Comments on: Report: NYC’s Off-Street Parking Policy Will Set Off a Traffic Explosion

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:41:05 +0000

So Crapper, if all of Queens were well-served by subway, bus or light rail, to the point where everyone in the borough could get to work within an hour, you'd support the elimination of the parking requirement?

By: Queens Crapper

Queens Crapper — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:41:28 +0000

You folks need to understand that people in Queens for the most part suffer from crappy transportation and many of them work at blue collar jobs and at odd hours when buses run very poorly or not at all. They have no choice but to have cars. So if you're building in Queens, then you need to provide parking. And the paving over of yards is happening mainly at older homes without parking, like the one featured in the link Cap'n Transit posted, because the new developments are required to not only incorporate parking but also green space into their plans.

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:48:27 +0000

A colleague recently informed me of a project that illustrates how screwed up the process has become. Zoning code for a housing development in Queens was required to have a minimum number of spaces. However, so many spaces were required that DOT required the developer to conduct a traffic study to assess the impact. The developer wished to build less parking, but the Planning Department required them to apply for hardship benefit! Many developers, especially affordable housing developers, don't want the hassle of building parking.

A community-based affordable housing developer last year had to tear down a community garden in order to provide a zoning-required parking lot for an affordable housing project down the street. I nearly cried. The community group didn't have enough money to build underground parking or pay lawyers to help get an exemption. There is no need for this.

To shortage of housing, and massive rental prices makes a strong case that car parking is a luxury item that New Yorkers will easily do without.

By: mfs

mfs — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:13:33 +0000

Philip-
Believe it or not, you've made the report's point exactly! There are people who have a car now that move into new developments that don't pay enough for parking- as a result everyone in the building subsidizes their neighbors' parking. Those that can afford market rates for land for their cars will pay it and the amount of parking provided will adjust accordingly. Those that can't will find ways to use zipcar or rental agencies to make do for when they truly need a car.

One of the major recommendations of the report is to automatically waive on-site parking requirements for affordable housing developments. This will make it much cheaper for affordable housing developers to build.

By: Philip

Philip — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:51:28 +0000

Since NYC is becoming a city for the rich doesn't anyone realize that with a lot of money there will be more cars per? Rich people don't like being inconvenienced. Not having a car is an inconvenience. Off street park they will have no matter what since they won't want the inconvenience of parking their porches or whatever on the street. Or they won't live here. Why not make a case for lower and middle income housing instead? If you ask me the barn door was opened a long time ago. All these little dodads of TA is just to get more bikes on the street. Yeah I bike for fun but when I'm 80 I'm not getting on a bike and I certainly ain't food shopping with a bike...

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:37:36 +0000

Turns out I was wrong: even though Queens Crap features post after post about paved yards and street-level parking, they're apparently incapable of making the connection between off-street parking and crap. They're also fond of gratuitously insulting people.

By: Peter Frishauf

Peter Frishauf — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:59:34 +0000

Isn't there a simple solution: mandate that for every off-street space, you TAKE AWAY on-street space, replacing it with green spaces and loading zones, which would be accessed on a paid-for basis with a smart card? This would eliminate double parking for necessary servicing of apartment buildings and homes, facilitate egress for busses, vans, and cabs, and certainly help cyclists and pedestrians.

While we are at it, let's mandate that every off-street facility set aside 25% of its capacity for car sharing, bike sharing, and bike parking. Many New Yorkers who own and need cars would forgo ownership if there was robust car sharing. Many NYC cars that are garaged are parked 90% of its life, which is also very costly.

By: Jason A

Jason A — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:29:50 +0000

Until we fix the affordable housing crisis in this city, I don't think one iota of additional space should be reserved for automobiles. Any time I pass one those mini-driveways I think of how that space could have gone towards constructing a modest studio.

Why are we worried about storing cars when can't even store people?

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:58:21 +0000

Require off-street parking will only work if it is accompanied by a policy to remove and reduce on-street spaces. Meters on major avenues need to be pushed to the ends of the side streets; permit parking is a no-brainer as is eliminating parking on all bike-laned streets.

By: momos

momos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:34:36 +0000

@ MFS
Excellent point. There may have been a time when developers thought they needed to offer on-premises parking to lure buyers, but even with the economic downturn it's clear the NYC market is different and much higher value uses can be found for ground floor and below grade spaces than the storage of cars.

By: mfs

mfs — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:01:58 +0000

I bet that many developers will agree with the report. They would much rather have flexibility and be able to have a rentable piece of an apartment than a much lower priced parking spot that costs a great deal to construct. It's more the neighborhood concerns that are driving the reticence to confront it. I'm sure DCP has the disaster of the "unified bulk" proposal strongly in their minds as a major citywide zoning change that ran into serious problems. Plus, few besides academics have been talking about this idea until recently. Larry Littlefield will chime in about this soon, I'm sure.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:57:08 +0000

I wonder if NYC's parking requirements violate the Clean Air Act? This argument almost stopped Westway, although in the end it was the Stripped Bass that did it in. Another problem is the parking impact section of CEQR which leads to massive parking structures for projects like Atlantic Yards. The argument I always use when people say buildings need parking in NYC is to ask them how many parking spaces were put in for the Empire State Building. Nobody would deny that the Empire State Building is a failure because it lacks parking.

By: momos

momos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:47:02 +0000

@ Brent
I don't either, but how else to explain City Planning's inaction in such an obvious and critical policy area?

By: brent

brent — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:23:21 +0000

In a real estate environment as healthy as NYC, I don't understand how a developer's interest in appealing to suburban car owners could outweigh the added cost and reduced rentable space of car storage infrastructure? It's just weird man.

By: momos

momos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:03:06 +0000

On second thought, am I naive to think City Planning has simply overlooked parking policy?

The Bloomberg Admin can safely be described as friendly to developers. Perhaps in his zeal to encourage new housing construction Bloomberg is unwilling to deny developers a selling point many suburbanites moving to the city may consider a key "feature." Plus Bloomberg knows local opposition to new development often cites scarce parking -- but if that development is required to build its own parking capacity, a major reason for public opposition to new development is removed.

Thus current parking policy is totally at odds with the city's sustainability goals and sound urban planning, but for commercial reasons (developers like it) and political reasons (it helps neutralize local opposition) it stays on the books nonetheless.

This seems like a more plausible explanation than City Planning simply not yet getting around to addressing a critical policy area central to the agency's contribution to the PlaNYC vision.

By: momos

momos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:52:12 +0000

Cap'n Transit, the mention of properties showcased on Queens Crap is so on point. Earlier this year City Planning changed rules to discourage the paving over of front yards. This was part of PlaNYC efforts to mitigate storm water run-off with green space.

With all of City Planning's zoning work how could they possibly have overlooked parking policy? This is the linchpin of City Planning's contribution to PlaNYC. Parking policy should have been CP's priority number one from day one.

Today's NYT describes the count-down clocks in the Bloomberg Admin. City Planning had better hussle. The seconds are ticking.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:38:56 +0000

Sadly, I'm afraid the horses may be out of the barn on this one. Remember Freddy Ferrer's famed revitalization of the Bronx? A lot of that revitalization was in the form of townhouses with parking garages, and that happened in the '90s. Almost all the properties that are featured on Queens Crap include street-level garages and/or paved yards. I think that's one thing we can all agree with the Crapper on: paved yards are crap. This is a great report; I just wish it had come out fifteen years ago - and that there had been someone following up on it.

By: mfs

mfs — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:47:10 +0000

The perfect test case is coming up in Williamsburg. The Domino Sugar Factory redevelopment will come through ULURP in the next month or so and it has a 50% on-site minimum parking requirement...

By: Matt Ides

Matt Ides — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:40:34 +0000

The zoning code needs to be over hauled for many reasons, but parking requirements should he one of the main issues addressed.