Urbanism, architecture, transit, strawmen, etc.

[phuqueue]

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.

It's certainly true that car ownership was increasing in the 20s and 30s, but I think you're overstating it a little bit to suggest that a few places offered free parking by choice and thus opened the floodgates. There's really no such thing as "free" parking, somebody has to pay for it. If Nichols and whoever else in charge of the Plaza decided to offer free parking even in the absence of a legal mandate, that decision was still subject to market forces -- he saw some level of demand for parking and provided it as part of his development. I think that in some cases it's perfectly reasonable that a property owner will see good economic reason to cover the cost of parking at his property, but because he has that choice, it's fair to assume that he will provide only the optimal amount of free parking, and also that many other property owners will not make the same choice. Some business owners might see free parking as a way to lure customers, but that parking still has to be paid for, probably in the form of higher prices on the business's products; competitors may attempt to steal away business by not spending money on parking, thus allowing them to undercut his prices. The result is that you probably do end up with some free parking, which will probably be restricted (eg to patrons of that particular business) and will not be nearly as widespread as it is now. Under the current system everyone's got to provide free parking, so everyone just passes the cost along and we've got ample 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.

I didn't necessarily think you meant to say minimum parking had nothing to do with it, but the specific line ("to say it's because of minimum parking is too simple" or something) implied that, since it lacked any qualifiers.

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.

The first paragraph here raises some red flags primarily because the examples cited are postwar boom communities in which various incentives, not just parking, compelled people to drive. The calculus there is going to be different from what I described above; if you don't provide parking in Houston or some such place, nobody's going to be able to get to your store in the first place to enjoy your lower prices, which in any case will probably be only negligibly lower anyway because land in the Houston hinterlands is going to be comparatively cheap. Providing free parking in a fresh development on land of low value is not the same thing as establishing minimum requirements in a densely built up older city. It's probably fair to say that free parking is a necessity in the Sunbelt, and at this point it probably is even in parts of some older cities like KC and St. Louis, although it certainly didn't used to be. Once you've already distorted the market you can't point to the results of that market distortion as proof that there never was any distortion in the first place.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There's really no such thing as "free" parking, somebody has to pay for it. If Nichols and whoever else in charge of the Plaza decided to offer free parking even in the absence of a legal mandate, that decision was still subject to market forces -- he saw some level of demand for parking and provided it as part of his development. I think that in some cases it's perfectly reasonable that a property owner will see good economic reason to cover the cost of parking at his property, but because he has that choice, it's fair to assume that he will provide only the optimal amount of free parking, and also that many other property owners will not make the same choice. Some business owners might see free parking as a way to lure customers, but that parking still has to be paid for, probably in the form of higher prices on the business's products; competitors may attempt to steal away business by not spending money on parking, thus allowing them to undercut his prices. The result is that you probably do end up with some free parking, which will probably be restricted (eg to patrons of that particular business) and will not be nearly as widespread as it is now. Under the current system everyone's got to provide free parking, so everyone just passes the cost along and we've got ample parking.

Let's see. I can go on the internet to the Best Buy web site and buy items I want. Or I can drive to astore and buy the items I want. I am going to pay the same price so how does free parking affect the price? And don't forget, I just might get "free shipping"with the internet.

If there were "free parking" much like many of you seem to be saying then why can't I drive downtown to just walk around and park in any garage I want to and not pay? Or I can work for one employer downtown who pays for my parking or for another employer who doesn't, but will pay a portion of my monthly bus pass that I isn't feasibile to use because of where I live and my hours?

The point is minimum parking requirements causes free parking I just don't buy. Now, if the conclusion was "Minimum Parking Requirements An Oversupply of Parking Spaces Which Causes Lower Parking Prices" I could accept. But then that is probably not 'sexy' enough of a title. Or "Mimimum Parking Requirements Causes Too Many Parking Structures And Affects Building Construction Costs and Development" but then that is probably too long of a title for a paper.

I am not a coffee drinker. In the past when we I went out for breakfast coffee drinkers received unlimited "free" coffee but I would pay a rather high price for orange juice and extra for a refill. Now one might have to pay for coffee but it is still unlimited and I pay a higher price for my one glass of orange juice. How a business prices its products is a decision that has many factors, much like how a business prices parking or offers employee benefits.

I have never seen the parking lot full at the Burger King at Main and Armour Boulevard

From FANG

My points would be:
Are all of those parking spaces the result of "mimimum parking requirements"?
The restaurant may feel that it is best to have too many parking spaces instead of not enough. That way no customer is turned away because of no place to park in the lot.
Whoever developed the lot had to buy all that way available at the location. In other words he couldn't tell the buyer I only need 80% of the lot so you can keep the other 20%.
And instead of maintaining landscapping on parking not needed it just might be cheaper to pave it.
I am sure there might be other points that affected what was built and zoning with a minimum number of parking spaces might not be one.

[smh]

Wow.

[phuqueue]

There's really no such thing as "free" parking, somebody has to pay for it. If Nichols and whoever else in charge of the Plaza decided to offer free parking even in the absence of a legal mandate, that decision was still subject to market forces -- he saw some level of demand for parking and provided it as part of his development. I think that in some cases it's perfectly reasonable that a property owner will see good economic reason to cover the cost of parking at his property, but because he has that choice, it's fair to assume that he will provide only the optimal amount of free parking, and also that many other property owners will not make the same choice. Some business owners might see free parking as a way to lure customers, but that parking still has to be paid for, probably in the form of higher prices on the business's products; competitors may attempt to steal away business by not spending money on parking, thus allowing them to undercut his prices. The result is that you probably do end up with some free parking, which will probably be restricted (eg to patrons of that particular business) and will not be nearly as widespread as it is now. Under the current system everyone's got to provide free parking, so everyone just passes the cost along and we've got ample parking.

Let's see. I can go on the internet to the Best Buy web site and buy items I want. Or I can drive to astore and buy the items I want. I am going to pay the same price so how does free parking affect the price? And don't forget, I just might get "free shipping"with the internet.

Are you serious? Have you ever actually ordered anything off the Internet? The comparison of Best Buy's website to its brick and mortar stores isn't applicable since it's all one entity, but the whole reason sites like Amazon gained prominence is that they can sell for significantly less than traditional stores. Of course, not all of those savings are because they don't have to provide free parking to customers, but attaching a parking lot to a brick and mortar store is one cost that they don't have to incur (in addition to all the other costs associated with brick and mortar stores).

If there were "free parking" much like many of you seem to be saying then why can't I drive downtown to just walk around and park in any garage I want to and not pay? Or I can work for one employer downtown who pays for my parking or for another employer who doesn't, but will pay a portion of my monthly bus pass that I isn't feasibile to use because of where I live and my hours?

Nobody said all parking was free, but if you drive downtown and can't find somewhere to park for free, you're clearly not looking very hard. There's tons of free surface parking throughout downtown, generally in the form of unmetered street parking. Garages typically aren't free for any random guy off the street, although for instance the garage by Cosentino's is free for patrons of AMC Mainstreet (and probably Cosentino's itself and probably other nearby businesses, but Mainstreet is the only one I've ever used it for). You don't think the garage itself was free to construct though, do you? Nor that the land on which it was built was free to acquire? So how do you think the garage is paid for?

The point is minimum parking requirements causes free parking I just don't buy. Now, if the conclusion was "Minimum Parking Requirements An Oversupply of Parking Spaces Which Causes Lower Parking Prices" I could accept. But then that is probably not 'sexy' enough of a title. Or "Mimimum Parking Requirements Causes Too Many Parking Structures And Affects Building Construction Costs and Development" but then that is probably too long of a title for a paper.

This is literally exactly what I fucking said earlier in the thread! I'm not fighting your assertion that some places do offer free parking even without minimum requirements, but without a legal requirement that decision is ultimately market-driven. Meanwhile where requirements do exist they lead to an excess of parking, much of which is free, the rest of which is cheaper than it otherwise would be. I have literally made this exact point a few posts up. As usual you're too busy building up strawmen and then arguing against those to understand what's actually being said to you.

I am not a coffee drinker. In the past when we I went out for breakfast coffee drinkers received unlimited "free" coffee but I would pay a rather high price for orange juice and extra for a refill. Now one might have to pay for coffee but it is still unlimited and I pay a higher price for my one glass of orange juice. How a business prices its products is a decision that has many factors, much like how a business prices parking or offers employee benefits.

No shit, but every cost a business incurs has to be built into its prices. If a business offers "free parking," whether by choice or by government mandate, that parking has to be paid for somehow. Land isn't free, a garage isn't free, even a surface lot isn't free. If a store is offering free parking to customers, the cost of it must be built into its prices; if a business is offering free parking to its employees, that cost comes out of their paychecks, or maybe out of dividends to be paid to shareholders, or from somewhere. In no event is free parking literally "free." Everything costs money, including a parking lot. Some will choose to make that purchase even if they don't have to, many won't. This is really very simple.

[smh]

This is the greatest thread ever written. I've learned a ton from phuqueue's posts and gotten frustratingly good entertainment from AKP's "well-reasoned responses."

Thank you both.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Nobody said all parking was free, but if you drive downtown and can't find somewhere to park for free, you're clearly not looking very hard. There's tons of free surface parking throughout downtown, generally in the form of unmetered street parking.

And much if not all of that street parking was free even before minimum parking requirements.

By the way I have used the internet to order items. Yes, for some of the items there were great deals, others not so hot (savings because of no sales tax not item price).

In summary:
I do not believe that minimum parking requirements = free parking, they do influence parking rates though.
The problem may not be minimum parking requirements, the problem may be the numbers being used in the parking requirements.
Doing away with minimum parking requirements may not solve the problem brought out in his paper. Those problems existed before minimum parking requirements, minimum parking requirements just compounded those problems.

[phuqueue]

Nobody said all parking was free, but if you drive downtown and can't find somewhere to park for free, you're clearly not looking very hard. There's tons of free surface parking throughout downtown, generally in the form of unmetered street parking.

And much if not all of that street parking was free even before minimum parking requirements.

Whether this is true or not, it's completely beside the point.

By the way I have used the internet to order items. Yes, for some of the items there were great deals, others not so hot (savings because of no sales tax not item price).

Oh well nevermind then, akp bought something on a website that was the exact same price as in a brick and mortar store so actually e-retailers don't undercut B&M prices after all and their success is due entirely to the fact that they don't have to charge sales tax.

In summary:
I do not believe that minimum parking requirements = free parking, they do influence parking rates though.
The problem may not be minimum parking requirements, the problem may be the numbers being used in the parking requirements.
Doing away with minimum parking requirements may not solve the problem brought out in his paper. Those problems existed before minimum parking requirements, minimum parking requirements just compounded those problems.

The problem is that we have a grotesque overabundance of parking, so no, that problem didn't exist before minimum parking requirements were established.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The problem is that we have a grotesque overabundance of parking, so no, that problem didn't exist before minimum parking requirements were established.

Reread. The problem may not be minimum parking requirements but the number of parking spaces required in the minimum's.

Anyway, if you want to bow down to Shoup and take everything he says as being the absolute truth then go ahead. I am not saying there isn't some truth to what he says but he does seem to ignore other factors that are involved in the complex matter of how we got to where we are.

[pash]

.

[phuqueue]

The problem is that we have a grotesque overabundance of parking, so no, that problem didn't exist before minimum parking requirements were established.

Reread. The problem may not be minimum parking requirements but the number of parking spaces required in the minimum's.

Anyway, if you want to bow down to Shoup and take everything he says as being the absolute truth then go ahead. I am not saying there isn't some truth to what he says but he does seem to ignore other factors that are involved in the complex matter of how we got to where we are.

"Reread"? You quote a line back to me in which I say that the problem is too much parking, and then you tell me to reread because in your estimation the problem is actually too much parking. Uhhhh...no shit? But the main point I was making is that minimum requirements have caused there too be too much parking, something you don't even appear to dispute. Your only point of contention, I guess, is that the requirements could be tweaked to correct the problem. And I'll grant that it's true that you can imagine some ideal world in which minimum parking requirements are somehow set to perfectly reflect the proper amount of parking that should actually be provided, but like pash said, that doesn't actually happen (and if it did, the requirements would be superfluous anyway, mandating the result the market would have reached on its own in the first place).

I still haven't even read Shoup's paper, for all I know I've made arguments in this thread that aren't entirely congruent with his (although it sounds like we agree on the broad strokes at the very least, and maybe we are perfectly aligned). I'm not bowing down to Shoup, I'm bowing down to basic rational thinking in which A, minimum parking, logically leads to B, an oversupply of parking, and when you see B in your real world experience and you know that A exists you can deduce that A did in fact lead to B in practice. You seem to treat these as being related only nebulously if at all. Not only have I not denied that "other factors" exist (although I don't think you've done a very good job pointing out the relevant ones), I have flatly stated as much in several posts. Those other factors are not what we're talking about in this thread, although they've been discussed countless times in other threads on this board.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[phuqueue]

There are also some anecdotes like the following, which I found interesting because we know so little about the true demand for parking here since people generally don't get to choose whether to pay for it:

A condominium development located only a block from the MetroLink public transit system in St. Louis sold parking spaces separately from the units. The development found that 20–25 percent of buyers, when offered the choice, opted not to purchase a parking space.

I lived in St. Louis until about six weeks ago and I rented, didn't buy, but we had off street parking behind the building for a flat fee that I never paid for because I didn't want to pay any of the other costs associated with car ownership (gas, insurance, maintenance, etc). I lived about an eight minute walk from a Metrolink station, with a bus stop literally outside my front door. I'm just one person so I don't claim to be representative, and I'll openly admit that living in St. Louis without a car was extremely difficult, but I did it.

[warwickland]

Yeah, I lived car-lite in KC, I went a couple of months without using my car once. I biked everywhere, for groceries at sunfresh.

[FangKC]

I lived in downtown Kansas City for 2.5 years without a car when I first moved here from New York City. The only thing that was problematic for me was grocery shopping. This was before there was a grocery store downtown.

I used to take the 51 bus to the Westport Sunfresh. I finally bought a car because of the winter months. Standing in the rain and snow--loaded down with groceries--waiting for the bus sucked.

[warwickland]

I was lucky enough to be car-lite in KC during a winter somewhat similar (maybe a little cooler) to this one. It was great. I think all the winters (I haven't looked) since have been average to severe.

[chingon]

Grocery shopping without a car sucks everywhere, though. Even with good transit, it's a pain to shlep all that shit around, and having to buy a few groceries every day or two at a corner market is pretty inconvenient. It's even worse if you are shopping for a family. That's why grocery-delivery services are so popular in cities with lower rates of auto ownership.

[aknowledgeableperson]

We have to do something about those minimum parking requirements. On a recently approved project the minimum required number of spaces are 454. But the project was approved with 804 spaces.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

I lived in downtown Kansas City for 2.5 years without a car when I first moved here from New York City. The only thing that was problematic for me was grocery shopping. This was before there was a grocery store downtown.

I used to take the 51 bus to the Westport Sunfresh. I finally bought a car because of the winter months. Standing in the rain and snow--loaded down with groceries--waiting for the bus sucked.

It's really easy to get groceries now downtown without a car....swing by, pick up a couple bags of stuff in the reusable canvas bags, walk home. Keeps me from buying too much crap I end up throwing away as well.