
Apartment Blockers: Parking Rules Raise Your Rent - jseliger
http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/22/apartment-blockers/
======
IvyMike
I don't mind most driving, so self-driving cars are kinda "meh" to me.

But then I think about the ability to pull up to a building and tell my car
"go park yourself" and it becomes awesome.

All sorts of great efficiencies pop out, too: a lot filled with self-driving
cars could pack them tightly, and when a car needs to be removed, all the
other cars move out of the way. Offices, closed businesses, schools, etc, with
parking spaces could all become ad-hoc lots at night. (I'd make city
ordinances requiring this for building approval). Your car can park in a
remote area somewhere, and when you want to leave, your car comes and finds
you. Imagine taking a post-dinner stroll towards my car, and at some point you
meet up.

~~~
trafficlight
I think the concept owning your car will become mostly a thing of the past.
Most of the time, I just need a car to get me from point A to point B. When
the car is not performing that function, it's just sitting, taking up space.

Rather than making a car payment, I'd rather pay for a car-on-demand service.
Whenever I need a ride, I make a request and a car appears.

Coupling with an electric car makes sense, too. The car will always be
charged, or alternatively, only a charged car will pick me up.

~~~
saidajigumi
Relevant to your point and this article's Northwest angle, I note that the
Car2Go[1] service has become fairly prominent in the Seattle area. It's quite
different to services like ZipCar, in that Car2Go has worked out a few key
details:

1\. Smartphone apps that show you the location of the nearest cars and allow
various interaction.

2\. The ability to walk up to any car not reserved/in use and take it.

3\. Parking deals with the city -- just park in any public parking spot, no
worries about metering.

These attributes raise convenience considerably vs. some competing carshare
services and remove ceilings on how many vehicles can be injected into the
local system.

For anyone following Horace Dediu's Asymcar[2] podcast, Car2Go fits right into
their theme of exploring what will really disrupt personal transportation as
we know it today.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car2Go](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car2Go)
[2] [http://www.asymcar.com/](http://www.asymcar.com/)

------
dbg31415
Articles like this annoy because the underlying tone is, "Well, you shouldn't
have a car." But I don't know anyone over 30 who doesn't have one. The bus
system doesn't go everywhere. How would I get to Mt. Rainier, or get around
Bainbridge, or for that matter over to work? I've taken the bus and I've
driven from Seattle to Redmond; the bus takes twice as long for me to get from
home to where I'm going.

Rent goes up. If you don't like paying high rent, move to Texas.

~~~
dredmorbius
_I don 't know anyone over 30 who doesn't have one_

For people _under_ 30, not owning a car is becoming increasingly the rule. And
I know several above-30 types without cars. They may rely on transit-only (a
city designed to be unfriendly to cars is much friendlier to transit and
walking), hire cars as needed, or use a car-share service (which still greatly
reduces car dependence and parking requirements). Self-driving vehicles which
can park themselves elsewhere are another obvious solution.

In crowded cities, cars _aren 't_ faster than buses (though they're typically
more flexible for multi-stop trips), and parking requirements at your
destination greatly increase costs ($20 - $50+/day isn't unusual).

~~~
dman
I saw quite a few people revisit their decision about not owning a car post
hurricane sandy. Zipcar etc are well and good for everyday use but good luck
for peak usage scenarios during natural disasters.

~~~
dredmorbius
Often a bike or access to some form of group/mass transit is going to do you
much better in an evacuation situation: you can navigate through debris-
clogged streets, standing water, and above all else, traffic jams.

------
schoper
Cars ruin everything about urban life. Look at what happened to SF when the
automobile came on the scene in the 30's:

[http://www.oldsf.org](http://www.oldsf.org)

~~~
dkersten
I would love a car-less city where the only vehicles are public transport or
commercial delivery vehicles, with cycling being the only allowed personal
transport.

~~~
Jacqued
I think this vision is shared by some of the town councils in big european
towns.

For example in Paris, the current mayor (who has been in office since 2001)
has made it his mission to make the city as unfriendly as possible for cars to
discourage people to come to Paris in their cars.

This includes massively removing parking spots, making parking expensive all
over the city, removing lanes wherever there are roadworks (to add sidewalks,
bike or bus lanes, trees...) and banning cars from some of the most important
streets in the city (most notably the embankments).

So far it has stopped the growth in car usage in Paris. I don't think people
are ready for an outright ban on cars yet, but this surely seems like an
effective strategy to prepare them for it. Maybe when the Supermetro is done
and suburbans can more effectively use public transportation the city will
move in this direction.

However : do you consider taxis as public transport ? What about Autolibs
(shared electric cars you can pick up all around the city) ?

Edit with some stats : Parisians overwhelmingly use public transport (63%) and
not their cars (13%) to go to work. More people walk than take their cars
(14%). So that would be an indication of success, however a brief walk outside
at 6PM will help you see that suburbans still massively come to Paris in their
cars :)

~~~
dkersten
_do you consider taxis as public transport ?_

I would like to say no, but I do see the need for personal transport on
occasion. I would need to think this through more, but I notice that in my
local city, the place is awash in taxis - I think the numbers would have to be
regulated better and people encouraged to use buses/trams/trains/bikes
instead. Ideally, the public transport would be (somehow.. I admit) set up so
that the need for individual point to point transport would only rarely be
required...

Of course, this is easier said than done!

------
kalleboo
In my city, the daily commute traffic breaks down like this:

* Car 40%

* Bicycle 36%

* Bus 16%

* Walking 8%

I'm nearing 30 and none of my friends who live in the city own a car. Many
subscribe to zipcar-type services for when they need to make trips. They're
also all childless - all my friends with kids moved out of the city.

IMO, cars and cities are a bad mix. They make cities far more unfriendly, they
increase sprawl, and cause a spiral of adding more cars, increasing sprawl
further, etc.

------
tghw
The primary reason they dig those holes is because tall buildings need solid
foundations. It's not as if they can just build the building at ground level
if only it weren't for those darn cars.

Foundation depths vary based on too many factors, but a ballpark number for a
midsize apartment building is probably in the 15-30% range. So if you have 16
floors, you could reasonably expect to have 2-4 stories below grade. What else
would you put there?

Even if you only needed 2 stories of foundation depth, digging an additional 2
for parking is relatively cheap compared to the first two, since the equipment
is already out there.

~~~
Retric
You don't need a full basement for foundations, large pilings are far cheaper.
They can easily support 30 story buildings without a basement in an earthquake
just fine.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_foundation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_foundation)

~~~
tghw
True, but most apartment buildings will want at least one basement layer for
mechanical and storage.

------
awda
Maybe First Hill is special, but parking in Seattle proper and Capitol Hill
(both near First Hill) is extremely crowded and finding a spot can be hard.
The mythical building plot described in the article sounds wonderful relative
to my experience:

"Overnight, when your tenants’ cars will most likely be at home, the office
buildings’ garages are usually empty. And, of course, there are hundreds of
curb spaces within six blocks of your building, though neighbors’ vehement
territoriality about “their” spaces would make it impolitic to mention those
in an appeal to the city for a parking waiver. Odds are that your tenants
could secure whatever parking they wanted for much less than $250 a month per
spot."

The cheapest parking I could get on Cap Hill was $150/mo, and it was in one of
these subterranean garages.

Speaking of garages, any reason you can't build the garage on levels 1-2 and
put apartments on 3-5?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> The cheapest parking I could get on Cap Hill was $150/mo, and it was in one
> of these subterranean garages.

I always guffaw when I see American prices, which are so much lower than the
rest of the world. The cheapest spot I could get near my apartment in Beijing
is around $400/month, and its not available. Switzerland was even worse. But
when I was at UW, it was only $50/month (back in the late 90s). Why is the USA
so cheap?

~~~
awda
Easy answer? Low population density, lots of space, relative to Europe
(totally unfamiliar with Beijing). UW (U district) is a bit cheaper than
capital hill (when I lived in U district, 1 parking spot came w/ rent, an
additional spot was $50/mo).

~~~
seanmcdirmid
When I was living there, I never heard of free parking in the U district. You
always paid for your slot in the garage even if you only had one car. Many
apartment buildings lacked any parking at all.

It is true that the US has lots of space, but the cost of driving (and
parking) is still ridiculously low compared to other countries with similar
characteristics (Canada/Australia)...and people still complain about it being
too expensive (god, $4/gallon gas, outrage!).

------
chiph
Not sure why they don't investigate automated parking systems. Their parking
density is much higher than lots or decks.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOR25PjV0wI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOR25PjV0wI)

~~~
abirkill
There is at least one residential building in Vancouver, BC that has
implemented an automated system, but according to this article, the cost per
space is almost double that of a conventional space:

[http://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-robo-garage-
lowers-...](http://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-robo-garage-lowers-
security-fears-1.385058)

Also, having spoken to someone who lives in that building, it seems to be
disliked by a lot of residents, due to the long waiting times at peak periods.
That's not particularly surprising given there are only two transfer stations.

I guess these systems may work better in retail locations where there is a
steady flow of traffic coming and going through the day, rather than at
residential or office locations where there are very high peaks in demand. To
build enough transfer stations to satisfy the peaks would presumably both be
very expensive, and reduce the space savings that were made.

------
lancewiggs
I would think that contractors need to dig a deep hole to ensure the
foundations of the building are secure - get into the bedrock, especially in
earthquake zones. Whether the car parks are below or above ground is moot.

That said - The High Cost of Free Parking (1) and The Walkable City (2) are
both excellent reads on the matter of parking and car parks. The second is the
more readable.

(1) [http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-
Edition/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-
Edition/dp/193236496X) (2) [http://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-
America/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-
America/dp/0374285810)

~~~
Anechoic
_I would think that contractors need to dig a deep hole to ensure the
foundations of the building are secure - get into the bedrock, especially in
earthquake zones_

Not necessarily, spread footings or piles can work if designed properly and
the soil can support it.

------
rdl
I live in a condo building with maybe 35-40 1br and 2br units on 3 floors,
plus first floor 35 or so units of parking. It doesn't seem unworkable, and a
parking spot in the building is worth at least 100-200/mo to me. I am not sure
how the economics work here but not in the example.

------
Fargren
I feel like I missed something. Why is it that off-street parking must be
subterranean? Is it more expensive to make the building a floor of two taller
and use the first floors for parking? Is this illegal somehow?

~~~
spc476
I was wondering the same thing. The office building I work in has the first
four floors devoted to a parking garage, with floors 5 to 10 as office space.
Why couldn't the same be done for housing?

~~~
thrownaway2424
Because it's hideous? People walking around don't want to walk past the blank
walls or ventilation grates of parking garages. An attractive urban pedestrian
environment needs to have something _different_ and _interesting_ every few
dozen feet. That's why streets with many narrow storefronts are the most
crowded with pedestrians.

~~~
spc476
Here's the building I work in:
[https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=26.200547,-80.149577&spn...](https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=26.200547,-80.149577&spn=0.009241,0.012252&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=26.200361,-80.149577&panoid=5HmWm0fNWGVR0KLEjGk0kQ&cbp=12,276.97,,0,1.5)

You can see the garage entrance to the left, and the garage wraps around
behind the main entrance (a five story open air atrium) to the right hand
side. It doesn't have to be hideous.

~~~
thrownaway2424
I take it you've never been to an actual city.

Nobody cares what this building looks like because nobody would walk to or
past it because it's in the middle of nowhere and there are literally no
sidewalks.

This article is about a real city where people walk to things. Here is a
picture of it.
[https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=ballard+seattle&data=...](https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=ballard+seattle&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-122.384484!3d47.668657!2m2!1f299.14!2f78.3!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1slkWUjACB9rUeHPvMV-
OhRw!2e0!4m11!1m10!4m8!1m3!1d201878!2d-122.235328!3d37.7584754!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!17b1&fid=5)

------
Eliezer
Why is it so hugely expensive to dig holes? You would think this'd be the kind
of work that would be easy to automate.

~~~
joseph_cooney
I'm guessing there is an element of 'you don't know what you're going to find
until you start digging' aspect to it.

~~~
revelation
In Germany and other WW2 theatres, you will commonly find unexploded ordnance.
All work will come to a halt as it has to be removed by experts.

------
moocowduckquack
Install a couple of lifts on the side of the building and put all the parking
on the roof.

~~~
mikeash
That certainly sounds cheap!

------
corresation
This is an awful lot of conjecture, yet remarkably little substance. The core
claim of this purported injustice is that "Digging these holes is
astronomically expensive", with absolutely nothing to qualify it (beyond a
link to an Onion article). The single proof was that LA allowed builders to
re-purpose existing buildings (e.g. turning that old sugar factory into
condos) without satisfying current parking requirements, which has absolutely
nothing to do with the cost on a new build.

Large buildings need a substructure proportional with their height,
_especially_ in an earthquake zone like SF area. Even where non-parking
substructure is built, it usually still requires a complete excavation to
ensure that the materials are appropriate for keeping a skyscraper from
falling over. However more expensive parking is than without, unless an
accounting construction expert wanders in, I draw very little value from
someone looking out of their window and drawing perhaps unsupported
conclusions.

And then even if you assume that parking is more expensive, _most buildings
charge for parking_. Does this cover the extra costs, if any? I don't know,
and neither does the author. Just a perceived injustice and yet another claim
of subsidizing car drivers.

