This makes sense when it comes to sprawling parking for sure. Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
I think noone can deny the towns built post war to accomidate cars were done very poorly, becase they were built for cars at the expense of literally everything else. Going the opposite way is just a different kind of nightmare. We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
Underground parking tends to be expensive to build. IIRC in the US it’s typical for underground parking to cost over $100,000 per space to construct. Multistory garages are cheaper per space, but still more expensive than surface lots. Case in point: at my university, there was a chronic parking shortage, and it was difficult to find space for a new garage because of all of the politics over space in general. Eventually a new garage went up, but the capacity it added was nowhere near enough to alleviate the parking shortage.
Placing parking at ground level sounds like a practical way to boost capacity. But will it add enough spaces to solve all of our parking problems? I’ve seen quite a few buildings with that feature, but I’m not entirely sure who is allowed to park there. E.g. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
I would argue that when you design one part of a town, you make a tradeoff between drivability and walkability. How you make the tradeoff depends on which part of town you are looking at. E.g. where I am, if you go to the geometric center of the city, it is decently walkable, because that is where pedestrians are greatest in number. But there are fewer lanes for traffic and less parking. If you venture a little farther out, you’ll find lots of lanes for cars, strip malls with big parking lots, etc. that are more convenient for drivers but awkward to walk through. In other words, oftentimes needs are not accommodated in an equal way. Most places have to make a decision about who they prioritize. If you try to make everything exactly equal for everyone, the result may very well be an awkward compromise. E.g. the so-called “Stroad” is a classic example of a design that tries to cater to both drivers and pedestrians, and delivers a solution that is mediocre for both groups of people.
. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
Sure it will! Think of all of those residents who are now not taking up a spot on the street.
But yes there are tradeoffs when accomidating everyone. Want to live downtown? Might need to park your car at a municiple garage at the edge (i saw this in spain alot). Medium density after that maybe shared driveways (nyc has a lot of these, 1 driveway for all the houses on one side of the block), and finally light density single family homes. The trick with this though is not to make any of these zones toooo large. Should be able to walk from light to downtown in < 30 min. Cluster these together with larger roads between them.
Its unfortunate how much was built soley with cars in mind, but i wouldnt want to live the opposite either.
This makes sense when it comes to sprawling parking for sure. Plenty of parking can be built under a building (or ground level) though.
I think noone can deny the towns built post war to accomidate cars were done very poorly, becase they were built for cars at the expense of literally everything else. Going the opposite way is just a different kind of nightmare. We can build in ways that accomidate all needs in an equal way.
Underground parking tends to be expensive to build. IIRC in the US it’s typical for underground parking to cost over $100,000 per space to construct. Multistory garages are cheaper per space, but still more expensive than surface lots. Case in point: at my university, there was a chronic parking shortage, and it was difficult to find space for a new garage because of all of the politics over space in general. Eventually a new garage went up, but the capacity it added was nowhere near enough to alleviate the parking shortage.
Placing parking at ground level sounds like a practical way to boost capacity. But will it add enough spaces to solve all of our parking problems? I’ve seen quite a few buildings with that feature, but I’m not entirely sure who is allowed to park there. E.g. if there is a residential building with parking at ground level, but parking is only for residents, that won’t help me if I’m driving in and looking for street parking.
I would argue that when you design one part of a town, you make a tradeoff between drivability and walkability. How you make the tradeoff depends on which part of town you are looking at. E.g. where I am, if you go to the geometric center of the city, it is decently walkable, because that is where pedestrians are greatest in number. But there are fewer lanes for traffic and less parking. If you venture a little farther out, you’ll find lots of lanes for cars, strip malls with big parking lots, etc. that are more convenient for drivers but awkward to walk through. In other words, oftentimes needs are not accommodated in an equal way. Most places have to make a decision about who they prioritize. If you try to make everything exactly equal for everyone, the result may very well be an awkward compromise. E.g. the so-called “Stroad” is a classic example of a design that tries to cater to both drivers and pedestrians, and delivers a solution that is mediocre for both groups of people.
Sure it will! Think of all of those residents who are now not taking up a spot on the street.
But yes there are tradeoffs when accomidating everyone. Want to live downtown? Might need to park your car at a municiple garage at the edge (i saw this in spain alot). Medium density after that maybe shared driveways (nyc has a lot of these, 1 driveway for all the houses on one side of the block), and finally light density single family homes. The trick with this though is not to make any of these zones toooo large. Should be able to walk from light to downtown in < 30 min. Cluster these together with larger roads between them.
Its unfortunate how much was built soley with cars in mind, but i wouldnt want to live the opposite either.