Comments on: Los Angeles Requires Too Many Parking Spaces http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/ DemocraticSPACE is one of North America's leading non-partisan political websites. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:49:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Fred Camino http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-737371 Fred Camino Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:03:07 +0000 http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-737371 Great post man. Thanks for reading MetroRiderLA. Great post man. Thanks for reading MetroRiderLA.

]]> By: Don Norte http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-737825 Don Norte Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:19:34 +0000 http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-737825 I'm pleased to see the logic in the article is sensitive to the changing population needs. The dynamics of urban planning are such that no one formula works across the board for the country, or even inside one state. The best city planners can do is to develop policies that represent the demographics of local government and be consistent in their application. What I mean is that the complexities of urban living depend on population distribution, the type of economy, worker wages, housing prices and even educational institutions. A city that aligns itself with mass transit development can choose to reduce parking requirements if alternatives are available. One of the reasons for the decline of cities in the urban northeastin the mid to late 20th century had to do more with choices than necessity. Most people lived in central cities and didn't have automobiles. As people bought automobiles and moved to the outskirts of town a greater percentage of the population relied on the automobile. The reduction of parking requirements is all very well if in fact the residents stop driving and use public transit. In Los Angeles the cost to drive and the journey to work has become almost as inconvenient as transit. I see this to be an opportunity. We should have policies that simply do not reduce parking requirements without increasing transit. Let's say a developer can reduce the cost of a project by reducing parking by let's say a million dollars. Right now we take their word and agree maybe that we are overplanning for parking. Our policies let the devloper walk away with a million dollars in his pocket. Cities still have to provide municipal services for the extra people.Firemen, policemen, refuse pick-up etc. all cost money. There should be consideration to use that million dollars in the devloper's pocket to improve our infrastructure and develop mass transit. The BART system in the Bay area is having a profound effect on the area in the past 30 years. We need to think about the big picture and not be so quick and accomodating when a land baron cries into the Mayor and city council's handkerchief. Let's not be willing so sell the next generation out with knee-jerk planning. I’m pleased to see the logic in the article is sensitive to the changing population needs. The dynamics of urban planning are such that no one formula works across the board for the country, or even inside one state. The best city planners can do is to develop policies that represent the demographics of local government and be consistent in their application. What I mean is that the complexities of urban living depend on population distribution, the type of economy, worker wages, housing prices and even educational institutions. A city that aligns itself with mass transit development can choose to reduce parking requirements if alternatives are available. One of the reasons for the decline of cities in the urban northeastin the mid to late 20th century had to do more with choices than necessity. Most people lived in central cities and didn’t have automobiles. As people bought automobiles and moved to the outskirts of town a greater percentage of the population relied on the automobile. The reduction of parking requirements is all very well if in fact the residents stop driving and use public transit. In Los Angeles the cost to drive and the journey to work has become almost as inconvenient as transit. I see this to be an opportunity. We should have policies that simply do not reduce parking requirements without increasing transit. Let’s say a developer can reduce the cost of a project by reducing parking by let’s say a million dollars. Right now we take their word and agree maybe that we are overplanning for parking. Our policies let the devloper walk away with a million dollars in his pocket. Cities still have to provide municipal services for the extra people.Firemen, policemen, refuse pick-up etc. all cost money. There should be consideration to use that million dollars in the devloper’s pocket to improve our infrastructure and develop mass transit. The BART system in the Bay area is having a profound effect on the area in the past 30 years. We need to think about the big picture and not be so quick and accomodating when a land baron cries into the Mayor and city council’s handkerchief. Let’s not be willing so sell the next generation out with knee-jerk planning.

]]> By: democraticspace http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-738144 democraticspace Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:07:07 +0000 http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-738144 Don -- perhaps you missed the point. We can reduce parking from 2.25 to 1.65 and accommodate all the cars we need. It's simply bringing our requirements in line with the reality of L.A. That said, of course we should make investments in transit. But your characterization of development in L.A. doesn't reflect reality. Developers aren't pocketing a million dollars by reducing parking requirements, especially, as I recommended, we have a 10% affordability requirement. Don — perhaps you missed the point. We can reduce parking from 2.25 to 1.65 and accommodate all the cars we need. It’s simply bringing our requirements in line with the reality of L.A.

That said, of course we should make investments in transit.

But your characterization of development in L.A. doesn’t reflect reality. Developers aren’t pocketing a million dollars by reducing parking requirements, especially, as I recommended, we have a 10% affordability requirement.

]]> By: Don Norte http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-738812 Don Norte Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:51:31 +0000 http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/los-angeles-requires-too-many-parking-spaces/#comment-738812 Despite the affordability requirement the "reality" of planning on the Westside is to give density bonuses for affordable units, then towards the end of construction the developer goes bankrupt. Someone else comes along and buys the property, but they say they can't make the project feasible unless the units are market rate. We wind up with more units than would be allowed and less parking than required, even without the density bonus. I work with cities all through the state, so I'm not saying parking reductions are a bad thing, but we need more teeth when we place conditions on developers, like fines, transit mitigation funds, etc. rather than look the other way when promises go sour. If we want to be leaders and set forth policies we need to stand our ground and not throw our hands up. If developers paid transit mitigation fees BEFORE or during construction we would have more control. Thanks for the dialogue. It's important that you know I support your concept, but as past president of the California Public Parking Association I have seen a lot of abuse and hope you can appreciate my perspective is part of the ugly reality nobody likes to fess up to. Despite the affordability requirement the “reality” of planning on the Westside is to give density bonuses for affordable units, then towards the end of construction the developer goes bankrupt. Someone else comes along and buys the property, but they say they can’t make the project feasible unless the units are market rate.
We wind up with more units than would be allowed and less parking than required, even without the density bonus. I work with cities all through the state, so I’m not saying parking reductions are a bad thing, but we need more teeth when we place conditions on developers, like fines, transit mitigation funds, etc. rather than look the other way when promises go sour. If we want to be leaders and set forth policies we need to stand our ground and not throw our hands up. If developers paid transit mitigation fees BEFORE or during construction we would have more control.
Thanks for the dialogue. It’s important that you know I support your concept, but as past president of the California Public Parking Association I have seen a lot of abuse and hope you can appreciate my perspective is part of the ugly reality nobody likes to fess up to.

]]>