What Happens When You Build Housing With No Parking?

Comments

1
The parking subsidy we provide to car owners has to end. Free parking of your oil-leaking beast on the street is not a fair use of my non-car owning tax dollars. Keeps reminding me that I pay more than my share far when it comes to road. All auto subsidies must end.
2
I think the "only 36% drive to work" number refers to residents of all the buildings in the survey, not just the ones without on-site parking. So I think that's mostly a representation of how behavior changes when apartments are located in bike/transit/foot-friendly parts of town.

Removing parking restrictions encourages such development, at the cost of letting more of us freeload on the tax-supported street parking.
3
If the goal of these policies is to get people to live car free, let the developers build units without dedicated offstreet parking, require residents of those units to get a parking permit (priced steeply enough to discourage said residents from owning cars) for the neighborhood and strictly enforce the permit system with landlord cooperation.
4
This study is laughable. It proves that parking problems are not a crisis levels now but fails to mention the problems that are coming. The density problems are more than parking- it's a question of why Foster-Powell remains blighted while developers destroy Division and Belmont. Altho' I bike to work I am growing disenchanted with the car-free idealogues. I am tired of the lame-ass sissy utopia envisioned by Portland's city planners.
5
A parking crisis would be a beautiful thing. Junk your poison-spewing car and get a bike or ride transit. Or move to Beaverton.
6
I think we are all putting all of the blame on some of the wrong people here, from developers to NIMBY home owners.

Look, if you're in a dense part of town and you're renting one of these new parking-less apartments in areas not used to lots of vehicles these will bring; please ditch the automobile or pay to store it somewhere else.

This won't ever happen, but it seems if some people took some personal initiative, this wouldn't be near as big of a problem.
7
You can't tell from someone's car whether they live in a house or an apartment, so if curbside parking is a problem that needs to be solved than the solution shouldn't depend on where people live. Parking permits pass that test, minimum parking requirements on multi-family housing do not.
8
It's not a problem now, but before long, the parking situation in the Division area is going to look like Nob Hill. Nice area and all, but I avoid it like the plague if it involves trying to park anywhere nearby.

Also, saying that "parking is expensive to build" is an incredibly convoluted way to look at it. It's more accurate to say that "Replacing parking spots with condo units is much more lucrative" which is the only reason the fucking developers love the idea of parking-free buildings.

The other thing that developers are absolutely tone-deaf on is the culture of a neighborhood. Look at the monstrosity going up next to the Hollywood Theater. The Division food cart pod that got taken down to put up condos. These things spring up like tumors to take advantage of an appealing neighborhood culture, and in the process ruin the things that made the area appealing in the first place. We need to have more affordable multi-family housing, but it needs to be implemented in a way that doesn't screw up existing neighborhoods.
9
@Azure - "Junk your poison-spewing car and get a bike or ride transit."

I couldn't do that without quitting most of my jobs. I understand that your day is full of free time, but some of us are trying to do work, here.
10
"Junk your poison-spewing car and get a bike or ride transit. Or move to Beaverton."

Yeah, well at least I was actually born in Portland. How about you move the hell back to Nebraska. Dick.

Owning a car isn't unreasonable. It's a necessity sometimes, for work, grocery shopping, and especially for those with kids.

Using your car unnecessarily when other options are available, for short trips or going downtown, is what's unreasonable.
11
Why would you want to live without a car? An automobile is not just a luxury, but the only viable form of transportation throughout most of Portland, and Oregon, the United States, and the entire world. Only in the tiniest microcosm of inner-Portland does living car free even work for more than 10% of people.

How many of you bike out from Portland to Hillsboro for a one-hour work meeting, and is your boss really cool with that? How many of you are willing to peddle your ass to the hospital if you break your arm - or your child gets sick? (and don't give me any "ambulance" bullshit, I know you can't afford it.) Automobiles = employment.

Here's the reality: Automobiles are not going away, and in the future people are likely going to consider it a “Right to own/use a car” in order to fulfill their Right to Transportation. We could argue about the technicalities of “greener” technology within cars (especially gas/oil), but the automobile is here to stay, and it’s not going away anytime soon. I ride the bus to and from work every day, but I’m never giving up my car. Have any of you noticed who runs TriMet? Those bus routes that went away are not coming back, public transportation is on the decline in this town.

We should build a city that incorporates this change towards dependence on automobiles. An apartment without a parking lot is a future low-income (ie ghetto) building. The developers are investing in these buildings looking at the short-term buck, not what’s good for a long-term Portland.
12
FA-well put. Also Reymont, S&W, thank you. Nobody wants more pollution and urban sprawl but just because a smaller number of people can live "car free" doesn't mean everyone can. Think about someone besides yourselves for a change
13
Know what ends this debate? An end to the $4B in subsidies to oil companies which leads to gas prices closer to what the rest of the world pays - around $10 / gallon. Or a carbon tax.

I'll admit that a car is useful sometimes. But having your own is a dying first-world luxury. Everything changes, and the rest of the world has already figured out how to make transit, bikes, and the occasional carshare work.

"Think about someone besides yourselves" indeed.
14
Crowsby, if you want to talk about Hollywood let's talk about all the vacant retail space and struggling businesses. That spot next to the theater where apartments are going was used only by rats. Such empty spaces are as aesthetically appealing as broken teeth in a smile.

Whatever visual impact apartments have, I'll take any day in return for a more vibrant and prosperous business district.
15
@BJ

That fucking eyesore of a building next to the theater will have no impact of the viability of businesses in Hollywood. There are plenty of people who live within walking distance of that district, yet it fails to thrive. And the parking spaces taken by those who live there certainly won't help that. At all.

I've heard lots of different reasons for it---from the commercial property in the area being owned by greedy fucks who demand rents that keep independent businesses out, to the opinion that the area is more "family-oriented," not supporting the types of businesses that thrive in more trendy areas.

Regardless, it'll have no effect. Guaranteed. And we'll have to look at that piece of shit next to a total icon in the area.

Progress, indeed.
16
Up the price of each unit by 400 dollars, include a fancy loaded bike, and put in sheltered bike racks.
17
The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Commission is a bunch of volunteers- many with
$ interests. Let's pressure the Mayor elect and the commissioners to change the composition of this commission. We need a whole new slate. After that, it's time
to either force planning issues to a vote (as happened with flouride) or just junk the head city planners. Let's hire the people who brought all the new high tech jobs to Hillsboro.