I like the approach. Don't worry too much about particular solutions, just get large employers in a room, recognize that you all spend tons on health care and that its in everyone's interest to find ways to spend less. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
blabby, how much land in the city under the new rules will require 1 to 1 parking per unit? The overwhelming majority. How is that anti-car jihad?
I think fewer people will own cars if they can live in areas where they don't need them, and I think the street I've described is one of those areas. At the same time I think the quality of life for neighbors would be significantly improved by more pedestrian oriented development along that street. That's a win all around.
Unfortunately, parking requirements make it less likely to occur. They mean fewer sites can be developed or they will house fewer people than they could. Buildings with parking will be taller upsetting neighbors, less likely to have ground floor retail making pedestrian use less likely, and to boot will have problems getting vehicles in and out because of current traffic flows.
How does requiring parking on this street make a lick of sense?
I'll second AMA. I live near an arterial street that's basically at capacity. Putting housing with parking along it would pose major traffic and safety issues in the absence of dedicated traffic lights. The area has multiple frequent service bus lines, multiple grocery stores, and a walk score of 88. Despite that long sections of the street are significantly underutilized if not outright blighted, and pedestrian traffic is nil.
Given those circumstances how can it make sense to say that housing shouldn't be allowed along this main street without parking?
What is the clear rationale Nick Fish attributes to parking minimums? In the discourse around this law that was the question supporters were least willing to answer. I heard lots of talk about what they were against: developers, hipsters, and big buildings. But I heard virtually no talk about what supporters were for, no vision of what they wanted for Portland or how this law would contribute to it. If Nick Fish thinks it's clear maybe he could grace us with an answer. How does the city benefit from parking minimums?
Todd, what is the problem if people in apartments park on the street? The only cost is to those competing for curbside spaces who made the exact same choice. Why should people be protected from the consequence of that decision, and if so why should the cost of that protection be born exclusively by apartment residents? Why should the resident of a 500 square foot apartment be made to pay for parking so that the resident of a 3 bedroom house doesn't have to?
Portland can do better than this.
If the city adopts parking requirements I hope they allow neighborhoods to grant a waiver in return for alternative design considerations. If a costly design feature is going to be foisted on a building let it be something the specific neighborhood wants, don't limit it to what Richmond wants.
Given the opportunity, some communities may find higher aspirations than a parking garage.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |