OP proposes convertability and parking maximums for downtown

Parking

OP proposes convertability and parking maximums for downtown

by David Alpert • May 7, 2009 1:30 pm

After many months of analysis and public meetings, the Office of Planning has issued its preliminary recommendations for zoning in DC's highest density downtown area. The recommendations include combining the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Common Lot Development (CLD) programs into one simpler system, unifying the numerous zones and overlays into six zone types, apply design standards across the high density zones, and promote convertibility and unbundling in parking.

Photo from Office of Planning.

On parking, the recommendations try to discourage parking which residents or office tenants have to pay for, but don't need. If commercial buildings construct more parking than necessary, or if future evolution in the numbers of people driving versus taking transit make existing parking less necessary, there's often no way to reuse the space. OP recommends that zoning limit the amount of "non-convertible parking" to one space per 1,500 square feet of office or one per 500 square feet of retail.

Convertible parking needs ten foot ceilings and flat floor plates instead of the continuous ramps in some large parking garages. Participants at the last working group meeting also suggested floor weight-bearing requirements, since office space requires greater weights than a level of parking, and cargo elevator access.

Some buildings already use underground space for office uses. One participant at the working group worked on 1875 Pennyslvania Avenue, which he said has two subterranean floors with a copy center, offices, and a moot court. Buildings could also utilize unused parking space for file storage, retail such as drugstores, conference rooms and more.

On the residential side, OP recommends a maximum cap on the amount of parking set at 0.8 spaces per unit. Limiting parking to just below the number of units would make buildings much less likely to "bundle" spaces with each unit, selling them as a package and depriving potential residents of the chance to choose whether or not to buy or rent a space.

These maximums would only apply in the high density downtown areas, which include the "Downtown" (Metro Center/Gallery Place area), "Golden Triangle" (around K Street), the Mount Vernon Triangle, the Judiciary Square area, NoMa, the Southwest Federal Center, the Capitol Riverfront around the ballpark, and Buzzard Point. All of these areas, possibly excepting part of Buzzard Point, are extremely close to one or more Metro stations; perhaps the maximums shouldn't apply to that one area.

The other recommendations revolve around the zoning tools in the existing Downtown Development District and how to apply them to the issues facing today's downtown. In the next part, we'll look at those.

20 comments

Tags: DC, downtown DC, parking maximums, zoning update

Downtown's zoning: How the best of downtown came to be (May 11, 2009)
Throwing the baby out with the 400-foot buffer (Apr 7, 2008)
Multi-family conversions, alley and accessory dwellings under attack (Apr 29, 2008)
Testify on car and bike parking rules Monday (Nov 10, 2010)
Early draft of parking zoning rules reduces some minimums (but not enough) (Apr 7, 2008)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Nice cliff-hanger David, these are some very interesting recommendations, and I wonder what everyone thinks about them?

by Art on May 7, 2009 1:38 pm • link • report

If the market is superior to minimum parking requirements in zoning, why is not also superior to maximum parking limits?

by ah on May 7, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report

ah,

What exactly do you mean by "superior to"?

by Art on May 7, 2009 3:10 pm • link • report

I mean that when Dave posted about mandatory minimum parking spaces in the zoning laws, the sentiment was that it should be left to the market to determine how many (or few) spaces should be provided, and not mandated by inflexible zoning laws.

by ah on May 7, 2009 3:45 pm • link • report

Good news! Convertible *anything* is usually a good idea, because when a building is initially constructed, the architects usually only have a market incentive to think about the initial occupants, not the occupants 30 years down the line. The city's still going to be here in 30 years, though, and has an incentive to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary construction or waste in future years.

by tom veil on May 7, 2009 4:32 pm • link • report

ah,

Ah ha! You're saying that you think that market forces can correct for parking needs? It's an interesting thought, although I'm not sure that I agree with it.

What do you think about the convertible parking requirements?

by Art on May 7, 2009 4:33 pm • link • report

Yes, Art. It was perhaps inarticulate. If a developer builds downtown, they have every incentive to maximize the value of the space (hence every block having the same 12-story box). If the parking spaces won't pay for themselves (because they're empty, as lots of people take Metro) or would be better put to use as storage/moot court/whatever, the developer has incentives to build that way.

As for the convertible parking requirements, I feel the same way, although it's somewhat less troubling to me because the mandate is for flexibility, not a set quantity of space. I'm sure it adds some costs, so that's why I'm not more enthusiastic.

by ah on May 7, 2009 4:49 pm • link • report

Is there actually a problem with developers voluntarily building excessive parking in downtown DC? The high profile cases we've seen involved parking minimums forcing developers to build excess parking. Subterranean parking is expensive to build and I doubt developers are building an excess "just in case."

Is this a solution in search of a problem?

by Josh B on May 8, 2009 12:06 am • link • report

to build 12 stories in DC you have to dig a lot for foundations.

windowless space that results may not be especially useful for a lot of other purposes, but if it is fine.

by Tom Coumaris on May 8, 2009 12:28 am • link • report

ah,

You're a person that while I agree with, I can respect the opinion of. I will agree with you that the developers do have every incentive to maximize their profit, but I will disagree that the market is perfect when it comes to this. I would argue that the market itself is inherently conservative, and more slowly adapts to changes then I feel you are giving it.

Perhaps we can agree that the market, or the government, are both imperfedt venues when it comes to building/community/city desing?

by Art on May 8, 2009 9:43 am • link • report

Tom, windowless space with a is great for many purposes, such as supermarkets, nightclubs, gyms, all the things that make cities desirable to younger people. These uses also usually take up large FARs and have blank facades.

The real problem with re-use is slab height, since none of those places would be appealing even with the proposed 10' height, but if you've ever been in a Duane Reade, you'll find that people are willing to deal with bad spaces to live in desirable areas.

As for foundations, you don't necessarily need a deep basement to have a deep foundation, or even to get it to bedrock. Otherwise, there'd be no skyscrapers in Chicago.

by цarьchitect on May 8, 2009 10:26 am • link • report

Art--given the last year, it's hard to argue that the market is perfect.

That said, I'd be happy to put the market up against the DC government's record of success on pretty much everything.

I just don't see how the Office of Zoning can know that 0.8 is the "right" amount of spaces. Worse, even if it's right today (or next year), it has shown itself pretty incapable of making timely changes. We *still* have the parking minimums that have been in placed for, what, 50 years?

by ah on May 8, 2009 11:04 am • link • report

"Is there actually a problem with developers voluntarily building excessive parking in downtown DC?"

Yes, there is. Parking lots and garages are ugly, bad for the environment, and promote driving. Their use should be minimized. Hence the maximum parking limits. Of course, they only make sense if the minimums are repealed, or are significantly less.

by Boris on May 8, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

What is the average square footage of a typical office cubicle?

What is the average square footage of a typical parking space?

I have found that, on average, the automobile is given more space to park than what the office worker gets to put their deck, chair, and filing cabinet. Even the travel lane is larger than the aisle in the office.

by W. K. Lis on May 8, 2009 11:29 am • link • report

ah,

Hah, uncle, uncle!

Like I was saying, neither is perfect; but a properly functioning government, I feel, could help provide some forward looking objectives that might otherwise be missed when relying exclusively on private market forces.

by Art on May 8, 2009 11:29 am • link • report

A properly functioning government perhaps could contribute more effectively by making a more serious and binding commitment to a coherent public transit program that would reassure builders that less parking will be needed. If a developer is confident that people won't find driving more attractive, then they can be confident that less parking will be needed (and parking is pretty hard to retrofit).

by ah on May 8, 2009 11:39 am • link • report

ah,

Exactly, that's my point as well! I think maybe we would use different ways of encouraging the use of public transit?

If I understand you correctly, you are of the thought that transportation should be built first, and then infrastructure can be built around it (houses, office, etc...)

I am of the thought that the development has to come first, before you can build the transit that serves the area. Without the demand there to begin with, I can't see how transit to the area would be anything but a non-starter. (That the parking maximums are stacking the deck, I'll not argue against)

Am I close to the mark on this?

As far as retrofitting the parking, you probably have thought about that more then I have, but I wonder what it can be retrofitted as? I can't see that you could develop it easily, without extensive sewer/water changes in the area.

by Art on May 8, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

Art, not necessarily. The reason a developer would overbuild parking is because it fears that demand for parking will increase. One reason to expect increased parking demand is if Metro becomes less attractive, presumably through insufficient funding. If a developer has confidence that Metro will continue to get sufficient support, then the developer can be confident that they won't underbuild parking.

What I meant regarding retrofitting is that if you dig out only a small area for a garage, it's pretty hard to go back in and dig some more.

by ah on May 8, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

ah,

To make what turned into a rant short, the Metro system's continued funding shouldn't be a concern, although that it is, is symptomatic of faults in the system that funds and audits it.

-------------------------------------------------------

The long version:

I guess I can see the logic there, although the insufficient funding of Metro is more of a symptom of a defective funding system, isn't it?

I ride the red line downtown weekdays, and it's rather full, even with changes in the seat configurations of the cars, there are only so many more people they'll be able to fit on there. Were the Metro system to completely lose funding and have to be closed down, I don't see how the other modes of transport that are in place could handle the massive spike in traffic, especially if this were to be an on going problem.

Given then, that the Metro system is a vital transportation corridor into and throughout the city and suburbs, I don't see how anyone could make a credible argument that the system should be underfunded. (Although I'll listen to everyone who wants to make that argument) The fact that the system is currently struggling with funding, when taken in the view of it being so important for the continued growth of the greater Washington D.C. area, then would be... a fault of the political system that funds it? a fault in the structure of the organization itself?

I'm not to sure about that though, it would be a self-defeating strategy, because it would stop development in the area, and possibly even shrink the tax base that the governments have to work with; or would discourage people from using the system, and thus would cause the Metro system to atrophy and only accelerate the downward spiral.

Bravo sir, (or madam) you've given me quite the puzzle to think about.

by Art on May 8, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report

Art -- I don't disagree. The underfunding of Metro is a problem with the political system (although I suppose we can say anything we want more funding for is a problem of the political system). More mildly, its funding problems are an unfortunate outcome that does have long-run ramifications for the area. I'd rather fix that problem than create further distortions and problems down the road.

by ah on May 8, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report