Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dandykaufman2 t1_j9w2d1k wrote

Reply to comment by Fattom23 in 78-Unit, Mixed-Use Project Approved in Fishtown by ColdJay64

It’s funny how people in NY say every building should have affordable housing units and everyone here says they should all have parking

21

Fattom23 t1_j9w46gj wrote

I've got my days that I just can't wrap my brain around the strangeness of insisting that nothing can be built unless it offers a ton of places to store your private property when you're not using it. This is one of those days: I really can't understand why people demand free abundant storage space for their stuff and then insist homes can't be built because it will interfere with that.

9

espressocycle t1_j9wxhzg wrote

Because a lot of people need cars because commuting to anywhere but Center City by SEPTA is very difficult. They live in houses without parking in neighborhoods with no paid parking lots and know what an apartment without parking is going to result in a lot of new residents who also have cars. You could, of course, solve that problem with permit parking that residents of the apartments can never be eligible for. That's not something we do but we totally could. A less draconian idea would be to grandfather in current residents or even houses to the current ridiculously cheap permits and make any new ones or ones associated with new apartments significantly more expensive.

10

Fattom23 t1_j9z327b wrote

I follow all that (I commuted for four years to Blue Bell with no car). But the only way your parking can be guaranteed is if you park on your own property. My house didn't come with a parking space (which wasn't a surprise to me, because I have eyes), so I park on the street, same as everyone else. But it would be ludicrous for me to expect other people to not build homes because I need to be sure I can continue to park my car on the public street with no issue. Street parking belongs to no one (not even homeowners, long-time residents or those who own traffic cones).

I stand by my original point that our plans for where to house people should take no account whatsoever of where anyone is going to store their car when they're not using it. People will either find a place or make other arrangements.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z3h0s wrote

Exactly. Just bc you “reverse commute” or something doesn’t mean we have to design for that current use. Let’s density and then you can figure your shit out. Maybe you’ll have to move to the burbs if you wanna work there.

2

espressocycle t1_ja0lmp4 wrote

Sure, people live in a neighborhood all their lives then some yuppies discover it and they have to move? Why not just ban new apartment residents from parking? If density is so great and nobody needs a car then people will be lining up to live in apartment buildings that do not come with the option to park on the street. And no, reverse commuting is impossible in most cases because there's no transit near the office parks. Hell just getting between neighborhoods in Philly without going through Center City is a pain in the ass.

0

dandykaufman2 t1_ja0qw7q wrote

So on what time scale are neighborhoods supposed to change if the can’t in one persons lifespan??

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nj8n wrote

I just told you how to change them. If you want to build up density to create a car-free utopia then ban the residents of new buildings from parking on the street or make their parking permits reflect the actual value of parking. It's really that simple. I always see urbanists insisting apartment buildings don't need on-site parking because everybody will take the bus or ride their bikes. If that's really true, then why are they allowed to get parking permits?

1

espressocycle t1_ja0l0ub wrote

Yes but if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot. I'm all for increasing density, but out of fairness to the people who already live there, there has to be some way to make sure that new apartments without parking don't bring more cars to the area. I mean people always say "the location has great transit, it doesn't need parking" but if that's true, don't let people who move there have parking permits.

2

Fattom23 t1_ja0mfvs wrote

>if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot.

That's absolutely true, but the solution isn't to force new construction to provide parking; that gives an unfair subsidy to people who have lived in the neighborhood longer (and choose to own one or more cars). They've been able to store their stuff in the street for essentially free for decades, and everyone who lives in the neighborhood has an equal moral right to the free property storage (even if they just moved in yesterday).

Let builders build what they believe they can profit from, and manage the parking separately. Either increase the cost of a parking permit until you get the number of cars that street parking can sustain (the capitalist solution) or implement a lottery and tell people who lose that they just aren't allowed to park their car on the public street (my preferred solution, but politically untenable).

In terms of "fairness to the people who already live there", the sooner we lost this idea that their house came with guaranteed free and convenient parking the better.

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nw6h wrote

I didn't say force developers to build parking I said don't let the residents of new developments park on the street.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7fjtg wrote

So those who already own houses get preferential treatment over everyone else? It's like US housing policy in microcosm; it has a certain elegance to its unfairness.

1

espressocycle t1_ja7ial5 wrote

Why is that preferential treatment? It's just letting them keep the parking availability associated with the density of their neighborhoods before someone decided to build apartment buildings after 150 years of nothing but rowhouses. Besides, parking is always the issue that makes people fight development, so take that off the table and it will be way easier to turn rowhouse neignhoods into higher density. Again, if it's really true that apartments don't attract car owners this will be win win for everyone.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7r3dj wrote

We're obviously not ever going to agree on this, but there are words for people who demand benefits from the public stock for themselves that they deny to others and they aren't very flattering.

1

dskatz2 t1_j9xtl2d wrote

NY has an incredible public transit system. Philly does not. Cars are far more of a necessity here than in NYC. This sentiment isn't surprising.

6

mustang__1 t1_j9z0lzq wrote

Maybe if our subways and the el weren't shit and piss piles, ran more frequently, and ran to further locations, we wouldn't need a fucking car as much in this city. If I took the train to work it'd have to be regional rail - despite still being in the city. I'd get about a mile and change from work - and easy bike ride..... But no sidewalks lna death defying road to bike on. So I live somewhere with parking and reverse commute every day.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z2cil wrote

That does suck for you, for real. Just wonder if cities should be built for “reverse commuters”. Doesn’t seem like a good policy/design goal.

2

mustang__1 t1_j9z4sza wrote

I mean.... Trains need to get downtown from where I work....

1