Great news that common sense prevails. Now can we get rid of parking requirements for hostels too? We don’t have a single hostel in Raleigh but a small one near the train station would work well but the parking requirements would make such a project unattainable.
4 Likes
In the last city council meeting an idea from the healthy neighborhood committee came up to allow buildings in mixed use districts without any parking requirements. I got excited when I heard it. Maybe we could get some buildings that encourage car light or car less living. Then WOW DID MOST OF THE COUNCIL SHOOT IT DOWN! The Mayor, Crowder, Branch, and then Russ spoke about how it was a bad idea. The idea was actually develop and created by Russ’s committee, so it was very strange to hear him just turn against his own idea. Only Nichole Stewart had any backbone on this and brought up how other cities are not seeing the issues people brought up and how there are advantages for doing it.
Really good watch if you want to know exactly how city councilors think about this issue. https://youtu.be/Ck4Oy2Fx1cc?t=1112
Earlier this month Mendel actually called out her work on this as something she thought she was working on that people who see advantages to density would like. Well seems pretty dead now. Good example of the Council of No getting something killed without voting no.
5 Likes
I forgot that Dickey got into it too saying that it was hard to drive because of the parked cars as well as “reminding” everyone that we put in lots of bike lanes so there was even less room for parkings.
1 Like
Not to mention that providing parking in urban projects makes housing less affordable. What is the cost of providing a garage space these days? $30,000? $35,000?..Does that price even include the cost of the land, or the lost number of housing units that, instead, could be filling the floors of a parking pedestal?
4 Likes
The last number I heard was about $32k for above ground. Not sure what it includes. $40k for below ground.
Thanks for posting this @ADUsSomeday! Wow, it’s like it was almost there yet pulled away!
Seriously, the correct solution, in my mind, is better on-street parking management both within the downtown core (which we have to a degree already) as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. From my perspective, the surrounding DT neighborhoods have been allowed to forego building driveways and garages and have been given free parking spaces for DECADES. (a century??)
Downtown growth is at a historic point and it’s time to cheers for that free parking, you enjoyed it while it lasted, and get in on a system that manages it much better for both residents and visitors. There are ways to make everyone happy with a little management.
I’m so disappointed but hopeful that this council can get there.
3 Likes
Am I looking at this wrong or is there a clashing of two topics that seem like the same one.
Topic 1: What if we allow buildings in mixed use districts build without parking requirements, which in practice means a few will but not the majority of new buildings to be built.
Topic 2: People feel like there is not enough street parking because they can’t park right in front of their house sometime.
I was pumped about a discussion on #1, but #2 blew it up really quickly. Is part of the assumption that #2 needs to be solved to then try #1 because that would mean we will never get enough people happy to get to #1.
3 Likes
Here’s a good read if you in the camp of people that would like to see less dependency on cars.
5 Likes
Good read indeed. Email that to council stat…if you haven’t already.
I wager less than 10% of folks living in counties such as Wake consider the realities laid out in this essay.
Truly a core issue in the challenges at the crux of ‘smart growth’. Most of the levers we might pull to change course are simple but difficult to overcome as they fundamentally require less in areas most folks consider conveniences.
2 Likes
It won’t be read with an open mind.
Beginning Oct. 1, rates charged to park in most of the City’s nine parking decks will change to the following:
- $1.50/hour, first four hours;
- $2/hour after four hours to daily maximum;
- Daily maximum: $14;
- Special event parking: $10; and,
- Lost ticket charge: $25.
Lowering the hourly rate from $2 to $1.50 for the first four hours is intended to encourage motorists to park in the decks, leaving more available on-street metered parking spaces for Downtown visitors.
The proposed new rates were the result of previous parking studies and extensive community engagement. The Raleigh City Council approved the changes as part of the budget adoption process in June. Two parking decks, the Performing Arts deck and the Convention Center underground deck, will remain $3 per hour, up to a daily maximum of $15.
The new parking rates more closely align with other U.S. cities. A summary of fee changes, parking deck enchantments, and on-going parking updates can be found by visiting the City’s website.
8 Likes
Hmmmm, indeed…
…
if I was one of th 17k homeless in SF, I would sleep in there.
1 Like
I’ve been in that ancient parking deck. It’s full of car rental agencies. Several of the floors are full of people picking up and returning cars.
What are they trying to do by differentiating ‘motorists’ for decks and ‘visitors’ for the meters? Do they mean they want longer term parking to be in the decks and shorter term left conveniently available for the quick trips to retail? Seems like a poor job at explaining it.
Yes. That’s the desired end-goal with parking. You want to encourage folks to go straight to decks (rather than circling for on-street parking, creating a perception that “there’s no place to park”) rather than hunt for those on-street spaces.
There’s also a philosophy that since decks have plentiful space, you want to encourage people to go there. The best spots (on-street) should be priced higher for turnover and therefore, they are available more often. They are more expensive, sure, but if you want a quick, easy option, on-street spaces will be available. Need stay for awhile? Just go to a deck.
That’s it in a nutshell anyway.
7 Likes
This is not an unusual tactic in cities. In Miami Beach, the city ratcheted up the cost of street parking to quadruple that of the garages to “encourage” garage use. There are even signs along street parking areas that show Street Parking = $$$$ while Parking Garages = $ to drive the point home.
In addition to making people more comfortable with using the garages, this tactic also reduces resistance to the city eventually removing street parking to expand bicycle infrastructure and sidewalk experience.
9 Likes
This approach makes sense to me. But then I am that guy goes right to a garage or first open spot in a surface lot. While I am walking into my destination, I enjoy watching people still circling, looking for that perfect spot right in front of their destination so they won’t have to walk the extra X # of feet. Bless their hearts.
10 Likes
Same here. I’ve never understood the appeal of street parking downtown when we have so many convenient garages. Often way more stress finding a street spot for minimal benefit.
3 Likes