This post incorporates content from Streetsblog Chicago Cofounder and Advisor Steven Vance’s development data website Chicago Cityscape. This week there was reason to celebrate for both Chicago sustainable transportation fans, and folks working to make housing more plentiful in our city. Prior to Wednesday’s City Council vote, Chicago’s Connected Communities Ordinance, passed in July 2022, […]
Making space for storing large metal boxes is no longer mandatory.
Yeah I have mixed feelings about this too. I hope they have data to show that that is not necessary. If I were in charge I’d have large parking structures around the perimeter of the transit network so people can get to it from outside of town and are able to use it easily without the friction of finding a spot. That way more people can get to it and use it but fewer people need cars within it.
Read the article. This is about housing near transit. What use case would there be for a park-and-ride at their home? Are they supposed to be driving from their door to the far side of the parking lot?
It’s also a bureaucratic change rather than functional. It used to be a permit you’d have to apply for, which added costs. Now it’s just not required to build parking within a 5 minute walk of transit
Micromobility means the mandate shouldn’t exist anywhere. If I don’t need/want a car, I should be able to find a house where the land/built area includes more space that I do want.
@humanspiral@Taldan Micromobility has little to do with it. There always have been large numbers of people in cities who get around by walking, transit, and sometimes their own bicycle. Policies decided largely by suburbanites and influenced by the fossil fuel and oil lobbies have long sought to chip away at our ability to travel freely without consuming their products. Some of the tech disrupters have made it trendier for yuppies to ditch cars, but they haven’t significantly changed modeshare.
I get the lobbying source responsible for past policies. Future trends means density can be increased without space for 1 car per family, but still let people who want a car find such housing. Builders have the choice to ignore or see the future.
3-5 story “single house wide” multiplexes is affordable density compared to skyscrapers that need expensive elevators and underground multi story garage support structures. Though it is car culture/mandates that makes such affordable density impossible.
@makyo@kresten The “data” used to create most residential parking mandates was collected in car-dependent suburban areas and is completely inappropriate for application to dense urban apartment buildings near transit where many residents don’t own cars. Eliminating the costly mandate to construct parking that often goes unused on valuable land only restores choice. A developer isn’t prohibited from building as much parking as their market research tells them they can profitably sell or lease.
But wasn’t the point of having parking lots there, to allow people who have cars to still use trains?
No, that’s only the case on the outskirts of the city, for the people coming out of the city to park and take the train into the city
It means apartment buildings next to the train station don’t need private garages anymore. Doesn’t mean anything for the train stations themselves.
Yeah I have mixed feelings about this too. I hope they have data to show that that is not necessary. If I were in charge I’d have large parking structures around the perimeter of the transit network so people can get to it from outside of town and are able to use it easily without the friction of finding a spot. That way more people can get to it and use it but fewer people need cars within it.
Read the article. This is about housing near transit. What use case would there be for a park-and-ride at their home? Are they supposed to be driving from their door to the far side of the parking lot?
It’s also a bureaucratic change rather than functional. It used to be a permit you’d have to apply for, which added costs. Now it’s just not required to build parking within a 5 minute walk of transit
Micromobility means the mandate shouldn’t exist anywhere. If I don’t need/want a car, I should be able to find a house where the land/built area includes more space that I do want.
@humanspiral @Taldan Micromobility has little to do with it. There always have been large numbers of people in cities who get around by walking, transit, and sometimes their own bicycle. Policies decided largely by suburbanites and influenced by the fossil fuel and oil lobbies have long sought to chip away at our ability to travel freely without consuming their products. Some of the tech disrupters have made it trendier for yuppies to ditch cars, but they haven’t significantly changed modeshare.
I get the lobbying source responsible for past policies. Future trends means density can be increased without space for 1 car per family, but still let people who want a car find such housing. Builders have the choice to ignore or see the future.
3-5 story “single house wide” multiplexes is affordable density compared to skyscrapers that need expensive elevators and underground multi story garage support structures. Though it is car culture/mandates that makes such affordable density impossible.
@makyo @kresten The “data” used to create most residential parking mandates was collected in car-dependent suburban areas and is completely inappropriate for application to dense urban apartment buildings near transit where many residents don’t own cars. Eliminating the costly mandate to construct parking that often goes unused on valuable land only restores choice. A developer isn’t prohibited from building as much parking as their market research tells them they can profitably sell or lease.
deleted by creator