Posts about Parking Design

In an editorial yesterday, the Washington Post stated its support for the project. "It would be a grave mistake for the county to turn its back on precisely the sort of progress so many county residents say they want," said the editorial board.

The store, located within a mile of a Metro station, and even closer to a MARC station and a future Purple Line station, would join an office building and a health club in a giant parking lot. Architect Jim Voelzke of Bethesda-based MV+A Architects, who designed the original plan, told Riverdale Park Patch that the new proposal's "unique design" would reduce traffic.

According to the Patch, "A slew of parking will surround the Whole Foods ... which [Voelzke] hopes will alleviate some of the traffic issues expected along Route 1." There's no explanation how multiple parking lots laid out in typical suburban strip-mall-style would alleviate traffic issues.

Though this might seem like an inefficient use of land at a site in an established, inside-the-Beltway community, Riverdale Park mayor Vernon Archer wishes there were even less there. "If it were simply Whole Foods coming into town, I think there wouldn't be that much debate," he told the Examiner. "But the Whole Foods is an anchor for a larger mall and ... a substantial number of new housing units. The size of it is what is causing second thoughts."

Four years ago, Cafritz proposed a much larger development on their property, saying they wanted to "[create] a point of pride" for the community. The project would have contained up to 2,000 apartments, 286,000 square feet of office and retail space, a 120-room hotel, and community space in buildings up to 12 stories high.

A new grid of streets would have tied the project in with surrounding neighborhoods, while creating a "comfortable and lively pedestrian experience," in the words of the developers. The public would have gotten a new community building and series of parks and squares, and a wooded buffer along Route 1 would have separated the development from the single-family homes across the street in affluent University Park.

Unfortunately, community response to the Cafritz Property development was negative from the beginning. In 2007, neighbors complained the project would be too dense and that the presence of a Whole Foods would create more congestion on busy Route 1, while the Riverdale Park Town Council has expressed concerns that it would create competition for their town center, a small block of mostly-vacant shops adjacent to the Riverdale MARC station.

In 2008, Cafritz returned with a less ambitious plan, containing half as many homes, a smaller grocery store, and buildings no taller than 7 floors. Where the original proposal could be seen from Route 1, the new plan made the initial move to make it nearly invisible to passersby, ensuring the difficult proposition of selling the site to retailers.

It's ironic that residents of Riverdale Park and surrounding towns have been so opposed to any development at the Cafritz Property, given Prince George's County's long-standing struggle to attract upscale amenities. As one of the county's more affluent sections, the Route 1 corridor has drawn a fair amount of development in recent years. A slew of student apartment buildings have been built in College Park, while work is beginning on a subdivision of luxury homes in adjacent University Park. At Arts District Hyattsville, trendy local restaurants including Tara Thai and Busboys and Poets have opened alongside hundreds of new rowhouses.

There have been struggles as well, however. A lack of foot traffic and visibility has already killed some businesses, like Artmosphere Cafe in Mount Rainier, while luxury apartments sit empty at the massive University Town Center complex in Hyattsville, part of which was recently sold at auction.

If a store, especially an upscale one, is to locate survive in an area like Riverdale Park, it has to have a sufficient number of customers. Those customers could live within walking distance, if there are dense enough communities on site or nearby. Or, the store can draw customers from a large area by car, which would generate significant traffic.

In other words, a Whole Foods means either more buildings or more cars (or both); neither is not an option. The community would be better off going for the buildings and pushing for a design, and non-auto transportation choices, that minimize the associated traffic.

As Richard Layman pointed out yesterday, there are some legitimate concerns about traffic at the Cafritz Property. The site is located close to transit, though many visitors are likely to drive. The market's weak enough that a mixed-use project here could cannibalize existing development at Arts District and University Town Center.

It's possible that Cafritz will build the entire site out as originally planned, as articles in the Examiner, the Post and Patch all describe the larger 2008 proposal, but challenges remain. The developers still face major community opposition (with some exceptions) and a local retail market that's reeling from the recession. They also have to change the zoning, which currently allows 220 single-family homes to be built on the site, to allow for commercial development.

Yet a strip mall is still an inappropriate and wasteful use of land in this location. Even if people drive to a site, clustering more stores and offices together allows one car trip to serve several needs. The classic suburban strip mall development pattern forces drivers to exit and re-enter a major boulevard multiple times in a single shopping trip. That's one of the biggest sources of congestion.

The Cafritz Property developers should pursue a phased development, building the entire site as originally proposed in 2008 over time. Whole Foods alone isn't enough to revitalize this area. But as the anchor of a new town center, it could improve the way people live and shop along Route 1.

When I used to work at an ice-cream parlor in Rockville Town Square, I'd get phone calls from customers with questions. One thing always seemed to upset my callers: it wasn't about the cost of ice cream, or what flavors we did or didn't have in stock, or even that you had to pay to park there. It was that the only parking came in an underground garage behind the store.

"You mean I have to park in a garage?" they'd ask. "I hate parking garages, and I don't want to shop anywhere where I have to use one."

I don't know how many customers this deterred, but I'm not surprised that people are unhappy parking in a garage to shop at the new Whole Foods in North Bethesda Market. This new development along Rockville Pike in White Flint also contains the tallest apartment building in Montgomery County.

Those used to the vast, free parking lots outside Whole Foods' former location in Congressional Plaza, a few miles away, probably aren't happy about going down a steep ramp and paying $1.50 an hour to store their car. Not only that, but I went there a couple of weeks ago and found the garage crowded and difficult to navigate, though this may be partially due to construction of the still-unfinished shopping center.

Structured parking has been a fact of life in Montgomery County for decades. Silver Spring, Singular found this 1970's-era ad for Bethlehem Steel showing a then-new garage on Ellsworth Drive. There are parking garages, with aboveground and underground portions, in the downtowns of Silver Spring, Bethesda, Rockville and Wheaton. Across Rockville Pike from North Bethesda Market is White Flint Mall, which has had parking garages since it opened almost forty years ago.

I like parking garages because they can keep my car cool in the summer and dry when it rains or snows. However, a poorly designed and poorly lit garage can feel really uncomfortable. They can also give a lousy first impression to people going from their car to a shop, office or apartment building. Underground garages can also make users feel unsafe. When a developer proposed replacing a public parking lot in downtown Silver Spring with a garage to make room for other uses, one neighbor worried it would be a draw for crime.

One way to alleviate these concerns is to bring more natural light into underground parking areas. The garage below Ikea's College Park branch is set into a hill, meaning that two sides are open to the outside. At University Town Center in Hyattsville, underground garages are lit by a shaft reaching to the street above.

There are trade-offs to parking garages. You can't just pull up to a space, you might have to take stairs or an elevator back to the street, and you usually have to pay for a space. But they do conserve land, which can go to other uses.

In North Bethesda Market, there are wide sidewalks with lush plantings and lots of benches. The first thing you see when you come out of the garage is an elegant plaza with a fountain at the center and lined with shops and restaurants. Eventually, this will be just one part of a larger network of urban open spaces throughout White Flint, none of which would be possible with the surface parking lots that line Rockville Pike today.

Building up on parking lots is one of the changes that the Post calls a "threat" to the suburban way of life, whether in Montgomery or across the river in Fairfax, which is undergoing similar growing pains. While there are a few special places where parking lots can be a suburban community's gathering space, most are just places to store cars. If done well, structured garages can do that while making room for the places where people gather and form community. That sounds like a way to make suburbs stronger, not eradicate them.

Livable Communities Leadership Awards: The Coalition for Smarter Growth is hosting its annual Livable Communities Leadership Awards program. It will be on Tuesday, May 3 from 6:30-8pm at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW. RSVP required.

DC parking hearing: The DC Office of Zoning is holding a public hearing about making it illegal to place parking in front of commercial buildings. The meeting will be on Thursday, April 28 at 6:30 at 441 4th Street NW, Suite 220-S.

Kojo Show tomorrow: Tune in to WAMU 88.5 FM tomorrow at noon to hear a discussion on bicycling. Shane Farthing of WABA and Eric Gilliland of Capital Bikeshare will talk biking on the Kojo Nnamdi Show.

Kidical Mass: Don't forget, Kidical Mass is this Saturday. Families, bring your kids to the Eastern Market Metro plaza to ride around Capitol Hill in support of kid-friendly streets. The event starts at 10am this Saturday, April 23.

You can get more information about these and other events on the Greater Greater Washington calendar.

DDOT already puts in angled parking in DC, but without a formal process. Requests usually come from Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), churches, ANCs, council­members, the Mayor's office, or citizens. The requests go to DDOT's Ward Planner, the Parking Specialist, or the Curbside Specialist. Several divisions discuss the idea based on the need, construction or other plans already in place, and, of course, traffic counts.

For businesses without a BID, this bills to establish a formal process could be helpful. For areas where double parking for churches often happens anyway, this might be a way to make some peace between neighbors and churches. If these requests are common, DDOT should have a formal policy.

When DDOT turns down requests, people usually aren't satisfied. They go higher, to the Council or the Mayor, and the order comes down to put it in. Given that, why would DDOT ever say no to diagonal parking? Is DDOT anti-business? Is DDOT anti-church? Here are a couple of reasons.

1. The street's not wide enough. Parallel parking requires 7-9 feet, travel lanes are 10-12, and bike lanes are 5. Angled parking, depending on whether the angle is 45, 60, or 90, consumes 16-20 feet. Unless there's an travel lane that isn't needed, angled parking isn't possible.

2. The space is already being used. What's occupying the space today? If vehicle counts are high enough, then the answer is traffic. If not, there might be a bike lane or a sidewalk widening planned. To install permanent diagonal parking, the city needs to decide if enough space can be taken out of the transportation network permanently during the week. This is not an easy decision. Once angled parking is installed, an act of Congress seems to be the only way to undo it.

On Sundays, traffic is likely not an issue. While at DDOT, planners recognized that permanent diagonal parking often kills the possibility for bike lanes on certain blocks (11th ST NW between Vermont and Q Streets, for example). Does it matter if the bike lanes are blocked on Sundays, since there's so little traffic anyway? Can people on bikes simply use the travel lane? This might not be problematic on Sundays, but could be slippery slope to losing the integrity of bike lanes.

Now the broader question: Do we want more parking? It has generally been treated as good. But what else comes with more parking?

More traffic. It's a fact (proven over and over and over) that more parking creates more traffic. But in a retail area that seems barren, isn't more traffic a good thing? Maybe, but so is a good streetscape to make people want to shop there in the first place.

Diagonal parking has a traffic calming effect, but so to other techniques. After the protected bike lanes on 15th Street NW were installed, the number of vehicles driving over 20 mph over the speed limit decreased from 147 a day to 3 (a 98% reduction). Calmer traffic means people are driving slower, looking around more at businesses, and watching for cars exiting spaces. But it's just one tool in the traffic calming toolbox.

Diagonal parking is just one way to address parking shortages. There are many ways to manage parking, from building a garage to alternating pricing and time limits at meters. A bill that calls out a single solution to an often complicated problem ties the hands of experts whose job it is to keep up with innovations and to understand limits of each one.

More parking means businesses tend to market to people driving in, not neighbors. When residents can walk, bike, take the bus or a taxi to businesses nearby, businesses will cater to them. But when people can drive to your neighborhood restaurant, the restaurant will start giving them what they want, not what you want.

That means more emphasis on parking and valets, and less on sidewalks, trees, benches, bike racks, and bike lanes. While more parking for businesses and churches seems like a good way to deal with struggling businesses and too many people driving in on Sundays, it enforces the idea that these aren't really for neighbors.

More parking hurts the taxicab industry. Taxis are demand-responsive, on-demand transit. But the taxi system works best without congestion and when people aren't driving themselves. Taxis are also a great way to get home from bars at 2am, when Metro is infrequent and people do not want to be driving.

Are Councilmember Thomas' bills necessary? Do we need more permanent parking? If the honest intent of these bills is to issue procedures, and not simply to force DDOT to approve more diagonal parking, then they could have some benefit, but may not be necessary. But let us not forget that more parking often comes at the price of other aspects of city life we enjoy.

The zoning rewrite proposals include changes to codify the parking location rules for commercial projects as well. Unfortunately, the zoning rewrite is still potentially years from being complete, and projects are going forward now which will lock in bad urban design for decades or more.

In testimony on the parking rules, a number of us asked the Office of Planning and the Zoning Commission to accelerate this specific piece, writing it into the current zoning regs while we wait for the complete overhaul.

OP has now proposed a text amendment to do just this, and submitted it to the Zoning Commission. The commission will then review the proposal and schedule a public hearing, likely in March. If they approve it, there are then various steps (proposed action, final action, publication in the DC Register, and so on), but it's possible these changes could become part of the DC zoning code by mid to late summer.

That may nto be early enough to affect the Aldi, but there are lots more commercial development projects in various stages that will catch fire as the economy improves. Putting the zoning in place now will ensure that the next development boom isn't destructive to neighborhoods' walkability.

Projects like the Aldi in Carver-Langston or the Van Ness Walgreens (later changed) will keep getting proposed while the zoning rewrite is underway. Developers will design a project the way zoning requires, but in the absence of guidance, they'll just fall back on the standard suburban models. These projects will last for 50 years, so the least we can ask is that the developer put the parking behind the buildings.

To submit comments, fax or emailed a signed PDF of not more than 10 pages to zcsubmissions@dc.gov by 3 pm today.

The Green Area Ratio (PDF), the subject of tonight's hearing, incorporates a standard of environmental sustainability into development. New development or large-scale renovations for buildings will have to meet a GAR standard, except for single-family homes, 2-unit condos/apartments, or accessory dwellings .

The proposed text sets scores for different kinds of landscaping and stormwater management. Trees count for a certain number of square feet depending on their size. Landscaped areas count for 30-60% of their size depending on the depth of their soil, permeable pavers about 40-50%, green roofs 60-80%. That score is then divided by the total size of the lot to generate a GAR.

The actual GAR each property will have to achieve has yet to be determined, and the Office of Planning will propose specific thresholds as they write zoning text for each individual type of zone.

Implementing the GAR will cost some money, though statistics from a similar program in Seattle showed that it added only ½% to 1% to the total cost of the project. In addition, buildings have to pay impervious surface fees from the District Department of the Environment and DC Water, and higher GAR will directly lower those payments. GAR features on buildings will also help DC reach its EPA-mandated stormwater quality goals, improve air quality, and reduce air conditioning costs.

OP estimated the current GAR of properties in DC. For commercial zones, the GAR today falls between .2 and .3, with industrial zones a little lower, moderate density residential between .3 and .4, and lower density residential zones higher due to their lower lot coverage.

The Zoning Commission asked OP to estimate what GAR requirements it might set for a zone. OPS ran the analysis for Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) zones, which are designated C-M for Commercial and Manufacturing or just M for Manufacturing in the old zoning code. PDR zones average .137, the lowest category in DC.

Each 0.1 of GAR would add about $1.50 per square foot to projects. OP would recommend a starting GAR requirement of 0.2, with the opportunity to reevaluate raising the threshold in the future. This would add less than 1% to the construction costs of new projects.

The hearing is tonight, 6:30 pm at 441 4th Street, NW (One Judiciary Square), room 220-South. Typically in these hearings, OP presents first, then the Zoning Commission asks questions, and finally public witnesses can speak, first witnesses in support and then those opposed. Fill out two of the little witness cards that are on the table next to the far right door while you wait.

Here's the preliminary site plan for the new Aldi store:

As you can see, the store, which will be located at the southeast corner of 17th Street and Maryland Avenue NE, will not address the street. Rather, a majority of the lot will be an asphalt parking lot, which is almost identical to the standard plan that Aldi provides to developers (PDF):

It doesn't have to be this way. Aldi's European operations have shown that they can operate stores that fit into an urban environment:

This store, located in Frankfurt, Germany, is at the junction of multiple streetcar lines and shares a building that includes other uses (which appear to be offices) above the ground floor. Bicycle parking in front (and a U-Bahn station below) add to the transportation options available to shoppers (of course, access by foot is a given).

Why couldn't a store like this be built in Carver Langston? There's little incentive to do so. Sure, this isn't the central business district of the city, but there's no reason that we shouldn't prioritize every parcel of limited commercial land in DC to serve a higher purpose. More property taxes could come from a multi-story building that has office space in addition to a grocery store. Income tax could come from residents living above such a store. Instead, the city has settled for the lowest common denominator.

How can we make sure things like this don't happen again? A first step is to make sure that the Zoning Commission passes the parking regulations from the zoning update. The Commission extended the period when they'll be accepting testimony, so there is still time to send in a letter stating your agreement that we need to prioritize non-automotive growth within the city.

Submit your comments to the Zoning Commission by fax or email. Emailed comments must be signed and sent as a PDF of not more than 10 pages. Send your signed PDF to: zcsubmissions@dc.gov. Written testimony must be received before 3 pm on Monday, December 20th.

Parking minimums would disappear in most cases. In neighborhood commercial corridors or low-density residential areas without good transit, commercial, institutional, or multi-family residential buildings would still need to provide some parking. But any area with good transit service, or high-density areas, would have no requirements.

For bicycle parking, new buildings over a certain size would have to include some outdoor visitor bicycle parking (like bike racks), and for non-residential buildings, also a certain amount of indoor, secure bicycle parking along with shower facilities. Access to parking and showers is one of the most significant obstacles to people being able to choose to bike to work.

The parking location proposal would disallow parking between buildings and a street, such as in strip malls like the H Street Connection. This would have ensured that Walgreens designed the somewhat more pedestrian-oriented store they ultimately built at Van Ness instead of the very suburban style one they originally pushed for.

Surface parking lots would need to have 10% of the lot landscaped and trees that at maturity would cover 30% of the lot in tree canopy.

The requirements will also serve to limit on-street loading zones and require more off-street loading docks and berths, while ensuring minimal impacts on urban design, public space, and the pedestrian environment. This will be a boon for all users of the street, including automobile drivers, cyclists, and transit riders, as trucks parked on the street cause congestion, block bicycle lanes, and negatively impact the efficiency of bus routes.

Currently, there is no upper limit to the amount of parking that can be built in either surface lots or parking garages in the city. The Office of Planning and DDOT have both recommended setting a maximum for the amount of parking that could be included with a new building or development.

OP's original recommendation was more conservative, setting the following limits:

• 100,000 square feet of land area
  
• 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
  
• A total of 1,000 spaces for any single parking facility
  
• There could be lower limits in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas, based on DDOT input

DDOT recommended more stringent maxima, and a separate standard for TOD and non-TOD areas.

• 100,000 square feet of land area
  
• For retail uses, 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area in TOD areas, and 4.5 spaces in non-TOD areas
  
• For non-retail uses, 1 space per 1,000 square feet in TOD areas, 3 in non-TOD areas
  
• A total of 500 spaces in TOD areas, 750 in non-TOD areas
  

In either option, the Board of Zoning Adjustment would have the latitude to increase caps under the relatively light special exception rules.

As an example, DDOT took a look at planned development in the NoMa neighborhood. They found that, at full build-out, 20 million square feet of development is expected. There are currently 7,400 parking spaces in the neighborhood, and 16,500 would be expected under current plans.

This could potentially lead to 12,000 new trips during peak hours. The street network would be unable to handle the additional traffic. Streets in adjacent neighborhoods would see increased use due to spillover, and arterial roads leading to the neighborhood, such as New York Avenue, would see significant increases in delays due to demand.

Since we can't widen the streets and won't be building freeways through the neighborhood, the city needs to find ways to encourage less automobile traffic and more utilization of the investments we've made in transit.

DC USA, the oft-cited example of building too much parking, is only 15 spaces too much for the less stringent OP standard, though twice as big as allowed under the DDOT proposal. Except for that total cap, at 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet, it comes in well within the parking ratios in both, meaning that a shopping center half the size of DC USA with just under half as much parking would still be permissible.

Meanwhile, the 9-acre, 860-space Home Depot and Giant parking lot near Rhode Island Avenue Metro would far exceed the 100,000 square foot land area limit, but has neither too many spaces in total nor too many compared to the building size for the OP standard. It would exceed both under DDOT's standard for a TOD area, but not the per square foot limit and not the total by much if it had been built in a non-TOD area. Worth noting, also, is the proposed shopping center at New York Avenue and South Dakota Avenue NE that would have over 3,000 parking spaces.

Please set aside time on next Monday evening to head down to Judiciary Square and testify in favor of parking regulations that will help shape a better and greater Washington, DC in the years to come. The hearing begins at 6:30 pm in Suite 220 at One Judiciary Square (441 4th Street NW). Call ahead (202-727-6311) to get on the list and say you are a "proponent" of the parking regulations, Case No. 08-06. You can also sign up to testify if you arrive on time to the Zoning Commission hearing room.

If you can't make it to the hearing, you can submit comments to the Zoning Commission by fax or email. You can email comments, but only if you sign your comments and send as a PDF of not more than 10 pages. Email your signed PDF to: zcsubmissions@dc.gov. Written testimony must be received on or before November 15th.

Kennicott also notes another missing piece of the discussion: price. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. Given that the exhibit starts from the position that demand is there for parking no matter what, a discussion of supply, demand, and price would be a bit much. The very idea that we might not need that parking after all never crosses the minds of those designing these structures, at least not as they're presented to a patron walking through the galleries. Kennicott notes the disconnect:

But the future isn't all bright for the National Parking Association. Away from the exhibition hall, with its free-flowing red wine and mini-burgers, participants gathered to hear lawyer and lobbyist Vincent Petraro describe how he helped keep at bay a New York proposal to institute "congestion pricing" in the gridlocked south end of Manhattan. ... Petraro worries that it will hurt business. He cites London, which instituted a similar plan in 2003.

"Yeah it worked, if you want to create a ghost town," Petraro says of a city that at last check was anything but a ghost town.

Congestion pricing, says Prof. Donald Shoup of UCLA, could hurt the bottom line for parking lot owners. The power of that bottom line was obvious throughout the Parking Show of Shows, where even bright signs—environmentally sustainable lighting and other improvements to design—were predicated on their cost savings. But Shoup, who studies the economics of parking, is interested in a different, more civic-oriented bottom line. He argues that parking is yet one more element of the basic American infrastructure that hasn't been subjected to the basic rules of the market. Cities all too often under-price their parking meters, which explains why drivers tie up traffic cruising for a cheap space. And for decades cities have required developers to include parking as part of new construction, which hides the real cost — economic and environmental — of parking.

Perhaps there was a more literal message to draw from the Bob Woodward's meeting with Deep Throat in that parking garage: "follow the money."

Parking is simply a terminal for auto transportation. All modes of transport have three basic elements—vehicles (airplanes, trains, cars), rights of way (the sky, tracks, roads), and terminals (airports, train stations, parking spaces). Even a narrow focus solely on parking spaces can be misleading, to say nothing about simply writing off all other modes of transport. Transportation, by nature, is multi-modal. The reality of our urban environments is more complex than a pretty parking garage.

Which brings us to Columbia Heights, and yet another parking boondoggle. But this may also be the future of parking: Less is more. Most of the larger discussion of parking, including the dialogue at the National Parking Association and to a somewhat disturbing extent in the National Building Museum exhibition, is predicated on the idea that parking is a necessity. That it can be improved, but not eliminated. Even the act of studying parking as an evolving architectural form all too often seems to legitimize that form. But the emptiness of that lot in Columbia Heights, and the nightmare images on display at the "House of Cars" show, suggest that we may not be nearly as addicted to parking as we once believed.

Indeed.  However, despite the exhibit's conceptual shortcomings, it's definitely worth a visit.  As narrow as the focus may be, it's still a fascinating subject—and the National Building Museum's exhibit design, per usual, does not disappoint.

Crossposted at City Block.