Comments on: The Next New York: How the Planning Department Sabotages Sustainability

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:12:57 +0000

Spikex, with you, but we already decided we’re not willing to toll the bridges.

By: spikex

spikex — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:46:29 +0000

Using parking restrictions to try to restrict driving is stupid. If you want to restrict driving, toll the east river bridges (and use it to pay for better public transit) and so on.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:47:00 +0000

Rube, I’ll go a step further and say the whole community and environmental land use review process for parking and traffic is broken, and strongly biased towards building huge amounts of parking. Community groups typically base their concerns on the environmental studies required for large developments. But those studies estimate traffic and parking activity on the assumption that future parking will be free. There is no attempt to project demand or mode share based on different parking prices and supplies. This is irrational. No business would estimate demand for a new product based on that product being free. It is farcical.

By: rube goldberg

rube goldberg — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:15:11 +0000

Absolutely, NYC’s parking requirements are too high – especially the commercial parking requirements. But there’s another factor that contributes to the over-supply of parking: community opposition. Pick any development project anywhere in the City, the standard, never-fail opposition mantra is traffic and parking: the new development will flood the neighborhood with cars, the critics cry, and if there’s no parking or not enough parking as part of the development, newcomers and outsiders will compete for what curbside parking there is, driving around and around the local streets, further contributing to traffic congestion. I’ve been at community board public hearings everywhere from southern Staten Island to the northern Bronx and it’s always, predictably, the same. Developers thus have learned to head the opposition off at the pass by providing as much parking as they can get – sometimes requesting the waivers mentioned by Larry Littlefield.

Another contributing factor is the impact thresholds under City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), which tend to reinforce the Zoning Resolution’s excessive parking requirements.

By: Jeffrey Hymen

Jeffrey Hymen — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:20:58 +0000

Larry and Corey, DCP is finalizing a text amendment to permit car-sharing in accessory parking lots/garages. I suggested this could be an opportunity to reduce the parking requirement. After all, many tenants are theoretically sharing one car and one parking space. DCP told me, however, it is concerned developers might use a car-sharing reduction to build less parking and then at a later point, discontinue the car-sharing. I still think the agency is making a mistake. This is such a baby step.

By: Justin Lee Miller

Justin Lee Miller — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:42:18 +0000

I do not accept the notion that New York City is not governable or plannable. We can have the city we want. I think a 1987 New Yorker would be shocked anyone would be building anything at all in certain neighborhoods. We need more leadership and guts and optimism.

By: Rob B.

Rob B. — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:17:41 +0000

I can’t believe the city is allowing new buildings to be built this way! One of the comforts for parents raising children in the city is the absence of driveway curb cuts and cars crossing the sidewalk. Kids can walk and run relatively freely on the sidewalk, demanding slightly less hovering by parents.

Brooklyn is so charming because of car-free sidewalks. Fourth Avenue has the subway running under it. Why ruin it with cars and garages?

By: JK

JK — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:53:09 +0000

You’re absolutely right Larry, the whole code is full of contradictions and de facto real world exceptions. A basic premise of democracy and good public policy is that you should have laws that say what they mean. The code and C/SEQRA both are crying out for total overhauls. The C/SEQRA and EIS part are closely intertwined with zoning because they are way developers show they are complying the zoning for big projects. Mayor Mike would do the public a big service by creating a clear and rational code and enviro review process. (No more projecting mode share and demand based on free and unlimited parking!)

By: Paul Murphy

Paul Murphy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:33:59 +0000

Thanks for putting a spotlight on this. These requirements are so idiotic and retrograde. The map is really great too.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:21:58 +0000

“Baloney is to have written standards —zoning — that has so many exceptions and waivers that it’s not meaningful. The parking requirement should either be adhered to or not exist. Adding to the layers of absurdity surrounding parking requirements are city and state EIS requirements (C/SEQRA which project demand for parking based only on free parking. That hugely inflates demand.”

You have no idea how much baloney is in zoning regulations. There are provisions that basically say homeless shelters can’t exist anywhere, and another hidden one (to avoid running afoul of other constituencies) that say they can.

The zoning was mostly written by a pre-term limits NYC political culture, when NYC was run by the same sort of politicians we now have in Albany. Something to think about as we head for a post-term limits political culture.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:03:16 +0000

That’s a nice map!

By: Jason A

Jason A — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:18:43 +0000

That picture of “The Argyle” is an offensive middle finger to anyone who walks by it. It’s like the building stood up and turned its back to the street. Shame on all parties responsible for this.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:55:38 +0000

Developers do not always want to build parking, I’ve talked to a bunch about this exact issue, and yes, city planning and community boards do force them to. Doesn’t it seem bizarre that the relatively small number of people who park curbside in neighborhoods near transit are allowed to compel the construction of hugely expensive and environmentally destructive off-street parking in new developments? It’s not enough to shrug and call it “politics,” it’s baloney. Also baloney is to have written standards —zoning — that has so many exceptions and waivers that it’s not meaningful. The parking requirement should either be adhered to or not exist. Adding to the layers of absurdity surrounding parking requirements are city and state EIS requirements (C/SEQRA which project demand for parking based only on free parking. That hugely inflates demand.)

By: Corey Burger

Corey Burger — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:45:35 +0000

Short of actually setting maximums, which may not fly politically, the city force developers to make new owners buy parking as a separate entity. They could also allow replacement if concessions are made for bike parking, transit passes or car share memberships.

By: Charles Siegel

Charles Siegel — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:28:59 +0000

“The parking is there because the developers want it, because they believe affluent buyers do, not because the city is forcing them.”

If that were true, we could simply eliminate the requirements and let the market handle the issue. I think that, if we looked at the amount charged for parking in new buildings, we would see that it does not cover the full cost of constructing the parking, which indicates that the requirements are higher than the amount of parking that the market would provide.

I am surprised at how high these requirements are. In Berkeley, the requirement is generally .25 per unit in apartment buildings, and we are much more auto-dependent than NY city.

In Berkeley, the general rule is that condo apartment developers provide 1 space per unit, because buyers want it. Rental apartment developers provide the required .25 spaces, and would provide less if it weren’t for the requirement.

By: karl

karl — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:12:09 +0000

As a practicing urban planner, I would love to actually have the power ascribed to me by this article….

I will say that by and large I agree with the goals laid out by this article, and would venture to guess that most other planners do as well. However, as the other posters have alluded to, there are other considerations that go into these decisions, many of them political. The end result is often a compromise or represents the balancing of several competing interests.

I do enjoy these critiques of my profession. I figure that at least it means that somebody cares about what we do.

By: James

James — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:51:23 +0000

Isn’t the title a little bit histrionic? I mean, ‘sabotaging?’ Come on. The minimum parking requirements in transit-accessible areas are what they are purely for political reasons. They have nothing to do with best practices in sustainable urbanism or the desires of planners toiling away in bureaucratic city dungeons. Page 4 of the report you linked to even states this – the ratios exist to protect the existing pool of on-street parking users (homeowners/voters in many cases) from an influx of new arrivals with vehicles. It’s done to satisfice a self-entitled constituency who would go batshit if they were unable to find parking. That’s the essence of it.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:27:02 +0000

As much as Streetsblog feels compelled to post this, I feel compelled to correct it. You need to take into account the availability of waivers. With the ability to waive, and divide larger lots into smaller ones with separate buildings, parking is optional, not required. One think I leared in 13 years of reviewing and helping to write zoning regulations is that without cross-referencing multiple sections, the zoning isn’t what you think it is.

The parking is there because the developers want it, because they believe affluent buyers do, not because the city is forcing them. To get rid of it, it would be necessary to prohibit it — to impose maximums rather than minimums, which exist in some parts of the city.

But that would generate outrage from nearby neighborhood residents, who would see new residents competing for “their” on-street spaces, and create more opposition to new development altogether (always present below the surface from the “I’ve got mine jack” crowd).

I’ll be interested to see your way out. Restrict parking but encourage facilties for shared vehicles (Zipcar) and rental facilities?