FYI, the building in the photo isn't actually in Fairfax County. It's in Fairfax City, which is an independent city totally separate from the County. Like Baltimore and Baltimore County.

by BeyondDC on Aug 5, 2008 2:12 pm  

The thing that bothers me is that people's tastes have changed and many people, particularly Boomers, feel like they're entitled to the sprawly suburban lifestyle. You point to a beautiful, well-kept bungalow or rambler or older home in a woodsy Arlington neighborhood, and it's just not good enough. People's lifestyles need to change. We need to be happier with less in some aspects of our lives. Some people do move out to exurbs for affordability and it's better justified, but too many have looked to live in excess. It's a good thing that things are changing for the better in this sense.

As for the jobs. I think jobs will be centralized, the multi-nodal metro will continue to exist for many metropolitan areas, but we will see a large consolidation. I think the biases are more balanced. We'll still have less dense 'burbs, but it won't be as out of control, and we will see better urban and transit planning.

by Vik on Aug 5, 2008 2:27 pm  

The lush lawn of the Brady's is the most risible comment ever.

by Boots on Aug 5, 2008 2:28 pm  

I believe the Bradys' "lawn" was the inspiration for the Turf in Silver Spring.

by Jake H. on Aug 5, 2008 4:33 pm  

The photo you posted is a somewhat questionable development. While it's nice to see denser development, there isn't any housing in that development, at least not yet. Also, hiding behind the streetfront is a massive 5 level garage that has been open about a year but is mostly empty.

by Jeremy on Aug 5, 2008 5:03 pm  

I don't think we need to see stupid generational stereotyping in these sorts of discussions. Go out to the exurban counties, where the houses and yards are much bigger than they need to be, and the general age of the population is much younger than the boomers. And the argument could be made that people who tend to be moving back into cities and older suburbs are empty-nesters - i.e., boomers. It's just not helpful to keep this stupid ageist point fingers rediculousness going.

by andy on Aug 6, 2008 7:59 am  

Yeah, but the Brady's house scored a pretty decent walk score. (75 out of 100).

by RJ on Aug 6, 2008 8:01 am  

I understand that the suburbs aren't going to disappear, but I disagree that the "suburbs will remain largely the same, but with jobs moving closer to the people." Jobs moving closer to the people will make significant changes to metropolitan development.

Locations that are "closer to the people" really means two things, higher density and higher mass-transit connectivity. And the location with the highest density and connectivity is downtown DC. And the current trend we're beginning to see with more people moving into the city to cut their transport costs creates a feedback loop. More density attracts more businesses, which attracts more density, and on and on. So a lot of growth will move into the city.

But of course, downtown DC is expensive and will get more expensive [especially with the height restriction artificially capping available office space] so not every business will move into the city. But they will have an increased preference for 2nd or 3rd tier dense/connected locations like Rosslyn, Silver Spring, New Carrolton and even Tysons. And these areas will similarly have feedback loops that strengthen as gasoline becomes more expensive.

All of which is to say we'll see fewer companies choosing cheap land in lower density areas. The cost of transportation will slowly shift the incentives away from that style of development. Which also suggests it'll become increasingly unlikely we'll see another Tysons-like development spring up. You can already see this in the plans to build up around some of the distant Virgina metro stops like Springfield.

If one of the key characteristics of suburbia is sprawl [it is in my book] then this shift is pretty different, indeed.

by RyanA on Aug 6, 2008 10:04 am  

There's another feedback loop at the residential end of the commute.

As house prices decline in outer sprawl suburbs, the new homebuyers in these areas will have lower incomes and be more price-sensitive. They will buy with the intention of driving a short distance to a park-and-ride and taking a bus from there. With the motivation for park-and-ride commuting switching from congestion-avoidance to cost-saving, the park-and-rides will have to be smaller and more scattered. There's no point in driving all the way from Loudoun County to Monroe St. or from Washington County to Urbana, if your motivation is to save on gas.

For bus routes that start at a small park-and-ride, there will only be enough ridership to justify frequent service if the destination is Metrorail. So even the outer-suburb life style will be affordable only to those who work in walking distance of Metro.

by Ben Ross on Aug 6, 2008 10:52 am  

Andy,

Not that my argument hinged on a particular generational stereotype, b/c it was simply an observation, but most of the younger people in exurbs live in smaller homes and townhomes, which I don't consider to be excessive, that are much more than you could get from a value standpoint than closer in where you'd only be able to afford a couple bedroom apt. or so. If you go to Prince William County or Loudoun County, most of the sub-35 year old professional types with no family or have very young children, live more modestly, and I have no big bone to pick with them in general. The discrepancy in housing that someone can have in the exurbs is more drastic, IMO, the farther down in price you go. It was simply an observation, just a few words in my previous post, so it's interesting that it struck such a nerve with you to post attacking me about it. The more important part of my post was that now with new economic constraints, our priorities have shifted. Denser, better planned development along with going into debt up to your eyeballs not being commonplace could do a lot of good for society, IMO.

And I agree with both of you guys Ben and Ryan, good points.

by Vik on Aug 6, 2008 11:40 am  

Vik,

You've used phrases such as these throughout both your postings:

"feel like they're entitled to"

"we need to be happier with"

"People's lifestyles need to change"

"and it's better justified"

"which I don't consider to be excessive"

"and I have no big bone to pick with them in general"

"going into debt up to your eyeballs not being commonplace could do a lot of good for society"

I can't help but get the impression that you think you know what is best for others? Why is that? How're you doing yourself?

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 1:58 pm  

I can't help but get the impression that you think you know what is best for others? Why is that? How're you doing yourself?

Lance,

I think one explanation for the tone is the *incredible* sense of victimization and hypersensitivity displayed by most suburbanites when this stuff comes under discussion.

You hear folks who seem to make every decision based on how they can screw themselves over in an era of expensive oil--howling at the moon over the consequences of those choices. The mass media amplifies these voices.

If you're going to present an alternative, you need to address them; they only way you can do that is with the kinds of phrases you've quoted.

If you can't understand the plainest of causal relationships, and someone makes them explicit, of course it's going to sound like they're talking down to you.

by ibc on Aug 6, 2008 2:04 pm  

Lance,

Why do I think you are the same Lance who kept denying the housing bubble and cheering on Govt. bailouts over at Bubble Meter?

Simple reality. Oil will not get cheaper. Commutes will continue to be more and more expensive. The costs of a big house will keep climbing. As a result, the exurbes will continue to be less and less economic. Unless you feel that everyone in the exurbs deserves welfare, that lifestyle will be priced out of most people's ability to pay.

Density will happen because, short of putting the 'burbs on even more of the public dole than they already are, there is no choice in the matter. Mass transit will increase for the same reason. It is what it is.

by John on Aug 6, 2008 2:30 pm  

The criticism by Lance that "you think you know what is best for others" is (although Lance may not realize it) an argument against any collective action of any kind.

It is never suggested that it is illegitimate for Coca Cola to tell you that you're making a mistake by drinking Pepsi. Why is it any less legitimate for Vik to suggest that we, as a society (since, unlike the choice between Coke and Pepsi, this is a choice that can only be made as a society) will be happier with smaller houses closer together?

The usual line of attack is that it's "condescending" to tell people they're making bad choices. I've written about this in print:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=151

by Ben Ross on Aug 6, 2008 2:36 pm  

"Why is it any less legitimate for Vik to suggest that we, as a society (since, unlike the choice between Coke and Pepsi, this is a choice that can only be made as a society) will be happier with smaller houses closer together?"

Simple. Your statement that "this is a choice that can only be made as a society" is blatantly false.

Firstly, it is false because what you are really saying is "This is a choice that I and my co-thinkers get to make for all of society because we know what is best for all of society."

Secondly, it is blatantly false because this choice CAN indeed be made individually (and thus collectively) ... as is happening now ... Roads have been built to accommodate people in their desire to live, work, eat, whatever elsewhere than they have in the past because they have are responding to the individual (and collective) demands of people. It's not like the building of the roads has CAUSED people to move to the exhurbs. You could build as many roads are you wanted, but if no one really wanted to live there, these would be roads to nowhere. They have been built because at least some people wanted to make a trade off between quanity and commute time/ gas costs. As commute time/ gas costs increase (or decrease) over time, changes in that balance will come about naturally. There is absolutely no need for a self-appointed group to make these decisions for us ... in the name of "society".

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 2:54 pm  

Lance: Let's say the government offered to fly everyone from Maui to their jobs in DC on personal helicopters. And on top of that, it paid for better schools there than at home. I bet a lot of people would decide to go live in Maui. Would you say that the government CAUSED people to live in Maui? After all, they wouldn't have lived there if they didn't want to, but at the same time, they weren't until the government offered the helicopters and the better schools.

The freeways are the same way. Yes, many people enjoy living in suburbs, but they weren't able to afford to do so until the government spent enormous amounts of money making it really cheap and easy to live there. Other people, who didn't especially want to live in suburbs, went because their friends were going, and because the schools were better.

The schools, of course, were better because zoning laws only allowed wealthier families to live there, keeping out poorer families and people of color which were populations that had less parental involvement in education.

We built in a lot of economic biases that pushed people toward choosing suburbs over cities. Of course people wouldn't have gone if they hated suburbs, but it was hard to pass up the incredibly good deal of living somewhere where you get cheap land but don't have to pay for most of your infrastructure (remember, gas taxes didn't cover the cost of road construction), and where you could keep all your tax money for equally rich people and avoid supporting the rest of society while people who stayed in cities got none of these advantages.

by David Alpert on Aug 6, 2008 3:02 pm  

And thirdly, your "one size fits all solution" goes right to the heart of the problem with your approach to planning.

"Why is it any less legitimate for Vik to suggest that we, as a society will be happier with smaller houses closer together?"

Simply put, different individuals will want differently sized houses in differnent setting to suit THEIR individual needs. But the very fact that you even think "one size fits all" can even be a solution, points to your inability to understand that not everyone has like needs, wants, and capabilities. I personally perfer living downtown, but I have a friend who just bought a place an hour and a half out of town in West Virginia because that is where he likes to be. Why should he have to live how I live? And why do you think you know best?

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 3:05 pm  

David,

If you (or anyone) thinks that the government is using tax dollars (which are OUR dollars) to subsidize people's decisions to live in far flung places, then you have all the right in the world to oppose those subsidies and work to get them to be stopped immediately.

What you (or more specifically Vik) don't have a right to do is question others' decisions on where they want to live or how they want to live ... or to come up with "one size fits all" solutions that you want to see government use its authority to mandate.

Do you see the difference?

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 3:12 pm  

Lance, a minimum parking requirement is a social decision, not an individual decision.

A zoning ordinance that forbids my next-door neighbors from building a twenty-story apartment building on their property is a social decision.

The paving of roads is a social decision. The building, or not building, of transit lines is a social decision.

etc. etc.

The consumer choices that you want are only possible (at least in the area of land use) when we make social decisions to provide them. Since we can't make all possible choices feasible for everyone (e.g., commuting by helicopter from Maui), it's a social decision which choices to provide, and at what cost.

by Ben Ross on Aug 6, 2008 3:15 pm  

Lance: I can't speak for Vik, but I've never personally advocated forcing people not to live in the suburbs. I want to give people a real, fair economic choice to live in suburbs vs. cities; right now, with few to no affordable city options, they still lack that choice.

I was reacting to your comment that building roads did not cause people to live in suburbs. It did. The government never forcibly relocated anyone (except Native Americans), but the subsidies caused many people to take the economic path of least resistance, which may or may not have been what they'd have chosen to do otherwise.

by David Alpert on Aug 6, 2008 3:17 pm  

David, you have used this analogy before, and it is just as misplaced here. Roads drive the commerce of this country, and are as close to a purely public good as you are going to get.

The democratic society demanded these roads, and through their republican form of government got them. Yes, I would love private hellicoptor ferries everywhere but it is not "reasonable," and therefore no one will give it to me. Yes we subsidize roads, but we also subsidize mass transit. It's a choice. Right now people want roads, they want to live in the suburbs, and until a majority of them don't we will continue to build roads, and encourage suburbs. Maybe with the high price of gas this will change, maybe it won't. What people definately don't want is pointy headed elites telling them they have to cram themselves into super dense enviroments, send their kids to inferior schools, and otherwise change how they want to live.

by Local on Aug 6, 2008 3:20 pm  

But Ben, these social decisions can be made "in response" to people's demonstrated needs and desires ... and not "in anticipation of" ... or worse "in a desire to bring them what is best for them." There are major differences between the former and the latter cases. The most important being that in the latter cases, someone gets to set themselves up as "knowing best" ... as Vik so clearly illustrated in his/her choice of words. I know some people call that "leadership", but frankly I find that frightening.

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 3:22 pm  

And the Japanese, during WWII.

The government never forcibly relocated anyone (except Native Americans)

I'm just sayin

by Jazzy on Aug 6, 2008 3:25 pm  

Lance, peoples' current behavior is not necessarily the same as their needs and desires. There is overwhelming evidence from public opinion polls in this area that people's preference for building transit rather than roads is much greater than their current propensity to drive rather than use transit.

You've been making an argument that parking should be mandated because there is a "demonstrated demand" for it. You're telling us that we don't want what we think we want.

Tell us why we should want parking. Don't tell us we don't know our own desires. What people want is what they say they want, at public hearings, in blogs, in conversations, through representative associations, and most of all at the ballot box.

by Ben Ross on Aug 6, 2008 3:34 pm  

"I want to give people a real, fair economic choice to live in suburbs vs. cities"

David, not all people/families can (or want) to live without cars. Won't 'pushing for a change in existing regulations that work to ensure sufficient parking for people with cars' limits these people's/families' choices?

I want a more walkable city too. But I don't think squeezing out those who choose not to walk is the answer. It's like choosing 'stopping growth in its tracks' in order to stop the problems that come with growth, rather than attacking the problems themselves.

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 3:36 pm  

I am not an ideologue to the extreme when it comes to urbanism. I understand the compromises that are made and I also understand the right that people have to live their life in the way they want. But deep down, I feel like something is wrong with our development patterns and the excesses that go along with that, and the subsequent infrastructure and congestion problems that result. I'm not trying to impose, but as a whole, I think we can do better. There's is no way to express this w/o possibly sounding self-righteous or superior in some way. If my parents wanted to move to a 4 bedroom house, despite them not needing 2 or 3 of those bedrooms, and they have to commute an hour to get to work and they have no time to relax and 70% or so of their incomes to pay the mortgage, I wouldn't feel wrong to criticize their lifestyle, while stopping just short of actually imposing anything on them. My brother went to school in a rural area and loves it out there, he may move to an outer, outer exurb, like WV., of DC and work for the fed. gov't, but if it happened on such a massive scale, that's what most of us would object to.

And don't even start to label me as some kind of fascist who wants the gov't to come up with a solution for ill of society. Arguably, my biggest gripe with this whole mess is that the gov't and federal reserve have interfered in the free market which has led to us not needing to compromise to buy things like houses and cars, which leads to the sense of entitlement that I observe. If this lifestyle we have today were the result of a true free-market and sustainable, healthy economy not financed on easy money, I would be less annoyed. I never mentioned anything about a one-size fit all solution like you implied. You're entire rant on me came from a bunch of assumptions that you made with your flawed psychological skills. You probably don't know, but I'm pretty conservative when it comes to issues of size and scope of gov't and private property.

Lance if you never object to anyone's lifestyle choices, that's fine, most of us do on occasion. But there's a difference between this and suggesting that gov't abuse it's power.

by Vik on Aug 6, 2008 3:41 pm  

David,

Just a follow up to my last post ..

Yes, I want to see people have more places to "store" their cars when they are at home or at work; no I don't want to see them building large surface lots to do so (or even large aboveground garages) that put holes in our neighborhoods or downtown business districts' "fabrics". Yes, I want to see people have the ability to have more curb parking (or even underground parking) available to them when they are out running errands or going to a restaurant; but I don't want to see us widen our streets or put in surface lots to do so. Yes, I want to see people be free to drive into the city for work (or for play) without paying a toll; but I rather see them take mass transit in because it is easier than driving (and not because there has been a triaging based on 'ability to pay').

If the current parking minimums mandate that that single rowhouse in Adams Morgan must have a parking space, then yes let's work to change that part of the regulations. But, for goodness sake, let's not change the part where developers of new buildings don't have to create new parking when they create new residences and businesses. Did you not think it strange that the developers were in full support of your proposals at the hearing?

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 3:50 pm  

I am going to add that aside from my personal preference to live in an urban environment, closer to where I work, and near places so I can drive as little as possible, my biggest hope when it comes to this topic is to see us in the future plan smarter. Smarter suburbs and smarter urban areas. I blame it mostly on a lack of leadership at the local level, and this is just IMO so people don't feel I'm a "pointy-headed elitist". I'm glad that more thought is being put in and designs are being scrutinized more so that we don't see so many areas built up which lack certain services and amenities nearby and other issues that end being big problems in the future. Sustainability is big factor to me b/c it's not like people didn't see some of the problems that we're dealing with now, in advance.

by Vik on Aug 6, 2008 4:19 pm  

@Lance:

What if, as is now the case, the current parking minimums mandate that an in-fill single rowhouse has to cut out a driveway in order to create a parking space, thereby eliminating a public space at the same time a private space is created?

by EdTheRed on Aug 6, 2008 5:17 pm  

@EdTheRed, In my 3:50 posting I said: "If the current parking minimums mandate that that single rowhouse in Adams Morgan must have a parking space, then yes let's work to change that part of the regulations."

From what I understand this is something routinely exempted anyways since curb cuts are pretty much forbidden in historic districts anyways. (I don't know about the rest of the District.) I know David said at the hearing someone said it took them 9 months to get that exemption. It's possible they were going down the wrong path (like David did when he was trying to get his no parking signs for his move) or it's possible that someone at the District messed up (again.) Either way, if this needs to be fixed procedurally (or in the regs) then let's fix this. Throughing out parking minimum for the developers to fix this one minor problem is like throwing the baby out with the bath water !

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 5:52 pm  

*throwing. --- I was trying to multitask ;)

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 5:54 pm  

David:

What about commuter railroads?

Don't those also enable suburbs, especially with legal taxis?!

by Douglas Willinger on Aug 6, 2008 7:40 pm  

Lance said: "David, not all people/families can (or want) to live without cars."

Lance - Not all people want to live without French wine. It's not fair that good French wine costs more than Budweiser. You're an elitist if you want to force low-income people to get by without good wine.

If non-drivers must subsidize parking so that it's just as economically feasible to drive as to take transit, shouldn't beer drinkers (and teetotalers) subsidize wine so that it's just as economically feasible to drink Grand Cru as Budweiser?

by tt on Aug 6, 2008 8:27 pm  

sorry tt, non-drivers aren't subsidizing a thing when a developer is asked to build parking along with commercial or residential space. The spaces get paid for by the people using them, not the others. As a non-car owner, when was the last time you paid to rent a spot in your building?

by Lance on Aug 6, 2008 10:45 pm  

Lance: We've been over this. I posted lots of numbers showing that parking minimums force subsidies. You can choose to ignore them, but repeating the same argument is just getting tiresome.

by David Alpert on Aug 6, 2008 10:47 pm  

David, perhaps you have posted assertions that parking minimums force subsidies, but those posts demonstrated nothing of the sort. As Lance said, the spaces are paid for by the people using them, not others. However, if the developers do not provide adequate off-street parking, especially for residential buildings, where OP is proposing no minimum whatsoever anywhere, the residents of the building park in nearby neighborhoods, bringing with them pollution and traffic, reducing safety, increasing impervious surface as residents pave over their yards and making it more difficult for families to live in the area. Basically, without the minimums there is a negative externality, and having minimums limits the effect of the negative externality. This is your blog, but please don't think that just because you write something here, it becomes unchallengable, especially when your arguments are logically flawed and your "lots of numbers" have no basis. You have it backwards: Elimination of minimums causes subsidies from current DC residents to developers.

BTW, did you notice at the hearing that none of the other advocates claimed that it cost $60,000 to create a parking space, and they all used estimates that were $40,000 or less.

by JR on Aug 7, 2008 12:03 am  

I just deleted a comment by JR. JR: Most of your comments belittle people, whether me, other commenters, or other organizations. It's not a productive form of debate and not one I'm going to keep tolerating on the blog. If you want to repost your substantive points without the personal angle, feel free. If you continue posting personal attacks, I'm going to have to ban you.

I've restored the comment; see this thread for discussion.

by David Alpert on Aug 7, 2008 12:16 am  

David, Lance's statement that non-drivers are not subsidizing parking spaces is valid. In fact, eliminating minimum parking requirements will mean that current residents of our neighborhoods will be subsidizing developers who can reduce the amount of parking they provide below even the very low minimum parking requirements we have. As I wrote in the message you deleted, developers of large apartment buildings near single family neighborhoods can shift the cost of parking to the residents of those neighborhoods in the form of excess pollution, traffic, reduction in safety, make living in the neighborhood more difficult for families and will also increase impervious surface as families might pave over their yards in order to deal with the masses of new cars stored on their streets. Eliminating minimum parking requirements limits the externality caused by large scale development that does not include sufficient parking to handle the needs of its residents.

Apparently, you found it offensive that I pointed out that the "lots of numbers" that you cited to summarily dismiss Lance's well-supported statement was based on your assumption that it cost $60,000 to provide a parking space, and yet, at the hearing none of the other advocates of eliminating minimum parking requirements gave an estimate of that cost over $40,000. If you find it inconvenient for your readers to point out these types of errors and inconsistencies, you can certainly can follow through on your threat to delete my comments and even ban readers who disagree with you. Since I didn't take the precaution of saving a copy of the comments that you tossed in the trash, I am not certain that I included all the substantive points that were made. If you consider pointing out errors and inconsistencies to be a personal angle, it is impossible to have a productive form of discussion.

by JR on Aug 7, 2008 7:37 am  

JR - I saw your original comment and you didn't miss any of the argument in your re-post.

I'll let David defend his previous arguments on parking minimums, he's more than capable, but I do want to look at your view that getting rid of the parking minimum would create externalities. I'm certainly sympathetic to your logic: If the developer doesn't build enough parking for the residents or visitors of a building, some of those people will park on the street. Not requiring the developer to meet the full need shifts at least some of the burden to accommodate drivers out of the private sphere [the garage] to the public sphere [the street].

But I think your position makes a common error in assuming that a public good - on street parking - is more exclusively "owned" by a neighborhood. It's not an exclusive amenity. The street you live on and the parking that's allowed there is owned by the city and maintained by the city. As such, residents of a new high-rise building down the street have as much of a right to park on the street in front of your house as you do. It may be an inconvenience to adjust to the new demand for parking, but you haven't lost a private good. You just have more competitors for a limited public resource.

And when you look at the burden of the externalities you mention on the city as a whole, they're not nearly as drastic as your post seems to indicate. Think about pollution, traffic and safety first. The vast majority of a car's mileage is not spent looking for parking. It comes from being used in the city. As a citizen of the city, if I really want to reduced congestion and pollution and improve safety, I’m going to think bigger than the small increase in mileage you get with on-street vs. private parking. I'm much more interested in preventing a new resident from ever owning a car in the first place - I'm going to prefer policies that make car ownership more onerous and reliance on transit more attractive and feasible.

Not that I don't understand the concern of residents like yourself. A new building down the street with no parking will greatly increase congestion and pollution in your neighborhood. But those externalities bear on public goods – the streets and the air we breathe – and are shared by all of us. And the effects of this potential increase are negligible at the city-wide level. [And if we consider the traffic reductions that come from making car ownership more onerous, the city-wide change may in fact be negative.]

As to single family home owners paving over part of their yard for parking, much of your argument would suggest that’s a good thing – private citizens internalizing the burden of car ownership and reducing their reliance on public amenities. It’s like a miniature version of what you want high-rise buildings to do. If you’re concerned about the environmental impact of increasing impervious surfaces, might I suggest a paver & grass drive like this one: http://photosbygarth.com/photos/Textures/Other_Textures/050810_253d_9093.html

by RyanA on Aug 7, 2008 9:58 am  

An additional consideration regarding the costs to construct parking is that many costs are fixed costs. I.e., It doesn't cost twice as much to build a garage 4 levels deep as it does 2 levels deep. The extra costs of going twice as deep are incremental ones ... meaning that you reduce the "cost per space" as you increase the number built. And this isn't even getting into the fact that the more you have of something the cheaper it gets. E.g. computer memory. Remember when a 256 was soooo expensive? And this is due not only to "more availability" but due to the fact that you learn better and more efficient technologies along the way.

by Lance on Aug 7, 2008 10:01 am  

JR: You know what I found offensive, and it wasn't the issue about the cost of parking spaces. You are correct that those folks quoted about $40,000 for a space, not $60,000. I will use the lower number in the future.

We needn't quibble over the precise costs. If the spaces pay for themselves, developers will build them. After all, people consider parking a benefit, so why not build them if they will pay for themselves? On-street parking is annoying, and people will pay a premium to have an off-street space. No developer in their right mind will give that up if they can make back their investment.

But if the spaces don't pay for themselves, then tautologically, someone is subsidizing them. The developer will have to charge more to some residents in order to build the spaces that aren't paying for themselves. That's forcing a subsidy.

by David Alpert on Aug 7, 2008 10:30 am  

Question: would centralized parking make more sense if it was done in concert with a corresponding reduction of on-street parking? Or would the benefits of fewer street parking spaces (more room for busses and bike lanes) be offset by the addition construction cost?

by monkeyrotica on Aug 7, 2008 10:32 am  

David, You say that the developers will provide the spaces if they make back their investment, but you know that OP is proposing maximums, presumably set low enough that it will restrict their ability to do so.

Letting developers rely on local neighborhoods to serve as their parking lots, particularly for rental buildings or less luxurious condominiums where a higher percentage of residents are willing to put up with the inconvenience of storing a car in the neighborhood, is forcing the neighborhoods to subsidize the developer. Yes, they could make money on the spaces, but they can possibly make more money in some project by forgoing some of the revenue and offloading some of the cost on current DC residents.

RyanA, I think that there have been earlier posts answering the claims that opponents who are concerned about spillover into single family neighborhoods feel that they own or are entitled to the space in front of their house or on their street. That is not the concern. The concern is that the massive influx of vehicles stored on the neighborhood streets changes the neighborhood. Families find that they or their guests who used to find spaces within a couple blocks of their houses must now go much further, and that can make life for a family in the District very difficult.

In terms of the fact that some homeowners will pave over part of their yards because of the influx of massive numbers of cars, there is an increase in the impervious surface, since we aren’t comparing surface parking behind homes with surface parking behind large apartment buildings but comparing surface parking behind homes with underground parking under buildings that cover their entire lot or most of it. And, of course, many families faced with the option of paving over their back yard and eliminating the space for family gatherings and for their children to play might determine that they would simply be better off not living in DC. Perhaps they move to the suburbs, giving up the walkable neighborhood that they liked, but no longer exists.

Finally, with respect to the extra pollution and traffic that results from the spillover parking, I provide you with the following excerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

“Mr. Shoup and his students at University of California at Los Angeles determined that the average cruising time for a space in L.A.'s Westwood Village is 3.3 minutes, or half a mile. By that measure, Mr. Shoup estimates that cars in the 15-block district annually travel 950,000 miles, burn 47,000 gallons of fuel and emit 730 tons of carbon dioxide just looking for a parking spot.” WSJ, 9/21/2007.

This is extra traffic and pollution in the front yards of the neighborhoods where parents want to sit on their front porches, chat with their friends and watch their children play.

by JR on Aug 7, 2008 11:14 am  

JR, I completely agree that a "massive influx" of cars would be a change for any neighborhood. And that change will be a nuisance for some of the existing families, without a doubt. To me, the question is whether there's a legitimate government interest in preventing that nuisance. What you're asking the government to do is keep a regulation on businesses [the parking minimum] to protect your easy access to a public good. I don't see a good justification in any legal sense of why your access to parking in the neighborhood should be privileged over the new residents in higher density developments that constitute the "massive influx."

This is why I still contend your concerns boil down to a sense of entitlement - the underlying assumption of your argument is that existing residents of a neighborhood have a more justifiable claim on public parking than the new residents.

You do implicitly put forward a social policy argument that I think we should confront more explicitly. Your argument that making street parking more scarce makes it difficult for families suggests a policy goal, that we should try to keep families in DC. I don't know that I would generally support that goal, but for sake of argument lets assume that keeping families is a legitimate government interest.

Even under that assumption, it doesn't follow that we should keep the minimums. As David has pointed out, some of the most kid-friendly neighborhoods are historic areas where parking is a a premium. Thus, many families find it not only possible but desirable to live in those neighborhoods. I used to live in Georgetown and I can tell you first hand, parking in that neighborhood is absolutely insane. From spring to fall, every evening and weekend is a madhouse and one of my favorite pastimes was sitting on my porch and watching people try to find parking. Despite that great burden, however, families are abundant.

Which brings me to my point - not all families are the same. Some want a big yard, big house and big car. Some want to live in tony neighborhoods with fine dining and great shopping. And given the fact that in DC the supply of housing is below demand, we don't need to chase after every family. If some families decide it's better to leave the city than stay and put up with greater demand on parking, that's OK. Not only will it make them happier, but it will open up housing for families that choose to live in a more urban environment.

by RyanA on Aug 7, 2008 12:09 pm  

This blog should be renamed "Greater Greater Parking Debate." This post wasn't even about parking...

One reason I don't think jobs will "move out" to outer suburbs is that if a business wants to attract top talent, it needs to be centrally located. Well, maybe a business doesn't "need" to, but it certainly is a factor in where someone chooses to work. There are outliers to this trend, certainly, but I think for a commercial district to be successful, it needs to be able to have a large pool of talent within an easy commuting distance. That's why CBD's are more expensive - you're paying a premium on the shared good of proximate location.

Anecdotal evidence of this would be Google opening up offices in NYC. And I don't have data to back this up, but I think the next generation of college graduates are going to be thinking of place first, job second, when deciding where to live. That is, they'll move to Seattle first, for the urban amenities, then find a job that fits their lifestyle.

by JP on Aug 7, 2008 12:51 pm  

Lance said:

An additional consideration regarding the costs to construct parking is that many costs are fixed costs. I.e., It doesn't cost twice as much to build a garage 4 levels deep as it does 2 levels deep. The extra costs of going twice as deep are incremental ones ... meaning that you reduce the "cost per space" as you increase the number built.

It's not true. The extra two levels of parking cost you more than the first two, per space, because you have to reinforce the building even more, you have to dig more deeply into the earth, the ventilation and drainage systems are more complicated, more of the space is taken up with access ramps, etc.

We're not making widgets here, where if you make 100,000 of them they can be cheaper than if you make 1000 because you can go make a widget-making machine. It's not like making RAM chips where over time have better technology. This is construction. The last parking space you add is the most expensive, because of diminishing returns. Just look at the proposed Bethesda garage, where the spaces were $90,000 each. That's because they had to dig 6 stories underground.

by Michael on Aug 7, 2008 1:34 pm  

JP, I wish it were true. What you are describing though, I fear is the paradigm of the past. With unemployment rising all the time, I have no idea what things will look like for tomorrow's job seekers, or even if they will feel themselves to be the ones in the driver's seat. It is quite possible that they will just take what they can get wherever that may be.

by Jazzy on Aug 7, 2008 3:30 pm  

David,

Without diving into this entire pissing match, I'd just like to comment on what you said August 6th at 3:02.

First, I generally agree with you when it comes to sprawl being caused by a perfect storm of individual choices and governmental policies, and I agree that those governmental policies were a mistake (especially in light of $140 oil).

That said, blaming everything on "the government" ignores the fact that our government is chosen by (and made up of) "the people". People's choice to live in suburbia was influenced by government policies, but they liked those government policies. To use your Maui example, if "the people" considered that to be a tenable situation and voted for elected officials who would institute the Maui-DC helicopter policy, then it wouldn't be fair to just blame the government.

In the end, the fight really is between those of us who think we know better, and those who want to continue making their own choices even if they're shortsighted (and the Lances of the world who defend their right to make that poor choice).

by Paul J on Aug 8, 2008 8:03 am  

Paul, there's also the group of people that don't care if you make shortsighted choices as long as you pay the costs of your decision.

That's not "I think I know better", but "pay for your own stuff, as well as the cost you're putting on me by clogging my roads and polluting my air".

by Michael on Aug 8, 2008 9:17 am  

Michael,

I certainly agree with that; I was just using the simplistic (and loaded) language that seemed to have developed in the discussion before I arrived.

Also, to David, I was amused by the "Greater Greater Parking debate" line above...I love your blog, but it seems like you've been overly focused on parking lately. Please get back to writing about the many other interesting facets of development and urban life in Washington. Thanks for all the work you put into this blog; it's a phenomenal source of information and ideas.

by Paul J on Aug 8, 2008 9:42 am  

Michael, when you say "pay for your own stuff, as well as the cost you're putting on me by clogging my roads and polluting my air", I assume you are stating that the developers of apartment buildings should provide adequate parking to meet the needs of the residents, employees and guests, and not shift those costs onto the residents of the nearby single family neighborhood. And JR provided a Wall Street Journal quote from Shoup yesterday morning that quantified the additional traffic and pollution that allowing developers to offload parking costs onto the residential streets will cause: "cars in the 15-block district annually travel 950,000 miles, burn 47,000 gallons of fuel and emit 730 tons of carbon dioxide just looking for a parking spot."

by Andy on Aug 8, 2008 10:39 am  

I think Michael was simply referring to the fact that many of the costs of driving are absorbed by society, rather than internalized by the individual receiving the benefits of driving. If a person wants to live a car-based lifestyle, they should have to pay the costs that that lifestyle imposes on society in the form of pollution and congestion.

by Paul J on Aug 8, 2008 10:48 am  

Actually, I think that both on-street parking in single family neighborhoods as well as off-street parking inside a multifamily building should be priced at market rate.

For an uncongested neighborhood, the price could be zero if there is no shortage. But if there is a shortage (for whatever reason), the price should reflect the shortage.

Requiring buildings to provide minimum parking is a subsidy to the people using the building that drive cars.

by Michael on Aug 8, 2008 11:32 am  

I think that there is quite a bit of evidence that requiring developers to provide minimum parking does not provide a subsidy to the people using the building that drive cars, especially in residential buildings where the people who use the spaces are paying for them. The people who use the spaces are paying for them. But allowing developers to provide inadequate parking means that other DC residents will be forced to subsidize the developers. It also means that non-drivers in the single family neighborhood will be subsidizing the car-owners who live in apartment building.

by Andy on Aug 8, 2008 11:39 am  

I've commented on this before, but the summary is this: With a parking minimum, either the minimum is above or below the market equilibrium amount of parking for a site.

If the developer builds more than the legal minimum amount naturally, then the minimum parking requirement is not necessary, and market forces have driven the developer to provide enough parking. The developer observes the potential price that people are willing to pay for parking, and provides the amount of spaces that he can produce at a cost that is at or below that price. The costs are the opportunity costs of the factors of production (capital, land, labor and materials). Because opportunity cost includes a small amount of profit, the developer makes money building parking spaces because he can get people to pay a little more than it costs him to create the parking space.

If the developer has to build more parking spaces than are justified by market equilibrium, and if the developer charges a price based on his costs, then he will have empty spaces left over (the ones required by minimums). He will lose money because he is not able to sell all of the spaces.

Alternatively, if he charges a lower rate that fills the spaces, he will recoup less per space than his costs of production, and will lose money on each space sold.

Either way, the developer loses money because the government has forced him to produce too much.

The worst case is when the minimums are so high that there is a surplus of parking even when the price is zero. That's not the case here, but the argument is the same, the prices are driven below costs, which in some senses is a subsidy. I don't know if the word "subsidy" is the best word to describe the situation, because it implies government payment for public benefit, and it's kind of a loaded term. I prefer to think of it as a market distorting regulation, and the consequences are both desirable (less spillover parking, the original purpose) and undesirable (increased congestion, energy use, pollution, hazards to other users of streets).

Most of the arguments seem to boil down to whether spillover is worse than the other costs. I believe that spillover can be managed, therefore there is no need to use regulation to increase minimums.

by Michael on Aug 8, 2008 1:38 pm  

Michael, I am trying to understand how pricing the on-street parking will impact the current residents of the single family neighborhood. Take for example a single family neighborhood that currently has sufficient on-street parking for the residents who don’t have off-street parking and their guests. Under your description, the price would be zero for on-street parking, or perhaps $15 a year for a permit to exceed two hours during the day.

Then, a developer constructs a 400-unit apartment building near the neighborhood and provides no off-street parking, renting the apartments to tenants or selling the condos who are willing to park on the neighborhood streets. Suddenly, there is a shortage where there had been none before or a worse shortage where a nominal fee would have reflected the shortage.

Homeowners in the neighborhood are now assessed a fee which would be sufficiently high so that the owners of 360 vehicles will either dispose of their vehicles, seek other commercial parking for their vehicles, pave over their back yards to accommodate the vehicles, or move out of the neighborhood. This would be a substantial fee, and it seems that the homeowners are being asked to pay a very high cost in order to accommodate the developer’s decision not to provide adequate parking for his project.

Your discussion of how much parking the developer will provide doesn’t seem to take into account his ability to shift the cost of parking to the neighborhood. In other words, you are assuming that the market equilibrium without minimums is the ideal amount of parking, when in fact, it doesn’t take into account the externalities that JR described.

In terms of the minimums being so high that there is a surplus of parking even with a zero price, it seems that the minimums we have for apartment buildings are far below the average number of cars owned by apartment residents, and if that was a problem, it could be addressed without throwing out all the minimums.

by Noah on Aug 8, 2008 1:51 pm  

There once was a man who had a cherry tree. Every year the tree would bear fruit, and the cherries would fall to the ground and rot, because the man and his family could not eat all of the cherries. "Let us eat some of your cherries, for you have plenty," his neighbors said. And he let them, and they did, and everyone had their fill, and they were happy.

Then one day one of his neighbors moved out, and a new family moved in. The family had nine children. Like most children, they loved cherries. Early in the year, the cherries would run out, and in their hunger, people would pick even the underripe cherries and buds, right off the tree. "It's not fair," the neighbors would say, "They have so many children. We should make them plant their own cherry tree so we will all have enough." But the family did not want to plant a cherry tree, because their yard was better for playing than it was for growing cherries. Year after year, the cherry tree would be stripped bare, early in the season, and no one was happy.

Then one day, the man had an idea. "What if I asked my neighbors to do something nice for me in exchange for my cherries?" So he asked his neighbors what they thought of the idea. "You used to give us the cherries without anything in return," they said. "Why should we have to do you a favor?" "My cherry trees are all bare, and I have no more room to grow them. I have to ask you to do something nice for me if you want some of my cherries." So some of the neighbors were upset, and didn't talk to the man anymore. But some of his neighbors washed his car, and some painted his fence, and some of the children walked his dog, and they all ate cherries. Some of his neighbors even planted cherry trees of their own, and didn't need to do the man any favors. But when they had visitors, sometimes they would make the man a friendship bracelet, and he would give them some cherries so they could have a cherry pie for company.

And they were happy.

by Michael on Aug 8, 2008 3:22 pm  

Michael, You have about as much of a chance of putting in an underground parking garage AFTER the completion of a new building as you do of planting a cherry tree in its footprint.

by Lance on Aug 9, 2008 12:28 pm  

I understand your point, and will concede that it's hard to add parking later if you don't do it when the building is constructed. It's important that the developer knows very clearly what the on-street parking rules are so that the eventual owner is satisfied with the arrangement. I have heard that developer financing is harder to secure if the building designer has too little parking, because it's hard to sell the units. That's independent of minimums.

However, I humbly ask that you concede my point, that just because the single family homes were there first and are used to getting street parking for free, that they're entitled to it forever. It doesn't belong to them and if other people move in and make it scarce, then you gotta start charging for it to make sure it goes to the highest and best use.

In a market economy, that means prices.

by Michael on Aug 10, 2008 1:13 am  

"However, I humbly ask that you concede my point, that just because the single family homes were there first and are used to getting street parking for free, that they're entitled to it forever. It doesn't belong to them and if other people move in and make it scarce, then you gotta start charging for it to make sure it goes to the highest and best use."

I agree with you ... and I don't ... but I do. Let me explain...

I feel that 'ideally' the idea of on-street parking being used to satisfy the demand for people "storing" their cars when at home or at the office, shouldn't be considered in the first place. Curbside parking should be priced such that there is always some available ... And, it should be restricted in the sense of "how long". Public thoroughfares are public thoroughfares. And they are not our reserved spots for our cars, our vespas, our bicycles, or even our Zipcars. So, I think we agree in most respects ... except I brustle at the idea that because someone can afford to pay say $5/hr for on street parking that they can basically leave their car in the same spot forever. I think there is value in spaces which sit on public space opening up so as to be available to all at one point. Additionally, I don't like the idea that someone can "buy their way out" of this rule. You're operating on the assumption that someone should be able to use this space for "storage" purposes, and it's only fair that if the house owners can, then the condo owners should too. (Very true.) However, I'm saying no one should be able to use this public space to "store" their car ... irrespective of where they live. Ideally, car storage areas should be off the street. Hence why we need more (and not less) underground garages ...

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 6:54 pm  

Incidentally Michael. Up till a few years ago, the District had a "72 hour rule" on the books. A car could not stay stationary in any one spot longer than 72 hours ... irrespective of whether it was "residentially zoned" or not. It's only a recent "fact" in the District that someone can legally appropriate a curbside space to themselves for as long as they like.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 7:15 pm  

Lance: What do you define as "storage"? When you say "storing their cars when at home or the office", do you mean that someone commuting by car parking on the street at night is "storage"?

If so, do you advocate for making on-street parking only available for short-term use, like visitors? I might support that, especially if it means (as it ought to) that we can get rid of a lot of the on-street parking and widen sidewalks.

Or do you mean that commuters should use on-street spaces, but people who drive less often shouldn't be allowed to? If so, it seems unfair to make a cheap spaces available to someone just because they drive more. I don't think that's what you mean though.

by David Alpert on Aug 10, 2008 7:28 pm  

"When you say "storing their cars when at home or the office", do you mean that someone commuting by car parking on the street at night is "storage"?" YES

"If so, do you advocate for making on-street parking only available for short-term use, like visitors?" YES

(Visitors AND people going to restaurants, shopping, etc. I.e. those times when people NEED to rely on "on demand" parking vs. those times when they CAN rely on "reserved" parking .... Those times when they are "using the streets" for going about their daily business ... vs. using them for car storage purposes.)

"Or do you mean that commuters should use on-street spaces, but people who drive less often shouldn't be allowed to?" NO, I DEFINITELY DO NOT MEAN THIS.

When someone is 'at home' or 'at the office' it is reasonable for them to know what their parking needs will be and it should be their responsibility to provide for themselves in these instances. (I.e., they can buy a house or condo with parking, rent a space in a garage nearby, etc. etc.) When someone is out and about, it is impossible for them to "reserve" an off street spot, hence they need the possibility of "renting" (for going rate) a spot either in a "short term" parking garage ... or curb side.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 7:42 pm  

Lance, David, While I would agree with these priorities for commercial streets, our neighborhood streets should not serve as a short-term parking lot for people going to restaurants and shopping. But, that isn’t only my opinion. The first fundamental goal in a recent report by the Mayor’s Parking Task Force is: “The priority user for parking in residential areas in the District is neighborhood residents.”

Clearly, the Mayor’s Parking Task Force is not looking to our neighborhood streets to serve as parking lots for local businesses or to be used for storage of vehicles by residents of new apartments or condominiums. The priority users for on-street parking in our residential neighborhoods would be guests of the residents and the residents, in particular those whose houses were built before there were off-street parking requirements. Ideally, most residents would be able to store their vehicles on their own property, and residents of apartment buildings outside the single family neighborhood would also store their vehicles in off-street parking.

by Andy on Aug 10, 2008 8:17 pm  

I haven't thought this through yet (because it's totally unrealistic), but a system where there's very little on-street parking at all might be okay. We could reclaim most of our public space for pedestrians. But several conditions would have to be true for this to be a good change:

1. No curb cuts. San Francisco has lots of off-street parking, usually with one garage per house. Each curb cut takes away about 2/3 of a space to provide one off-street space, and often the garage entrances are spaced apart such that they take away a whole space or more on-street. Not only is this ugly and pedestrian-unfriendly, but the off-street spaces get much lower utilization. A residential space used by a commuter is only in use at night, for example. On the other hand, an on-street space can be used by a commuter at night and then by a shopper by day.

2. Much, much less on-street parking (or expensive on-street parking). If we just took away long-term on-street parking but left all the blocks parkable, then we'd just be making it really easy and really cheap (free) to drive around and park to do errands, and that means that anyone with a car would just drive all the time. Then we'd be like the suburbs, and traffic would be terrible. So we'd have to get rid of most of the on-street parking and price it high enough to not be pushing car use over other means of transport.

Even if we had just enough on-street parking to enable some errand running and kept it non-free, we'd still run into the parking utilization dilemma. That would be less of a problem if all our neighborhoods were mixed-use and buildings all allowed shared parking, so the apartment building across the street from Target in Columbia Heights could let its residents park in the Target garage instead of building their own.

There may be other drawbacks I'm not thinking of. On the other hand, in this world we really wouldn't need parking minimums, because there wouldn't be any danger of spillover. So it could be okay, if it were realistic, which it's not. People will never get rid of most of the on-street spaces, and without that part, it's a huge, ginormous subsidy of driving over walking and transit use.

by David Alpert on Aug 10, 2008 8:27 pm  

Andy, You're making two assumptions: (1) that curbside parking can be appropriated to themselves by a neighborhood's residents for their own needs and (2) that those residents in single family houses (or "first there" residents) have a priority over this appropriation when there isn't enough to share with new residents in condos and apartment buildings.

Both of these assumptions are wrong because our streets don't belong to us individually or even collectively as "neighborhoods." They belong to us collectively as "the District" ... and with our agreement via our support of elected officials, the District can allocate the use of this public space in any way it wishes. However, no one resident or neighborhood has an inherent right to take it as your assumptions support.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 8:31 pm  

On-street parking is vital for pedestrians. You want the separation from traffic to feel secure. When it rains, you don't want cars splashing puddles on you. Try walking on Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda when it's raining. The sidewalk is quite wide, but you get splashed on all the time.

by Ben Ross on Aug 10, 2008 8:32 pm  

David, I think our "wishes" are diametrically opposed. I was going to suggest that in order to get to the point where curbside could be market priced, we first had to be sure we had enough offstreet parking available to satisfy all possible demand for "storage" purposes now and in the future. But from reading your posting it's clear that you are not looking for ideal "sharing" situations between people using various modes of transport, but instead to make it harder for drivers to use the streets for doing errands, shopping etc. I'm looking for a balanced and shared solution. You're looking for a solution that effectively "squeezes" drivers out of the picture almost entirely. I know long term your solution is bound to fail because people have always had personal ways to get around (horses, carriages, bikes, etc.) and they always will have ... They'll probably still call them cars, but just like 'car' used to refer to horse-drawn, 'car' will just mean some vehicle driven by some means ... electric?, solar-powered?, pedalled?, are gas powered? ... but still a 'car' ... with still a need for short term, and long term, parking. We're not going back to the stone age, and we're not going back to a stage when a 'car' will never be needed ... At least not in a growing and healthy city.

by Lance on Aug 10, 2008 8:41 pm  

I wasn't making assumptions. I was just pointing out the priorities for use of parking on neighborhood streets have already been stated by the Mayor’s Parking Task Force. The Report states that first fundamental goal in designing parking policies is:

“The priority user for parking in residential areas in the District is neighborhood residents.”

This doesn't mean that homeowners have appropriated the spaces in front of their houses, just that the Task Force determined that parking regulations should be designed so that these spaces primarily serve the residents of the neighborhood, not the commercial businesses or apartment buildings outside the neighborhood. The elected leaders, collectively as "the District," have set this priority, and so nearby businesses and developers shouldn't be claiming these residential neighborhood spaces as their own.

by Andy on Aug 10, 2008 9:09 pm  

Andy, aren't residents of new apartment buildings neighborhood residents?

Single-family residents naturally like having the exclusive free use of convenient parking spaces on land worth thousands of dollars that they don't own. This is a powerful interest group and, as a matter of practical politics, it may well be necessary to buy them off. But let's not deny that it is unjust and bad public policy.

If a give-away of valuable public land to the wealthiest segment of the community is politically necessary, it doesn't follow that the best way to accomplish it is to require new buildings to have excessive parking. We have here a choice among several second-best solutions:

a) Forbid new development within walking distance of single-family neighborhoods.

b) Require new development to provide on-site parking at such a low price that building residents find it preferable to free parking a short walk away. (Note, Lance, that if a developer builds lots of parking and charges the cost of building the spaces, many residents will prefer to use the free parking on the street and your single-family residents will suffer just as much as if the parking hadn't been built. The only way to accomplish your goal of avoiding use of on-street parking by residents of new buildings is to heavily subsidize the parking.)

c) Forbid residents of new apartment buildings from parking on the streets. (The suburbs do this by gerrymandering residential parking districts.)

Choice (c) is most advantageous to the residents of the new buildings, since they pay for only those parking spaces whose value exceeds the cost of production. It's also more advantageous than (b) for the existing homeowners, since it generates less on-street parking and less traffic.

by tt on Aug 10, 2008 9:45 pm  

David,

One requirement you left out for your hypothetical is access to highly usable public transportation.

Lance makes a good point in that you and he have different goals here, at least seemingly. But I don't share his belief that creating car-free communities will necessarily fail. Sure, the car is here to stay and many areas will need/want automobility, but there are also plenty of people in cities who would love to live in neighborhoods that had scarce car usage.

Speaking of dream hyptheticals, wouldn't it be great if DC created just such a neighborhood? A high density residential area with great transit options, local retail, no parking minimums and no on-street parking? I'd definitely move there...

by RyanA on Aug 11, 2008 9:43 am  

RyanA, Can you point to any such area anywhere in the world? I suspect there are some, I just don't know where ... but I'm curous what kind of neighborhood you really end up with ...

by Lance on Aug 11, 2008 10:20 am  

Lance, many downtown areas in Europe nearly meet that description. I think the point is not that you would absolutely eliminate cars, but that you would be able to perform so many of your errands without a car that you would only bring it out on an occasional basis, or you might consider renting it the twice a month that you want one.

Twice a month at $70 each time is far less than gas, maintenance, insurance, depreciation and parking for you own car.

I was just looking at Google maps and comparing the urban forms of cities like Brugge and Copenhagen to the cities like Houston and Oklahoma City.

by Michael on Aug 11, 2008 10:36 am