Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

noob_tube03 t1_itdf59f wrote

Does this include a provision that residents of those properties can't apply for parking permits?

11

j_parkour t1_itescdb wrote

I can’t think of any good reason why street parking should be forbidden for the people who don’t have off-street parking, and allowed for people with driveways and garage spaces. That seems totally backwards.

The only reasoning I can think of is selfishness by current residents, to preserve what they have at the expense of newcomers.

29

noob_tube03 t1_itetael wrote

Or because a city has finite space, and that's why the minimum parking requirements for new construction exists? Like, where do you expect a new few hundred people to park? Do you readily see street parking available on mass ave?

−5

CJYP t1_itgwpwj wrote

Cities having finite space is a great reason not to have parking minimums. We need more housing, not more wasted space.

11

noob_tube03 t1_itgxe67 wrote

i think you are mixing up two arguments. Yes, cities have finite space, and yes space should prioritze towards getting more people in and proving affordable housing. However, people also need to get in an out of the city, and so are usually going to need a place to park. Covering your ears and screaming "lalalalalala no cars ever" is not really an option, especially given the state of the T. therefore, if youre bringing in more people, just like you need extra electric grid and water/sewage resources, you also need to account for parking. otherwise, what are you expecting these people do?

​

where do you expect them to park, since you seem to think space shouldnt be wasted on parking?

−1

CJYP t1_itgydok wrote

Who is saying no cars ever? I certainly am not saying that, and I doubt many other people are either. There's plenty of parking already, and plenty of people who live in Cambridge perfectly fine without a car.

If not having a car is really that big of a problem, developers will simply continue to build parking. Because otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their new buildings. It wouldn't take a government mandate. If not having a car is OK, then forcing developers to build parking is wasteful. It just takes up so much space that could be used for anything else instead.

8

noob_tube03 t1_itgz1kl wrote

You didnt even address my question; if more people bring more cars, where do you expect them to park. There's plenty of parking in Cambridge? Where? I find more nights I cant even park in front of my house, and am doing laps of nearby blocks just to find parking.

−2

CJYP t1_itgzhrm wrote

People who need a car will rent an existing apartment with parking spots. People who don't, can rent an apartment without spots. If there's more people who need parking than people who don't, then developers will continue to build parking. And people will park in the off street spots their apartment provides.

8

noob_tube03 t1_ith0b42 wrote

I trust developers to build less revenue generating property as much as I trust rats to stay out of the trash. I suppose you think developers will create affordable housing all in their own for the good of the residents too

0

CJYP t1_ith0kh1 wrote

I 100% trust developers to follow the profits. If people want parking, it won't be profitable to build housing without parking, and they will build parking.

4

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith3wol wrote

This person has their slice of Cambridge and wants to shut the door behind them. Its that simple.

5

noob_tube03 t1_itjkwq4 wrote

This other person seems to think people both need parking and increasing the population of Cambridge doesn't require more infrastructure. Which is it, do people need parking or not? Minimum parking requirements mean new development can accommodate parking. If you think people people don't want parking, then how am I "shutting the door behind me"? Especially since I'm the one who wants parking for them?

0

noob_tube03 t1_ithugkc wrote

Do you have an example of a recent project that required parking, and the building hit occupancy while the parking wasn't utilized?

1

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1jfr wrote

You're assuming that everyone is just like you and cares more about their car than they do their own life. Not everyone wants to waste thousands of dollars a year on a metal box, and not everyone wants to subsidize those who do own one.

6

noob_tube03 t1_ithumtr wrote

I mean, that goes both ways. I don't assume everyone is me, and neither does minimum parking requirements. I do assume that if you increase the population by X%, you will see an increased amount of people needing cars

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ithwatf wrote

Having a forced parking minimum is the definition of forcing people to pay for something they don’t necessarily want, and if you don’t think there are people moving into Cambridge who don’t own cars and don’t want a parking spot, then you are assuming everyone is like you.

And why would increased population density lead to an increase in car necessity?

6

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itf869x wrote

Yeah if anyone thinks that all the new residents of all the new units without dedicated off street parking will just all decide en masse not to have cars, they’re delusional.

8

ik1nky t1_ith1zws wrote

Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most U.S. cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. If parking is provided on-site for free or at a reduced price (typically, $100 per month), then households appear to take advantage of this amenity. In contrast, households without access to on-site parking are more likely to forgo car ownership altogether.

There’s tons of research on parking minimums that show that they increase car ownership, increase traffic, massively increase costs, prevent transit oriented development, produce less pleasing buildings, reduce green space, etc. parking minimums should be abolished.

6

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith421b wrote

these people don't care about data or facts. They will just say "thats not Cambridge -- its different here" to ignore what you just shared.

​

Supply and demand isn't complicated.

8

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqac1v wrote

>Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.

As I posted above. Turns out supply is in fact complicated when it cannot be economically provided.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqc28g wrote

Your father was a city planning engineer, so of the the generation of city planners whose single minded goal was to maximize car usage and infrastructure in cities? You realize that generation of “City planning” Is how we ended up in this mess, right?

The whole premise of your argument continues to rely on your belief that everyone that lives here owns a car which is factually untrue.

as I posted elsewhere, the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused.

Cambridge has an explicit policy outlined in numerous laws passed by the council to reduce the number of vehicles in the city. Restricting supply and giving people other options is part of the point. Sorry.

2

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqjbde wrote

" the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused." is preposterous on its face. Where are these spots? What days and times of days are they unused? For what duration? Are there reliable transit options to/from these spaces? No. Otherwise parking where it counts in Cambridge - within a short walk of the vast majority of units - wouldn't be such a royal PITA.

Also, no. For NYC, he was mostly on the public transit side (think airports and light rail). So, no. He was very much trying to fix what Robert Moses and his ilk wrought. He also knew that we live in the real world where stuff already exists. Or doesn't.

The thing is you're living in a fantasy world. You keep striving for perfect, as if we're building cities from the ground up from scratch. Except we're not. Let's be real. The T absolutely sucks. It just does. Rail, buses, commuter rail. It all completely sucks. And bicycling isn't realistic for most commuters for 3-4 months every year (and I say that as someone who rides nearly 365 days/year). People giving up their cars en masse in Cambridge just isn't a realistic outcome, sorry.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqjxka wrote

The statistic comes the city council itself clown. If you have a problem with it then email them.

Glad you fall back on to the “everything else sucks because all we’ve designed for is cars, so we can never have anything else ever again” argument.

The minimums have been repealed. I suggest you vote in the next election if you’re so upset about it.

2

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itr6b2n wrote

Please point out where I said I was upset about it. LOL. Talk about clowning.

As for their claim, I stand by it being preposterous as anyone who spends a meaningful amount of time in Cambridge - with or without a car - knows.

0

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqa2oq wrote

Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.

There's a reason Manhattan works so well without car ownership.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1oc7 wrote

If there is no where for them to park their car, they won't really have a choice will they? Or, developers can respond to market demand and build parking.

​

People can decide to live in cambridge and enjoy for what it is -- a dense, walkable city -- or fuck off to a suburb. Stop trying to turn this city into a shitty suburb.

1

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1e49 wrote

Believe it or not, people move here without cars all the time. Restricting parking will increase the number of people here who don't own cars. Supply and demand.

5

j_parkour t1_itor0tp wrote

The same place people park in existing buildings without off-street parking: on the street, in a nearby rental space, or nowhere.

1

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith30hh wrote

How about a provision that the city actually charge market rate for street parking instead of giving it away for basically free, in a city where people can walk everywhere.

​

Snowflake syndrome to the max

8

noob_tube03 t1_ithtyx4 wrote

I mean, that is a good idea. Not sure why you think people are against a higher barrier to entry. I mean sure, it means parking is only available to the rich, but the bigger concern is that it's even available at all

1

Fleur75 t1_itej2nu wrote

Exactly this. I lived in a Harvard building once that had this deal with the city - we couldn’t have resident or visitor permits - for big buildings, like Market Central in Central Square, it would make sense. Then again charging real money for parking permits would make sense too

4

charlottespider t1_itgf3ho wrote

I live in one of those now. I don't have a car (we rent or zip car when we need to), but I think it's bad policy,.

3