Iām reminded of all of the negativity around the first phase of Saint Louisā Metrolink LRT. BOONDOGGLE! WASTE OF MONEY!!
But, when it was built out in 1993, then everybody wanted an extension.
8 Likes
If you squint your eyes and look hard enough you can practically see the new Wegmans and Fenton in Caryā¦
5 Likes
Asheville has no minimum parking requirements for development throughout its downtown.
Result:
Proposed 54 unit affordable housing development, on a pretty tricky site, with no parking.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19-jjTSX6ESa6Y2uCfJnAkPVeXuRydma9
Why canāt we do this in Raleigh?
11 Likes
Sir Walter Apartments downtown has no parking. And why would we want no minimum parking? Not sure it would actually reduce the amount of parking spaces being builtā¦
Correct me if Iām wrong, but every single development built or presented in the past 5 years has exceeded the minimum parking requirements. I canāt even think of one development that even used the bare-minimum and meet the lowest requirements.
As much as I encourage this, I doubt it would have as large an impact currently with our downtown.
2 Likes
Affordable housing should not have parking if itās downtown because AH advocates keep saying that the housing needs to be downtown because the residents donāt have cars. If Raleigh puts AH away from DT, then by all means provide parking.
4 Likes
No minimum parking at least gives the option for developers to build as little parking as they want.
Building parking spaces downtown is expensive. Parking structures can cost from $20k to $50k per space to build, depending on whether itās standalone, integrated into a buildingās structure, or underground. Thatās a pretty big portion of the cost. Skyhouse, with no built in parking, cost $60m to build, or an average of $187k per unit. Even assuming just one space per unit construction costs at the bottom of the price range, parking ups that by 10%.
Not to mention how incorporating parking into a building basically means that the development has to have a footprint large enough to accommodate vehicular circulation. Whereas building on smaller lots (eg, 2604 Hillsborough) is possible when parking is left out.
I think for downtown, Raleigh should reset the code such that the current minimum becomes the new maximum and to completely eliminate the minimum.
Allowing parking to become scarce will not diminish the desirability of downtown in any way. The people who whine about paying $7 to park today would whine just as much if it were $4 and will still whine just the same if it costs $12. The overabundance of cars is the worst thing about downtown Raleigh. We have got to do something to reduce it. If parking becomes scarce/expensive that provides incentive for people to seek out alternatives.
5 Likes
I mostly agree, but letās take the newest are largest development proposed for Fayetteville St as a example:
121 Fayetteville:
Number of parking spaces required : 842
Number of parking spaces provided : 1,047
A difference of 205 more spaces provided is very intentional and obviously worth the extra money for this developer.
This is true to some extent, but at the same time when my office was looking to relocate downtown and the availability or scarcity of parking became the number 1 concern, we looked elsewhere because I am the only employee that lives downtown and there wasnāt enough dedicated parking for everyone.
I think if the minimum parking requirements were removed for hotels first, that would probably have the largest and most immediate impact. I believe they did this 5 or 6 years ago going from 1 parking space per hotel room to 1 space for every 2 hotel rooms.
2 Likes
Lenders are forcing developers to add extra parking spaces due to dense modern floor plans in office buildings. Lenders are extremely conservative and base their parking demands on suburban ratios. They donāt really care about our city and are happy to pawn off the costs of dealing with extra traffic onto the city, and the impacts of extra driving on the public at large.
Office construction would not grind to a halt and tenants would not run away if developers were forced to remove the excess 20% of parking spaces from their proposals. What would happen is that this would raise parking costs gradually as the supply and demand curve shifts. The people who are most āon the fenceā about the value of paying to park, and have already been thinking about transit or bikes will do so. Everybody elseās parking costs will go up by a few percent. A few very bitter people may become outraged, quit their jobs, and find employment in the suburbs- but those jobs will quickly be filled by people who are tired of being stuck in suburban office parks and are excited about the prospect of working downtown.
5 Likes
The next mayor has expressed interest into a creating a new downtown park-and-ride service so that will help. Once BRT is online it should be tied to a park and ride with 4 to 5 minute bus arrivals.
The only thing being built right now is luxury housing. Luxury means rich people, rich people can afford to pay for parking just fine. That is why all the development exceeds parking minimums.
5 Likes
If there are centralized parking garages on the edges of downtown that are tied to RLine stops, it could reduce the congestion on the actual downtown road network, activate more ridership on the RLine, and create a stop-gap measure until there are more transit options available for commuters and residents.
As for parking minimums for new development, there has to be a mechanism to support the need for especially a household car until there is more infrastructure to support car-less households.
My DT condo has two parking garage spaces deeded to it, and Iām glad that I have them for now.
1 Like
I can understand the argument that parking maximums is a bridge too far for now, even if I disagree. But to me, there is absolutely no justification for parking minimums. It is a distortion of the market in favor of extra traffic and less sustainable transportation. No thanks. If a person, or family, is willing to live without a car, but a parking space is built for them nonetheless, then that to me is a missed opportunity and a waste of money.
You have your two deeded spaces - awesome. If new buildings are built with less parking and parking becomes scarce, you could then rent out or sell one (or even both) of those spaces, if you ever decide the value the parking provides to you is exceeded by the amount someone else is willing to pay for it. This sort of thing is probably already happening on a small scale in Raleigh, and happens all over the place in cities larger than Raleigh. My uncle lived in a prewar highrise condo building on the lakefront in Chicago. He bought his parking space from somebody who didnāt need it in a newer condo building down the street. He paid a lot of money but got the parking space he wanted, and the person who sold it got a lot of money. Win win.
4 Likes
Iām not in disagreement with you on your thoughts. I too think that parking minimums need to go away. A savvy developer will figure out what is needed for a development, and make decisions accordingly.
Eventually, and as the core matures, the conversation about parking can continue to move forward and hopefully constrict. Sadly, I donāt think that we are anywhere near that conversation.
As for my 2 spaces, the second one is clearly something that I can rent to others. In my building, 1 bedroom units were only deeded 1 space, while 2 and 3 bedroom units were deeded 2 spaces. Clearly there are couples who live in 1 bedroom units that would like a second space.
The whole parking issue is complicated because if the cars required today arenāt accommodated, then those cars get pushed to the street curb, which makes it harder for us to improve both the sidewalk experiences and bike infrastructure throughout downtown.
1 Like
probably belongs in the Show off things from other cities thread. @dtraleigh
Isnāt that in Arlington?
Looks like what the DTR McDonalds location hotel will look like.
Frisco 
1 Like
This is interesting.
https://t.co/TbkREjSSYV?amp=1
10 Likes