Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For a people who seem to pride themselves on being progressive, "enlightened" etc they sure are bad at livability, almost as bad as Texas.
That said, in SF (according to the article), some pre-automotive buildings were actually retrofitted to reflect the new car culture and add garages.
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.
Typically sidewalks are not uninterrupted planes of concrete, but are divided into squares so that in case there is sidewalk buckling, they have some give and don't break up the whole thing, plus repair is made easier.
So, usually the first two squares' width belong to the municipality, any others are property of the residence.
Here is a decent FAQ on parking in SF: http://www.excelsiorsf.org/district/parking_summit/summit_st...
http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se-cansaro...
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!
Thanks to edward for posting this, though!
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...
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.
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.
[ here ] [ ]
[ ] here [ ]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.
On the bright side, I hear your weather is pretty good.
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.
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.
This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.
As long as the businesses if the affected area do not mind the change I see little reason to not do it.
Perhaps it's possible only when the margins of a business are as spectacularly high as those of Vegas casinos, so that the parking facility as a loss leader is still net profitable overall. There's also the invisible hand of capitalism, as casinos compete in the market of convenience: a casino without such a facility will lose market share to those that do.
Or land is so cheap because you're in the middle of nowhere.
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.
I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting.
[1] http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice-pr...
Basically, we don't have a real market for parking in most cities, so people will keep their car parked on the street forever instead of using market forces to induce turnover which is better for the city(revenue) and the nearby businesses(more customers).
[1] - http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/parking-is-hell-a-new-fre... [2] - http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf
Yes, that's the point. This is called modal shift and it is how you incentivize people to stop driving.
Also very few people are going to drive a significant distance for tacos or ice cream.
These shops only cater to foot traffic.
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.
Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)
eg bicycles and walking
There are definitely times when it would be inappropriate to take a bike over an uber, and times when it would be extremely inconvenient to walk.
For instance: tonight. St. Patrick's day will be my girlfriend and I going to a brewery about 10 miles from our house to try a beer they are brewing especially for today.
It would be irresponsible of us to bike home after drinking, and inconvenient to walk that far. We will almost certainly be taking an uber.
People who think cars are just plain evil need to realize why they are popular.
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.
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?
> How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?
Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
No, it doesn't. That's precisely what I've been saying. This article doesn't at all differentiate the benefit of a park from the effect of removing parking, so there is no rational cost/benefit analysis here.
> There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
I have a hard enough time finding parking in San Diego as it is. I would like to hear a strong argument for preventing me from ever going anywhere.
This makes the experiment quick and easy to do.
(You could also knock down a shop to see what would happen, but that would be harder to reverse, and the owner would be unlikely to agree to it.)
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.
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.
It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there.
> walking
This is even slower than biking.
> public transit
About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits.
> rideshare
Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them.
> And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.
But it is important to realize this is a choice and acknowledge that you're choosing a trade-off, not simply a "I have to drive; I have no choice." Simply recognizing that you have agency in the decision is of value. It allows you to _consciously_ weigh the pros and cons, to become aware of potentially-unnoticed alternatives, and to recognize the costs (and benefits), both to yourself and the broader community.
its not a problem that an individual can fix overnight. its got to become a social movement with lots of new technology and new social institutions and new beliefs and values behind it.
as things stand now its easy to feel powerless and give up and say "doesn't matter, I'll be dead before our society changes enough to make not driving a viable alternative". and that's why nothing ever gets done about this problem. its still a problem though and at the rate things are going now we won't ever solve it before it becomes a crisis. so that's what will happen. inevitably there will be a crisis and then we'll have to confront the problem under much more desperate circumstances.
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.
global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here.
seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.
These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on the Leaf is likely by then too).
the fundamental solution is to drive less, to carpool more, and to reorganize our communities to make effective public transportation a focus instead of an afterthought. we have to find ways to meet the transportation needs of people without using so much energy to do so.
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.
Right. I wish people would stop leaving their metallic private property on the public road outside my house.