Urbanism, architecture, transit, strawmen, etc.

[FangKC]

I lived in three different apartments in Manhattan. I, and most of my neighbors, bought our fruit and vegetables from corner bodegas in the neighborhoods because they were almost always cheaper than in chain grocery stores. It was also easy to pick these items up on the way home from work because one almost always passed one on the way. I never had any trouble finding produce in neighborhood bodegas. They always had it out in front of the store on the sidewalk. In fact, produce was what I bought mostly there, and my staple items at the chain groceries. The bodegas often had delis and hot food items in them as well to take out.

I was referring more about life in Manhattan versus the other boroughs.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[slimwhitman]

Sorry, but I must return to the unexpectedly hugely interesting subject of parking. I just read "The High Cost of Free Parking" [PDF], a fifteen-year-old paper by Donald Shoup on the hidden costs of minimum-parking ordinances. Shoup, who is an economist and professor of urban planning at UCLA.....

If you like Shoup (and everyone should!), you should read the magazine he edits. Really good stuff.

http://www.uctc.net/access/archive.shtml

[grovester]

so had anyone forwarded these to Sly?

[aknowledgeableperson]

As Shoup peels back the layers, it becomes blindingly apparent how much minimum-parking ordinances have re-shaped our cities and, by socializing the cost of car ownership, driven people to drive.

Interesting paper but there is more to the problem than "minimum-parking ordinances". Afterall, UCLA did not build those parking structures because of a city ordinance but because it had to accomodate a need. And many new buildings in a downtown or urban location would not be built without some parking (surface or garage) just because it has to compete with other buildings nearby that do offer parking for its tenants. So the question would be how much more parking do the ordinances require above what the office building, or retail building, developer would build without the requirement?
From what I can tell before WW II parking garages did exist but they were mostly freestanding buildings separate from the nearby office/retail construction. For me the cities made a mistake by requiring the builders to build garages tied to the building instead of building central city garages to handle multiple buildings in an area, much like a town might have a surface parking lot to serve a central commercial/retail area in addition to on-street parking. Doing so shifts the cost of construction from the building owner to the city. The tradeoff would be to have your urban businesses in a better situation to compete with suburban office/retail that has to build and maintain its own parking.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The point I was making is that if a building developer, whether owner-occupied or tenant-occupied, was going to include 400 spaces no matter what but the minimum is 450 then only the 50 would be the excess. The writer is trying to use a cause/effect but from what I can tell using the example above is that all 450 spaces are the problem with his cause/effect.

And he fails to take into account the use of autos before WW II. Not sure when minimum parking requirements came into being but given his data very few cities had them shortly after WW II so maybe fewer if any before WW II. For KCMO given the declining use of public transit before WW II and I would assume the increase use of autos at that time people choose the auto even though they bore the full cost of parking.

In other words the minimums used in minimum parking requirements may not be realistic in all cases but they do not mandate free parking.

Finally, a question would be, using the example above, and your statement "As is emphasized throughout the paper, because minimum-parking requirements are so high, they are essentially a mandate for free parking; these ordinances effectively incorporate the cost of parking into the cost of construction." If the builder was going to include 400 spaces in his initial plan those costs would already be incorporated into his cost of construction. Do those "identified evils" apply to those 400 spaces? Or only to the 50?

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The point I take from the paper is that the writer has a stance that minimum parking requirements result in free parking and then uses some data to support his stance. That is a theory I do not accept. I just see too many holes or too many jumps to come to his conclusion. What might be possible to accept that minimum parking requirements does have some influence on free parking but it is not the driving force behind it. But then I also have the problem with the usage of free parking, Unless one is talking about free parking at suburban shopping malls or office buildings. But in an urban enviroment where there are parking meters on the streets and paid off-street parking it doens't pan out.

[phuqueue]

But then I also have the problem with the usage of free parking, Unless one is talking about free parking at suburban shopping malls or office buildings. But in an urban enviroment where there are parking meters on the streets and paid off-street parking it doens't pan out.

I literally cannot remember the last time I paid to park anywhere in KC -- downtown, the Plaza, Westport/midtown, anywhere. It's true that there are meters and other paid parking around these places, but there's also so much free parking that I never get stuck paying. This is not just about "suburban shopping malls," the most urban areas of KC are still overflowing with free parking.

[warwickland]

Hell, I can't remember the last time I paid for parking in Chicago. Now, there are times I have parked in my friends 'hood and taken the el to the hotel.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Let's say I do a study that comes to the conclusion that video games cause this nation's problems of a large portion of our youth being overweight. Well, that is partially true. But there are also many other reason why they are overweight, and those other reasons probably have a greater effect. I equate minimum parking requirements to video games. Or one can use the reason we have high health care costs because people don't pay enough of out-of-pocket costs.

It's true that there are meters and other paid parking around these places, but there's also so much free parking that I never get stuck paying.

You and others might never get stuck paying but as you say there is parking around where one does have to pay out-of-pocket which many do pay for. So, while there is some free parking there are pockets in town where it is not free.


The reasons why we directly pay for parking or not directly pay for parking are varied and many. But to say it is because of minimum parking requirements makes it too simple.

[phuqueue]

Let's say I do a study that comes to the conclusion that video games cause this nation's problems of a large portion of our youth being overweight. Well, that is partially true. But there are also many other reason why they are overweight, and those other reasons probably have a greater effect. I equate minimum parking requirements to video games. Or one can use the reason we have high health care costs because people don't pay enough of out-of-pocket costs.

So what are the "other reasons" that probably have "greater effect"? I don't think anybody believes minimum parking requirements are the only factor, but the other relevant factors are all of a similar nature, which is to say, the other factors all similarly subsidize driving and mask its true costs. Minimum parking is just one piece of this grotesque puzzle and I don't think anybody in this thread has suggested otherwise -- but it's the one piece we're focused on discussing right now.

It's true that there are meters and other paid parking around these places, but there's also so much free parking that I never get stuck paying.

You and others might never get stuck paying but as you say there is parking around where one does have to pay out-of-pocket which many do pay for. So, while there is some free parking there are pockets in town where it is not free.

So? Your supposition was that free parking in urban areas "doesn't pan out." It obviously does, because there's tons of it. Pointing to the fact that parking is not exclusively free doesn't change the fact that a great deal of parking is free. That's to say nothing of the fact that even paid parking may be far cheaper than it would be in the absence of market distortions. I have no idea what market rate would be for parking in KC if we could rewind to an era of higher density and fewer parking spaces, but it's probably fair to assume it would be dramatically more expensive. Last time I was in Chicago we went downtown for a movie and paid $14 to park for two hours (we had already been out and about so decided to just go straight downtown -- if we'd known it was going to be that much, we'd have dropped the car at home and taken the train). Granted KC is not Chicago and never has been, but it still has some of the cheapest parking of any large city I've ever been to.

The reasons why we directly pay for parking or not directly pay for parking are varied and many. But to say it is because of minimum parking requirements makes it too simple.

I haven't actually read the paper yet, so I don't know what its precise thesis is, but I don't think anybody in this thread has suggested that minimum parking requirements alone are responsible for all parking-related problems in the city. On the other hand, so suggest that minimum parking requirements have nothing at all to do with it is patently false. Even an elementary grasp of basic supply and demand would suffice to understand that much, without pash even having spelled it out in as much detail as he has so far.

[slimwhitman]

What I love about AKP is that he tests his debating skills here on the forum as a way to make us make better arguments to prove our point. Without him, we wouldn't have to prove, double-prove and triple-prove the validity of our opinion or research.

[aknowledgeableperson]

So what are the "other reasons" that probably have "greater effect"?
...
On the other hand, so suggest that minimum parking requirements have nothing at all to do with it is patently false. Even an elementary grasp of basic supply and demand would suffice to understand that much, without pash even having spelled it out in as much detail as he has so far.

One could say free parking in other locations came first had probably had a greater effect. Go back to a time before minimum parking requirements. Even with a greater amount of mass transit than now in the 20's and 30's people were leaving mass transit to go to the auto., and I would assume paying the full cost of parking in downtown office buildings. Parking garages were utilized on the Plaza without minimum parking requirements and there was the enticement of free parking for shoppers. The 31st and Troost area also was a center for shopping and it too had free parking and its stores did not have minimum parking requirements. During WW II many defense plants around the country were built away from the city core. There might have been some public transit but I would assume many workers arrived via auto and utilized free parking (again no minimum parking requirements). And then after the war there was the housing boom with retail following it and new shopping with free parking (and many of the first probably without minimum parking requirements).

So maybe one could say free parking begat minimum parking requirements which begat free parking.

I might have implied or wrongly stated that minimum parking requirements had nothing to do with free parking but if you look at the last few postings I have not stated that.

By the way, here is another opinion:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/donald-s ... e-parking/

My post pointed out that many municipalities do not have minimum-parking requirements, but businesses still offer plenty of free parking to their employees and customers. Shoup asks for “a list of some of these.” Virtually all counties in Texas, most counties in Nevada, and many counties in Indiana have no minimum-parking requirements, and I am sure I could find counties in many other states as well. Unlike California, where Shoup lives, and Oregon, where I live, these states do not restrict urban development to within city limits or urban-growth boundaries, and developments in unincorporated parts of these counties offer plenty of free parking.
...
That said, I think Shoup’s worries about the “high cost” of parking are overblown. As I pointed out in my first post, surface parking is cheap, and even structured parking is not terribly expensive in the long run. Most of Shoup’s analysis is not of the high cost of free parking but the high cost of minimum-parking requirements, and there the cost is only of the spaces that developers are forced to provide that they wouldn’t otherwise provide. Shoup and I seem to agree that businesses who want to free parking should be allowed to do so.

Unfortunately, many urban planners disagree; they want to set maximum-parking limits, and they often cite Shoup in their plans and proposals. The negative effects of such limits are likely to be as bad if not worse than minimum-parking requirements. Planners promote such limits in order to discourage driving, which planners say is bad.
...
Although Shoup teaches in an urban planning school, he is actually an economist, and he and I share many areas of agreement. I won’t even mind if it turns out that I am wrong: if cities get rid of minimum-parking requirements without imposing maximum-parking limits and it leads businesses to charge for parking that are now offering it for free, that’s just the market at work. My only concern is that many planners are using Shoup’s work to promote their own coercive agendas. I hope he responds to them as vigorously as he responded to me.

[FangKC]

There are also other hidden costs to minimum parking requirements and bad zoning decisions. Making parking so easy and abundant has had long-term health effects on our population. No one is required to walk anywhere. People burn few calories in their day-to-day activities of movement like they used to in the past. Everyone thinks living in New York City is so stressful, and assumes that people there don't live as long because of stress. However, that isn't borne out by statistics. People living in Manhattan live just as long or longer than the average American. They get more physical exercise just by passive walking.

I heard this just last night on KCPT:

Many Americans face more stress during than their commute than in their job.*

Children in many neighborhoods cannot do anything without being driven somewhere.*

People born after 1980 are three times more likely to be obese than those born before.*

Diabetes has doubled in the last couple of decades.*

Two out of seven people applying to the military are ineligible because of obesity.*

* Points made by Richard Jackson MD, UCLA Department of Public Health, Designing Healthy Communties, during interview on Tavis Smiley (Jan. 31, 2012)

http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ ... ning-laws/

http://designinghealthycommunities.org/ ... -our-host/

[FangKC]

Other questions: are so many parking spaces needed if you can incorporate worker housing near employment centers, retail, and restaurants? For example, should UMB, Commerce, Missouri Trust, and US Bank downtown extend cheap mortgage rates to their employees who live in downtown housing?

Do cities lose potential sales and property tax revenue when they zone for too much parking? How many fast food restaurants have a parking lot that is rarely full? Could two fast food restaurants exist using that number of zoned parking spaces instead of one? When surface lots have spaces that are never used, that square footage doesn't produce any revenue for anyone.

I'll give you some examples. I have never seen the parking lot full at the Burger King at Main and Armour Boulevard. Is it necessary to have that much parking when a restaurant has a drive-up window? Another example, I have never seen the parking lot full at the Burger King on Armour Road in North Kansas City. I have never seen the Aldi parking lot full on Independence Avenue and Winner Road, or the UMB Bank on the same intersection. The parking lot at UMB is rarely even 25 percent full.

Looking at aerial photos of parking lots, you can see which spaces get used and which do not. The darker spaces are where cars sit longer and more frequently--blocking out the sun that bleaches out the darker asphalt, and where oil has dripped from car engines.

Burger King, North Kansas City

[FangKC]

Here is a sample of several retail parcels near Independence Avenue between Wilson Avenue and Winner. Note all the surface parking versus the number of stores and buildings that actually produce revenue for the City.



In the second photo below, I have marked in red the businesses that appear to have excess parking capacity that use up so much space where more businesses could probably exist. I've indicated in blue locations for possible business footprints that could probably easily share parking with existing businesses.

---

Below is a reworking of the intersection around Independence Avenue and Wilson. I've always thought it could be reconfigured in a manner that would allow more businesses to exist at that intersection.

As the intersection is now:



My reworking: