It is not that difficult for the city to provide for much better transportation than cars with the land allocated towards much more productive services and greatly improved income streams.

The proposed public bicycle system is the first step. More advanced public systems have the potential to provide the requisite services that make cars in urban areas obsolete.

what's bizarre about this requirement is that it screws the landlords - that space could and should be storefront or more living space. if i was a landlord, i'd be pissed.

someone should do some research into how much money they stand to lose with this policy. money talks, bullshit walks.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/227454-john-petersen/1461-solar-panels-and-parking-lots-an-extraordinary-dual-use

You make very good points. Perhaps I should just let the articles posted by the Cap'n and me speak for themselves.

I think there's a HUGE lack of imagination on the Bloomberg administration's part when it comes to this development. Just put up parking, seems to be the philosophy. Something needs to change, and my point is that I think we'll get more accomplished if we recognize where the other side is coming from and think about how they will hear our arguments.

To illustrate what Rhywun is talking about, please see Home Depots in the Bronx on Google Maps. Home Depots A, B and C (D is the same as B) serve the sprawly eastern Bronx of lawns, driveways, houses and James Vacca. Home Depot E is the one we're talking about. It's surrounded by apartment buildings, and should be much more like the Home Depots in Manhattan.

To illustrate Gary Fisher's point, the parking lot at the Home Depot in my neighborhood is never crowded. There's room there for another store, a restaurant, a playground or any number of better uses for that space.

So we're all arguing that it can be a little of both. Why are you and Oscar criticizing us, instead of the extreme positions taken by Bloomberg and the developers?

So to the point Home Depot should probably have some parking, just no where near as much as planned right now.

Now, 2,800 spots seems excessive, as a trip to Ikea on all but its opening weekend would demonstrate. That number should probably go down and other solutions should be created. To use Ikea as an example again, even though it's not a perfect one, the city changed bus routes to get people there, Ikea offers its own bus shuttle, and there's the water taxi. Plus delivery on all items, big or small. There are lots of ways to get there other than by car. (Although we shouldn't demonize the car altogeter; Ikea offers preferred parking for Zipcars, a nice sign that they encourage car sharing and recognize that some percentage of their business overlaps with Zipcar membership.)

By the way, why jump on Jass because he mistakenly called the Manhattan stores Design Centers? His point remains the same. While you can buy lumber there, it's in small quantities, by no means anywhere near the size or amounts one can get at the Brooklyn, or other outer-borough locations. It is, in fact, a place that caters more to the more small-scale apartment renovation set and not contractors, who are more often found at other locations. Zgori made the point of distinction already, so no need for people to be jerks! Does it make people better to win a semantic argument? Congrats! They aren't Design Centers!

It can't be all or nothing. As transit advocates, we need to stop with the "just because I can do it, everyone else can too" argument. What's needed is a balance. Personal examples can be constructive and informative, but they are not one-size-fits-all. Angus, I always love your arguments and agree with you 99% of the time, but you frequently use your experience as an argument for why everyone should be able to do the same. At least that's the impression that your comment gives. It's a surefire way to get the other side to disagree immediately and not be open to creative solutions. Imagine sarcastic Bloomie himself responding, can't you hear it? "That's fine for you, but most people need to carry more than a bag of potting soil home."

Go to Home Depot on a Sunday morning and you'll see tons of contractors buying sheet rock or brownstone owners buying heaps of dirt and mulch for their gardens and others buying everything in between. Creative solutions for these people are needed: transit, delivery, and, yes, parking.

Let me add, though, that there are also plenty of small, independently owned, specialized paint and hardware stores that do cater to homeowners, renters and supers. There are also some lumberyards and building supply stores. These mostly make do with a few on-street parking spaces. And of course many of them will be driven out of business by the new Home Depot, just like the Costcos and Fairways are driving out the small grocery stores.

Your comments show both a lack of knowledge about New York City and a failure to read carefully and think logically.

1) Neither of the Home Depots in Manhattan are Design Centers. The Home Depot on 59th St sells lumber, not a lot, but they definitely sell it. Go see for yourself. I bought some wood panels are took them on the subway.

2) Perhaps you didn't read my comment carefully. I'm not saying zero parking. I'm saying provide the minimum amount parking to discourage driving trips when then aren't necessary, such as when the non-contractor majority shops there. I also think they should actively promote alternative methods of getting to the store. Please explain what is so very wrong with this idea.

3) Since you obviously aren't from around here, the Bronx and Manhattan are made up 95% of apartment buildings. These buildings are made of steel, plaster, and concrete. People in these neighborhood aren't building decks in their backyards. Most people don't have backyards. Surprised?

4) The arguments you are making are the same ones made for IKEA in Red Hook, but it has been shown that building massive amounts of parking is not the only way to provide access to stores that many people consider to depend exclusively on auto access.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/nyregion/11ikea.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=nyregion

http://gothamist.com/2008/06/17/ikea_red_hook_how_to_get_there_chea.php

Most people do not go to home depot to buy lightbulbs. The majority of their business comes from contractors and individuals redoing a home. Owners, not renters. They need ladders, plywood, paint, tools and other large objects. They need a car (pickup truck) to take it home or to the job sight.

A best buy doesnt require parking. A walmart doesnt require parking. A home depot does.

Millions of others do the same. Millions, dude.

Dude, how do you go to Home Depot without a car?

Myself, I take the F train to 23rd Street and walk 1/2 block. There's one closer to where I live in Brooklyn but it's only accessible by car, and I don't have one of those, like 40% of my neighbors.

And sure, jobs are a good idea. Hey, I have an idea. I'll start an airport in the South Bronx. That'll bring jobs, too.

You may need a vehicle to buy lumber, but my point is that MOST people going to Home Depot are not buying lumber. This is particularly true for people who live in the South Bronx and Manhattan. Most people who live there rent apartments and don't own a car. Why not make it easy for THEM to get to the store? Why not try to reduce the amount of car trips?

I'm not saying don't provide any parking. I'm saying, provide some parking but encourage transit as much as possible. The Bloomberg method provides as much parking as possible while not encouraging transit at all. The transit model worked for IKEA, so why not do it elsewhere? The simple answer is that the Bloomberg EDC people aren't thinking long term, and it's easy to build a big parking garage and call it a day.