to own cars, even if many of us would be just as well served with a car-sharing account. The cost of driving (and parking) should more accurately reflect the damages they cause. Since current global gas prices aren’t helping lessen our driving ways, local measures are the only way to go to reduce driving.

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54971 mikesonn Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:07:50 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54971 StuartH and Glen - Yes, people will still own cars without the offstreet parking, but that doesn't mean we should allow more parking. If they choose to play the parking spot game, then that is part of the cost of having a car. In turn, you can blame all the curb cuts providing access to off street parking for the lack of on street parking. So now the argument becomes which of the car owners are more important - the ones with off street parking or the ones fighting to get on street. And if I can say without car owners getting too upset, on street residential permits are way too cheap and that helps further the low subsidized cost of car ownership. Start paying closer to market rate and the find the parking spot game will become a bit easier. StuartH and Glen – Yes, people will still own cars without the offstreet parking, but that doesn’t mean we should allow more parking. If they choose to play the parking spot game, then that is part of the cost of having a car. In turn, you can blame all the curb cuts providing access to off street parking for the lack of on street parking. So now the argument becomes which of the car owners are more important – the ones with off street parking or the ones fighting to get on street.

And if I can say without car owners getting too upset, on street residential permits are way too cheap and that helps further the low subsidized cost of car ownership. Start paying closer to market rate and the find the parking spot game will become a bit easier.

]]> By: Tomas http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54951 Tomas Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:55:28 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54951 Excellent article Mr. Roth. There is an easy solution to providing families with the car they need, while minimizing the cost of housing: CAR SHARE. Even if I drove my Zipcar every day, it would still be cheaper than paying the cost of owning and parking a car in SF. Regarding on-street parking, the City is finally moving in a direction where parking will be priced according to market rates, so that a space will always be available for short-term parking. Accommodating long-term parking on the public street is a blatant subsidization. Excellent article Mr. Roth. There is an easy solution to providing families with the car they need, while minimizing the cost of housing: CAR SHARE. Even if I drove my Zipcar every day, it would still be cheaper than paying the cost of owning and parking a car in SF.

Regarding on-street parking, the City is finally moving in a direction where parking will be priced according to market rates, so that a space will always be available for short-term parking. Accommodating long-term parking on the public street is a blatant subsidization.

]]> By: Glen http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54941 Glen Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:18:51 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54941 A big problem in this is alot of people living in this type of housing will still buy a car and park it on the street.My apt building is old and has only 30 parking spots for 60 units I see these people move there cars all around every day and increasing that SF find the parking spot game A big problem in this is alot of people living in this type of housing will still buy a car and park it on the street.My apt building is old and has only 30 parking spots for 60 units I see these people move there cars all around every day and increasing that SF find the parking spot game

]]> By: CBrinkman http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54931 CBrinkman Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:04:38 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54931 Cars are a part of this City; some of us will argue they are too big a part of the city. Should we accommodate cars? Sure. Should we subsidize them and allow them to dominate our streets? No. I look forward to the day when car drivers will pay their fair share for the environmental and social impacts their vehicle of choice causes. I will happily pay whatever increase in price for goods and services that causes to have a city where walking, biking and taking transit are the best and easiest choices. Cars are a part of this City; some of us will argue they are too big a part of the city. Should we accommodate cars? Sure. Should we subsidize them and allow them to dominate our streets? No. I look forward to the day when car drivers will pay their fair share for the environmental and social impacts their vehicle of choice causes. I will happily pay whatever increase in price for goods and services that causes to have a city where walking, biking and taking transit are the best and easiest choices.

]]> By: Ian Turner http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54921 Ian Turner Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:18:04 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54921 Jombee, Note that in this case we're dealing with parking *minimums*, not maximums. :-( Jombee,

Note that in this case we’re dealing with parking *minimums*, not maximums. :-(

]]> By: StuartH http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54861 StuartH Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:20:04 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54861 I am all for de-coupling parking from housing; if people don't want to pay for parking then they shouldn't have too. Of course, that would work best if those people then were not allowed to buy a car; large developments without parking can wreak havoc on the parking situation in the neighborhood if new residents park on the street. But I don't buy the argument that somehow parking is inherently uneconomic. In some instances it may be, but when you are dealing with developments that have larger units -- particularly for families -- then I expect the demand for parking is strong. Anyway, there is any easy way to find out -- see if people will pay for the parking. The fact is that in most neighborhoods public transit is good enough only for getting yourself downtown to work. It is not viable for getting to other neighborhoods or for families. Also, people often live and work outside the City. So cars are essential. Sure there are some people whose lifestyle allows them to live without a car; but there is no reason that everyone should be forced to either live that lifestyle or move out of the City. Vague arguments about "sustainability" are just silly; We need to look at the actual needs of people who live in this City and cars are part of that. This City is more than just single bike riders. Anti-car fanatics should really try (for once) to think beyond themselves and care about the needs of the entire population of San Francisco. I am all for de-coupling parking from housing; if people don’t want to pay for parking then they shouldn’t have too. Of course, that would work best if those people then were not allowed to buy a car; large developments without parking can wreak havoc on the parking situation in the neighborhood if new residents park on the street.
But I don’t buy the argument that somehow parking is inherently uneconomic. In some instances it may be, but when you are dealing with developments that have larger units — particularly for families — then I expect the demand for parking is strong. Anyway, there is any easy way to find out — see if people will pay for the parking.
The fact is that in most neighborhoods public transit is good enough only for getting yourself downtown to work. It is not viable for getting to other neighborhoods or for families. Also, people often live and work outside the City. So cars are essential.
Sure there are some people whose lifestyle allows them to live without a car; but there is no reason that everyone should be forced to either live that lifestyle or move out of the City.
Vague arguments about “sustainability” are just silly; We need to look at the actual needs of people who live in this City and cars are part of that. This City is more than just single bike riders. Anti-car fanatics should really try (for once) to think beyond themselves and care about the needs of the entire population of San Francisco.

]]> By: mikesonn http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54851 mikesonn Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:57:42 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54851 I agree with patrick, that one really stuck out to me as being awesome. On the flip side, how does a 2 family building in RUSSIAN HILL get 5 parking spots? That is beyond excusable. Those cars might be off the street while parking, but they will be on the street driving, taking up space, and spewing crap into the air. That is a crime and the planner that ok'd that variance should be fired. I agree with patrick, that one really stuck out to me as being awesome. On the flip side, how does a 2 family building in RUSSIAN HILL get 5 parking spots? That is beyond excusable. Those cars might be off the street while parking, but they will be on the street driving, taking up space, and spewing crap into the air. That is a crime and the planner that ok’d that variance should be fired.

]]> By: patrick http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54831 patrick Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:42:17 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54831 "The building will have 23 units and parking for only two cars, both of which will be car-share vehicles" I love that, I think every new development should have only car-share parking. “The building will have 23 units and parking for only two cars, both of which will be car-share vehicles”

I love that, I think every new development should have only car-share parking.

]]> By: Alan from Berkeley http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54821 Alan from Berkeley Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:11:33 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54821 One thing that helps with both parking economics and the perceptions of potential residents is to de-link parking from units: require the new renter or condo purchaser to affirmatively select and separately pay for any dedicated parking space. That can happen independently of the parking-to-units ratio, and in buildings with a ratio less than one is a better idea than including parking only with the more expensive of the units. This was an "encouraged" idea in Berkeley's Climate Action Plan and may still emerge in our Downtown Area Plan (currently the subject of another passionate battle that may only be resolved with a November 2010 ballot measure). Those of us favoring a denser downtown with 5000 new residents see unit-specific dedicated parking as an unaffordable luxury and a bad social use of center-city space. One thing that helps with both parking economics and the perceptions of potential residents is to de-link parking from units: require the new renter or condo purchaser to affirmatively select and separately pay for any dedicated parking space. That can happen independently of the parking-to-units ratio, and in buildings with a ratio less than one is a better idea than including parking only with the more expensive of the units.

This was an “encouraged” idea in Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan and may still emerge in our Downtown Area Plan (currently the subject of another passionate battle that may only be resolved with a November 2010 ballot measure). Those of us favoring a denser downtown with 5000 new residents see unit-specific dedicated parking as an unaffordable luxury and a bad social use of center-city space.

]]> By: jamie http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54811 jamie Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:25 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54811 Hard to think of any neighborhood in the Bay Area with more transit options than Rincon Hill .... the 0.5 to 1 parking ratio works fine, especially if there are some car shares onsite too. Now if we could get a congestion charge to drive downtown during the worst hours, say 4pm - 7pm Monday through Friday ... encourage those living outside of SF to use transit to get here ... that'd be a bold step forward too. Hard to think of any neighborhood in the Bay Area with more transit options than Rincon Hill …. the 0.5 to 1 parking ratio works fine, especially if there are some car shares onsite too. Now if we could get a congestion charge to drive downtown during the worst hours, say 4pm – 7pm Monday through Friday … encourage those living outside of SF to use transit to get here … that’d be a bold step forward too.

]]> By: jombee http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/some-bay-area-developers-ditch-the-extra-parking-spaces-for-more-units/comment-page-1/#comment-54781 jombee Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:19:47 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=83341#comment-54781 Bringing more cars into the city affects everyone. Exemptions to parking maximums should never be granted. Bringing more cars into the city affects everyone. Exemptions to parking maximums should never be granted.

]]>