Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/17/when-parking-spaces-shouldnt-be-wasted-on-cars/

by edward • 11 years ago

149 96 11 years ago

goblin89• 11 years ago

In Chiang Mai near Chang Phueak Gate a sizeable paved area in front of a few mini-stores and a Ford dealership every day after 6 PM turns from parking space into busy street food market. Struck me as efficient use of space.

eli2• 11 years ago

I think it's pretty common to use downtown parking lots for events on weekends. I know DC also has "rush hour lanes" -- parking spots that turn into a lane of traffic during rush hour.

moron4hire5• 11 years ago

It also doesn't help that Philadelphia's property taxes are based on decades-old property value assessments, and instead of reassessing buildings, they just jack up the property tax rate. If you build a new building today, you'll get murdered in taxes. That's assuming you don't get murdered on the union labor, or murdered by the unions if you try to avoid using union labor.

So in DC, there isn't as much residential property in the city proper. It's a lot of grandiose buildings meant more for showing off the might of the empire than for fitting in lots of people. Also, the housing tends to be newer, more vertically scaled, with their own parking garages. In Philadelphia, people hold rallies to block construction of parking garages.

hoprocker• 11 years ago

It's nice that this is getting some press, but my sense is that it's no longer news that pedestrianism has been on the rise in dense urban areas for a tick[0].

Thanks to edward for posting this, though!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism

jrells• 11 years ago

Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned.

This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.

Shivetya• 11 years ago

and much more weather dependent.

As long as the businesses if the affected area do not mind the change I see little reason to not do it.

BrainInAJar2• 11 years ago

Vancouver in the winter is rainy and cold, but a refusal to cater to motorists (most of whom are from the suburbs anyway) hasn't negatively impacted businesses, and if anything has positively impacted them

joedrew• 11 years ago

It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.

saosebastiao• 11 years ago

It is possible to have enough parking spots. It is impossible to have enough free parking spots.

sliverstorm2• 11 years ago

That holds when parking is free.

sbov• 11 years ago

I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking.

Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you.

It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per shop.

avn2109• 11 years ago

> "This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots."

Yes, that's the point. This is called modal shift and it is how you incentivize people to stop driving.

chc7• 11 years ago

Wouldn't providing superior alternatives be a better way to incentivize people to stop driving? This seems like encouraging people to eat healthy by hitting them with a baseball bat every time they look at McDonalds.

kansface2• 11 years ago

Roads don't support an infinite density of traffic. You can build all the parking you want in SOMA, but driving there will remain soul crushing.

chc7• 11 years ago

It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are" repurposed into anti-car propaganda?

bradleyjg• 11 years ago

The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use.

It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.

chc7• 11 years ago

The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use.

OK, I'll be more explicit: I don't see any evidence that parking lots are special here. It sounds like you could build a park in the place of just about anything else and get the same benefit. It's not clear that this has anything to do with parking lots per se.

It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.

How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?

VintageCool• 11 years ago

It's not as simple as "people like to go where parks are". Some parks will thrive while others are abandoned, and it depends largely on the surrounding neighborhood.

If you have a thriving neighborhood with people and businesses and things to do, then introducing a sunny park will make it better.

If you have a cluster of office buildings and parking lots with no one living there and no theatres or recreation, then a park will just mean there is even less to do there.

metaphorm4• 11 years ago

why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture?

cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.

chc7• 11 years ago

I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.

brc2• 11 years ago

How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality?

The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist.

leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.

ngoel36• 11 years ago

I wish valet parking was more prevalent. Does the additional real estate space from efficient parking lots/structures justify the labor cost of providing free valet to customers?

Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)

checker• 11 years ago

I'm still waiting on that self-driving car to go park itself.

BrainInAJar2• 11 years ago

Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)

eg bicycles and walking

killdill• 11 years ago

or public transport

TeMPOraL2• 11 years ago

Or buses, trams and trains.

brc2• 11 years ago

Try taking 3 kids to a restaurant on a bicycle in a city.

People who think cars are just plain evil need to realize why they are popular.

calbear81• 11 years ago

You can get valet in most places downtown on-demand with the new valet apps like Luxe and Zirx.

geebee2• 11 years ago

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco.

http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre...

The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening.

It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a lot of time dodging cars on the sidewalk. I didn't notice as much this until I had kids, because while you can dodge the cars coming and going across the sidewalk as an adult (or the cars just parked on the sidewalk, which is common here but nearly impossible without curb cuts), for a kid, it actually is dangerous.

It's a shame that SF allows curb cuts to render even the sidewalks a hazardous place for people (esp kids) to walk, cause let's face it, SF likes to tout itself as a more urban city with a vibrant pedestrian life.

The irony is that curb cuts - the bit of concrete cut out of a curb so a car can get out of the driveway and onto the street, doesn't even increase parking much, since it divides the street up into tiny bits of actual curb too small to fit a car! What it does is take a spot from the public and turns it into a private "reserved" street space. In fact, one study estimated that 50% of garages in the mission are unusable for parking (used instead for storage or other purposes), so really, this is just a reserved parking spot on the street.

sliverstorm2• 11 years ago

Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

Kalium2• 11 years ago

Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.

swang• 11 years ago

The only place that seems relatively sane (and relatively affordable) for families in SF is Noe Valley. If you have _tons_ of money, probably further north like Pac Heights.

And maybe, _maybe_ the area between Haight/Duboce Triangle near Duboce Park where there is a playground for kids seems to attract families. But even still, you can't go out at night around there as there have been lots of violent crimes in that area.

SF is really weird.

tsotha• 11 years ago

People move away when their kids reach school age. Not so much because it isn't kid friendly, but because it's too expensive to raise a family here. Not too many young families can shell out three quarters of a million bucks for a house, and the schools are just so-so.

kansface2• 11 years ago

This is basically impossible for two reasons:

1. The city is too expensive for a family. Practically no one can afford a 3 bedroom house or apartment (or one that will allow pets). Even if you can afford a house in the school district you want, it won't matter because ...

2. Living in a school district is not a guarantee for enrollment in that district. Your kids may be shipped on an hour long bus ride one way to a comparatively bad school across town. Your kids may be sent in opposite directions to different schools. Some changes recently may have improved the situation, if only slightly. All in the name of equality.

dpeck• 11 years ago

Not SF, but I feel exactly the same cars. After having my kid and him getting to the toddler stage I started to actually understand just how hazardous cars can be.

There is nothing I appreciate more these days than a open area with fencing or whatever else to keep cars at bay and let kids run around and be kids without parents having to constantly stay on guard that one of them might make a run for the street.

prawn• 11 years ago

Street parking is really dangerous for kids. No visibility for drivers when a kid is crossing from a footpath and is shorter than many of the parked cars.

Driving an empty street, you can see children leaving their homes, crossing the verge, etc. In a street full of parked cars, you might only have a split second as they leave a gap between two parked cars to cross a street.

As a motorist and a parent of a toddler, I really don't like that from either side.

cylinder2• 11 years ago

Brings me to the broader question: why are Californians so bad at urban planning? LA is a disaster, SF has endless issues and pitfalls, the Bay Area is a sprawling mess.

For a people who seem to pride themselves on being progressive, "enlightened" etc they sure are bad at livability, almost as bad as Texas.

tempestn• 11 years ago

99% Invisible had an episode recently that explained some of LA's sprawl: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-r...

geebee2• 11 years ago

My impression is that poor urban planning correlates more with era than geography. One thing I noticed while traveling in Europe is that while the old urban centers are pretty great, the outskirts, built during the automotive era, are no better than anywhere else. There's just less of it.

That said, in SF (according to the article), some pre-automotive buildings were actually retrofitted to reflect the new car culture and add garages.

dredmorbius• 11 years ago

Contrasting with where exactly?

Los Angeles is not particularly better or worse than any post-WWII automobile-centric metropolis, except that it's bigger than all others in the U.S. Compare it to Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Atlanta (focusing on downtown and suburbs more than the inner city core), and its primary problem is simply scale, not quality. As in -- it doesn't have a markedly worse quality than any of the other examples, it's simply just larger.

San Francisco is actually pretty well planned, but it's got exceptionally high demand, very limited land (courtesy of geography), and sits in the middle of what's essentially a post-WWII urban sprawl. Not quite so bad as L.A., but at ~1/3 the size, only slightly less so. Washington, D.C., is far worse in many respects.

For livable experiences in the U.S., you've generally got to either look to older cities (New York or Boston, say, not that either's wonderful), or smaller towns: Portland, Oregon, Boise, Idaho, Santa Fe, NM, old-town Wilmington in North Carolina, Knoxville, TN, to name a few examples. Some are older, some simply have managed to retain a smaller-town feel.

And the places which are just plain hellholes ... Industrial pop-up towns and burbclaves across the country. Hardly at all restricted to California.

meej2• 11 years ago

The thing that drove me nuts about curb cuts when I lived in SF were all the people who used them as sidewalk-blocking private parking spaces (which is illegal, not that the city ever did anything about it), forcing pedestrians into the street. It was especially maddening when I was pushing my bike up a steep hill; I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for those in wheelchairs or pushing strollers. Car culture makes people astonishingly selfish.

mc322• 11 years ago

The city owns the fist two squares worth of sidewalk, if there are more those belong to the residence and you're allowed to park there. If your vehicle etc. block or intrude on the city parts you do get cited. Enforcement may vary, however. Plus you're free to call the SFmta to ticket violators.

mzs• 11 years ago

This is funny to me cause I came from different background where parking on sidewalk or partially on sidewalk is very common, and there are no cut-outs in the curb. I think your POV is very American, and that is fine. Here are some examples of parking signs, in Poland you will get a ticket for example if you do not park diagonally with at least one tire over the curb when there is a parking sign indicating you must park like so even if your car is a supermini that would fit lengthwise and you wish to save your tire.

http://jamron.org/2013/05/13/polish-parking-signs/

http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen2.shtml

mixmastamyk2• 11 years ago

I've noticed when that is the case in Europe, the curbs are low and rounded, so it isn't hard too drive over them slowly. When they are high and square like in CA, it wouldn't be easy at all to get on the sidewalk (even if the fascist parking dictatorship were to allow it).

antr• 11 years ago

Two talks worth watching regarding this very issue:

Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota: "In no constitution, parking is a constitutional right." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI&feature=youtu.be...

Bruno Moser, Head of Urban Design at Foster + Partners: The amount of space a car requires isa problem yet to be solved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&feature=youtu.be...

moron4hire5• 11 years ago

Philadelphia does not have a very good public transit system. It's fine if all you want to do is get to the center of the city, but to actually travel around the city it sucks.

And parts of Philadelphia have a severe parking problem. I'm convinced that the only reason South Philadelphia works is because 1/4 to 1/2 of its population isn't at home at any one point in time. It's like sailors hot-bedding on a submarine.

So if you're going to be an urbanite in Philadelphia, you have to live your entire life in Philadelphia, in your neighborhood. Which is probably why so many of the people I knew there hadn't even been out of the state, say nothing about to other countries.

For some people, that's all they want, a provincial life. It's not for me. I grew up surrounded by people with that very same attitude, in a rural environment, that attitude of "why would you ever even want to go somewhere else?" I really don't see the difference of it in an urban setting and I really just don't like being around it.

But I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like I'm a complete waste of a person for that reason. Seriously, the title is "Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars", meaning the other times it's still wasted on cars, but it's somehow ok. It's just a smug sort of attitude.

linkregister• 11 years ago

South Philly parking works because double- and triple- parking is practiced (and permitted by the parking authorities in neighborhoods). Just write your cell phone number on a piece of paper, place it on your dash, and go inside.

It's amazing how little this is practiced in other cities that should utilize available parking to its maximum.

Thankfully, my city has a better public transit system than SEPTA. At the very least, I don't have to buy a copper subway token from a machine that only takes paper money.

moron4hire5• 11 years ago

I think you've just gotten lucky, because I've gotten plenty of tickets in South Philly for being one inch past the "park between these signs" signs. I got a ticket once because I was parked

    [ here ] [ ]

and the parking enforce had the order of the signs screwed up and thought I should be parked

    [ ] here [ ]

abandonliberty2• 11 years ago

That's arguably a false dilemma caused by our transportation infrastructure.

In terms of waste - if we did the math, I'm pretty sure we would find curbside parking a very poor use of real estate in high rent areas.

moron4hire5• 11 years ago

I agree that curbside parking is stupid. But Philadelphians refuse to allow new parking garages to be built. Curbside parking is often the only parking that is available, and any attempts to make other parking become rallying cries in political campaigns thanks to NIMBYism.

angdis• 11 years ago

South Philly resident here. Philadelphia has "pretty good" public transport compared to many other large cities. It is particularly easy to get around by bicycle and by foot. It is no problem to get to any part of the city proper by subway, bus, taxi, uber, bicycle or foot. There are connections to NJ via bus and PATCO. Much of the outer suburbs are connected via SEPTA. You can get to NYC via NJtransit (cheaply!) or Amtrak (more expensive). It is not perfect, but I have trouble understanding why you're complaining, where do you want the public transit to go that it doesn't already ??? BTW, the lax attitude about parking is true: I own a car and park it on the sidewalk in the alley behind my house.

mccolin• 11 years ago

I live in Bella Vista, a tiny neighborhood between Center City and South Philly and echo @angdis' sentiment. The Philadelphia subway system leaves a bit to be desired, but considering the trolleys, buses, and "regional" rail options, as well as the ease of making connections between most of these systems, Philly has a more than adequate public transportation system altogether.

Also -- Philly is one of the most walkable cities in the country. It's not difficult for someone to walk river-to-river or throughout University City to get where they're going.

I know plenty of folks that live and work within their neighborhood and rarely go elsewhere, but I know more people that explore all over the city and towns outside.

mixmastamyk2• 11 years ago

There's a train from near downtown to PHL... so the world is their oyster.

wahsd• 11 years ago

Here we go with privatizing public resources and assets again. It galls me to hear moronic, self-serving corrupt things like "...the growing economic case for deploying our streets differently, for use by more than cars." In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes, especially not for private profit, gain, or benefit of any kind. Whether it is clogging up the city of Austin for the monkey shit show that SXSW has turned into, or taking over public parking spaces for private enterprise profit it's corrupt misappropriation and misuse of public resources and funds. It's simply corrupt and the government, on all levels, should not be engaged in commercial revenue generation precisely because it invites corruption.

icebraining• 11 years ago

In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes

So, in non-capitalist economies, they should? :)

I find your rant misguided. Parking spaces are public resources being used for private benefits, i.e., for car owners. As a member of the "inferior" class of transit and foot travelers, I see no reason why your private use trumps any other.

fraserharris• 11 years ago

The only galling statement is that it's "moronic" and "corrupt" for public lands to be used for anything other than the purpose of moving & storing your private car. It is public land, like any other, and can have many purposes that benefit the public. On a municipal level, those uses are decided by the democratically elected leaders. The economics of such a place are orthogonal to the use of public lands. If you are unhappy with the utilization of roads in your jurisdiction, take it up with your local leaders.

Doctor_Fegg• 11 years ago

"In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes"

Right. I wish people would stop leaving their metallic private property on the public road outside my house.

windsurfer• 11 years ago

Sorry, could you elaborate on how "parklets" are a privatization of public resources? They seem to me like simply another use by the public. The article even mentions that a study found that not all the people using these mini parks are spending money at local businesses.

tigrella• 11 years ago

It's called creative placemaking and it brings communities together. http://www.artplaceamerica.org/articles/principles-of-creati...

cylinder2• 11 years ago

Perhaps read the article. These are public spaces, like parks.

avelis• 11 years ago

One of the cities this is popular in is San Francisco. And the data the article suggests is correct. If you don't have to worry about taking a car to park, you are more likely to spend more time in a local area with businesses available to spend your disposable income.

The second benefit is creating a sense of place. The place to see or the place to hangout in. This personal behavior of a local population can transform a regional neighborhood into a vibrant culture and/or community.

Great post!

digikata• 11 years ago

It makes for interesting speculation for when automated cars come along and you don't need to park. Of course you don't need automation of you're willing to forgo parking via other services. Which leads to the many cities with adequate public transit/taxi service which already have areas configured with less parking. e.g. many European cities & New York city I would guess...

rafavega• 11 years ago

Kind of related. This week in Medellín, people got fed up of car dealerships parking in sidewalks and made fun interventions like practicing yoga and setting up beach furniture (article in spanish).

http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se-cansaro...

softbuilder• 11 years ago

That reminds me of this in Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPBlZMQhgo

aluhut3• 11 years ago

Wouldn't that just cause the clients that came by car (because of distance, health, whatever) to go somewhere else because there is no parking space? It looks to me like just another gentrification result. The new hip clients never needed those parking spots.

wmil• 11 years ago

The problem with parking spots is that with single occupancy vehicles you're allocating 170 sq feet per customer for a few dollars. That's a terrible deal given real estate prices downtown.

Also very few people are going to drive a significant distance for tacos or ice cream.

These shops only cater to foot traffic.

aluhut3• 11 years ago

Yes few people are going to drive significant distances for tacos or ice cream but people drive distances to shop and buy then tacos and ice cream. Those are also cars with a whole family in it. Try to park your van with 3 kids in it in that gentrificated area for some ice cream. But hell...you don't want those loud suckers in your fancy eco-cafe.

Upper class gentrification people don't need to drive to shop. They eat in restaurants or order online. Because they can afford it.

You are causing a separation of classes here again. The whole argument runs on it and the arrogant way this class handles that by writing such 1st world problem articles is disgusting.

scottmcdot• 11 years ago

That parklet-sidewalk interface looks like an obvious trip hazard.

Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

Related Stories