| « LeMay gets new marketing blood | Home | Downtown loses window into crime » |
Latest Entries
Dick Stein Reading The Tacomiad (and other fab audio!)
Photos ~ Frost Park Chalk Off #30
My Video Game Told Me To Vote Obama
Thu. July 26, 2007, 05:12pm PDT
Report: Improving Downtown Transit and Parking
Exciting stuff received via email:
Today, the Transit and Parking Advisory Committee released a ten-page report, titled Improving Downtown Transit and Parking. The report details a simple strategy to a problem that has generated years of controversy, namely, how to support downtown's perpetual economic health by implementing a seamless, integrated transit and parking system.
The report was endorsed this morning by the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber; previous endorsements were made by the Downtown Tacoma BIA, the Downtown Merchants Group, and the New Tacoma Neighborhood Council.
View Full Report (PDF, 104KB)
No shock that the recommendations include metered parking and removing the off-street parking space quota required for new development. No huge revelations here but it's good to see stakeholders and policymakers sitting down at the same table.
Comments (15) | To Top
7/26/2007 @ 6:08pm
Great report from the Transit and Parking Advisory Committee. Tacoma is finally coming up to speed on parking.
To have the parking pricing explained by parking guru professor Shoup, play the above video. He explains how to charge just enough to create a 15 percent on-street vanacy but no great.
When the on-street vanacy is greater that 15 percent, parking should be free in an area.
If the vacancy is less than 15 percent, one cannot find and space.
-Erik
by Dr. Shoup video on charging the "right price" for parking.
7/27/2007 @ 7:09am
Parking and transit seems to me the least of our worries. What can we do about pot holes and crumbling neighborhood streets? Tacoma looks like Iraq and that doesn't help bring in new people.
by Jennifer H.
7/27/2007 @ 1:36pm
I see Paul Ellis via the BIA blog weighs in as well:
"A consensus document offering stakeholder recommendations to improve downtown parking is hot off the presses. The twelve-page Improving Downtown Transit & Parking (a ten-page version sans an executive summary was released to the press yesterday) presents the recommendations from the Transit and Parking Advisory Committee, a 12-member group representing a broad variety of stakeholders organized by the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber.
The document was endorsed yesterday morning by the Chamber; previous endorsements were made by the BIA, the Downtown Merchants Group, and the New Tacoma Neighborhood Council."
...
"Removal of Off-Street Parking Required for New Construction
Removing the off-street parking requirement may allow developers the flexibility to build the amount of parking that the market requires. This step should only be considered, however, within the context of a more robust transportation demand management program than currently exists."
by Tacoma BIA Blog on Parking Report
7/27/2007 @ 11:21pm
I'm a little confused about this off street parking thing and how it is tied to transit.
I thought it was a development issue.
Where do the people park? On the street?
Looks like the Chamber is trying to push it through packaged with reducing on-street parking to drive up the rates in garages.
Looks like to me, the off-street parking requirements must not be able to stand on its own if it has been slipped into another program.
by Tacomite
7/28/2007 @ 9:44am
Builders will still build parking, just no more than the market demands.
The off-street parking requirement basically creates an urban form design like Federal Way rather than Portland.
Its nice to have lots of parking at a strip mall. However, no one goes there to enjoy themselves and they must get back in their car to drive to the next strip mall.
by Erik B.
7/28/2007 @ 11:17am
Most model west coast cities like Portland, Bellingham, Seattle, Olympia and San Francisco long ago removed their off-street parking requirements.
Here's a good article on the effect of the off-street parking requirement on business districts:
"Onsite parking requirements, which have crept into many cities' laws over the past 50 to 70 years, have sucked the potential out of commercial properties on main streets and in downtowns everywhere. Perhaps more than anything else, rules requiring onsite parking -- to be distinguished from "on street" or "offsite" parking -- have created the blighted conditions that characterize many older North American commercial districts and boulevards."
Removing the requirement also allows the smaller empty lots to be infilled downtown.
Builders will still build parking. However, it allows the downtown to be built in a compact form like most attractive cities rather than like Federal Way.
The city needs to work to maximize curb parking which is the gold standard for parking cars as it can be used 24 hours a days and does not cause urban blight.
Planner Andre Stone also had a famous letter on exit 133 that discussed on-street parking requirements.
-Erik B.
by Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts.
7/28/2007 @ 5:20pm
Ok I think I understand,but I'm not convinced. If the market will demand it anyways, why does it need to be changed?
by Tacomite
7/28/2007 @ 5:54pm
"If the market will demand it anyways, why does it need to be changed?"
There are alot of reasons. One of the main ones is that the off-street parkign requirement forces a car centric urban form like Bellevue or Federal Way rather than a more desireable pedestrian friendly walkable one like Portland.
The more walkable portions of downtown Tacoma, built before the off-street parking requirement was adopted can be compared with 38th Avenue which is one strip mall after another and everyone drives from one parking lot to another and few dare to walk.
Because some smaller commercial lots, such as the one between Spark Park and Drakes downtown could not be appropriately rebuilt due to Tacoma's antiquated off-street parking requirement. Instead of being able to build a building with continuous retail, like the continuous pedestrian friendly buildings across the street (Matador to Capers), it would require a parking garage entrance and exit on Pacific Avenue spilling over the sidewalk.
Here is a piece I wrote on it. You can also look at UCLA Professor Donald Shoup's web page who has written a slew of articles on it.
Eliminating Off-Street Parking Requirements is a Critical Step to Revitalize Downtown Tacoma
Although progress has been made in revitalizing downtown Tacoma, empty buildings and vacant lots abound and locating significant retail in the downtown core remains elusive. Many buildings and residences that have been built have been much shorter than allowed.
City Manager Anderson has repeatedly and wisely expressed a desire to infill the vacant parcels and building with residential, commercial buildings, and retail. One of the most significant impediments to downtown Tacoma being redeveloped is the current city municipal building code which mandates that large numbers of off-street parking be built with each new commercial or residential buildings, costing up to $30,000 each.
Summary
Most West Coast cities such as Portland, Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia and San Francisco have removed the off street-parking requirement to the benefit of their downtown as
Off-street parking requirements especially harm the CBD. High density is a prime advantage of the CBD because it offers proximity to many social cultural and economic activities. The clustering of museums, theaters, restaurants, stores and offices is what a downtown can offer but other areas cannot.
. . .
Parking requirements thus reduce the CBD’s attractiveness by undermining the essential features that make it attractive-high density and accessibility.
High Cost of Free Parking (Shoup 2004) pg 158 – 159.
Thus, Tacoma’s retention of the off street parking requirement impedes businesses and residents from locating downtown, and thus, is injurious to the revitalization of downtown Tacoma and should be removed.
The current Tacoma Municipal Code bars residents locating downtown unless a parking space is built for every residential unit (Tacoma Municipal Code 13.06.510). Retail and commercial buildings are currently barred from locating downtown unless a surface level parking lot or mini parking garage is built with the addition of 2.5 parking stalls for each 1000 feet of floor space.
Tacoma’s off-street parking requirement is a significant barrier to the success of downtown Tacoma as the policy has numerous negative consequences for the downtown, which:
1) Result in an unnecessary barrier for people and businesses to locate downtown;
2) Reduces the density of downtown, the primary attraction a downtown has to offer;
3) Makes the downtown less attractive and usable by pedestrians by creating and retaining surface level parking lots and excessive number of small parking garages downtown;
4) Creates an unnecessary barrier for retail (including a grocery store) to move downtown;
5) Creates a significant barrier for the construction of low-income housing by increasing prices by up to 20 percent, and by discouraging developers from building smaller units;
6) Essentially mandates car use in downtown Tacoma reducing the ability for mass transit to be successful and causes unnecessary traffic congestion and pollution;
7) Causes architecturally poorer buildings to be built in downtown Tacoma;
Q1: How do off-street parking requirements harm the attractiveness of Downtown Tacoma and the efforts to infill and add residential, commercial and retail downtown?
From the High Cost of Free Parking:
Off-street parking requirements especially harm the CBD. High density is a prime advantage of the CBD because it offers proximity to many social cultural and economic activities. The clustering of museums, theaters, restaurants, stores and offices is what a downtown can offer but other areas cannot.
Off street parking requirements increase the supply and thus reduce the cost of parking in the CBD, but they also have other consequences. They increase the costs of all development, reduce density by preempting land for other uses, and increase traffic within the CBD and on the routes to it.
Page 158. The off-street parking requirement often results in surface level parking spaces near buildings downtown and/or require each building having a mini parking garage with gaping car entrances and exits which are undesirable for pedestrians. The intensity of use of a downtown is gained by having as continuous buildings as possible in an area.
Q2: How does the off-street parking requirement pose financial barrier for businesses and residential to locate in downtown Tacoma?
At a cost of $30,000 per parking stall, the off-street parking requirement is yet another barrier for residents and businesses to build downtown. Yet, as discussed below, it serves no legitimate social policy and thwarts the efforts to ever have the intensity of use to be attractive.
The off street parking requirement also poses a disincentive for businesses and residents to locate downtown as land is more expensive downtown core than at the outskirts of the city.
If the parking requirement is satisfied by placing it under the building, there is less space for the residential or commercial part of the building. Costs per sq. foot generally rise as a building gets higher. Thus, the net effect is that for any set height, less commercial and residential space can be built as it must be sacrificed for parking spaces regardless of whether they are desired or used or make financial sense to build.
Q3: How does the off-street parking requirement make downtown less attractive and usable by pedestrians?
As Jane Jacobs describes in her book Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961):
The main purpose of downtown streets is transaction, and this function can be swamped by the torrent of machine circulation. The more downtown is broken up and interspersed with parking lots and garages, the duller and deader it becomes in appearance, and there is nothing more repellant than a dead downtown. . . In a panicky effort to combat the suburbs on their own terms, something downtown cannot do, we are sacrificing the fundamental strengths of downtown-its variety and choice, its bustle, its interests, its compactness, its compelling message that this is not a weigh station, but the very intricate center of things. The reason people come downtown or set up business downtown at all is because downtown packs so much into such a compact area. (emphasis added)
Pg 161. Fred Kent, president of Partners for Public Spaces, contrasts parking requirements for a great place with one that is dull:
Parking is important where the place isn’t important. In a place like Faneuil Hall in Boston its amazing how far people will walk. In a dull place, you want a parking space right in front of where you are going.
Kent also states that minimum parking requirements “assure that a place will be uninteresting.� Pg 162. Architecture and planning critic Jane Holtz Kay explained:
Where there are plenty of off street parking spaces, “the pedestrian is now likely to be ambushed by a car sliding from some underground garage as visually assaulted by gap toothed parking lots and eerie garage facades.�
Pg 162. The latest parking inventory in Tacoma showed that even with free on street parking, 40 percent of it remained unused. Thus, there is a much stronger case to remove the off street parking requirement in Tacoma than the other cities which have done so.
Cities such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco have a far greater demand for parking than Tacoma, yet they have removed the requirement and now let residents and businesses decide how much parking they need.
Q4: How does the requirement to provide free parking pose a barrier to the construction of affordable housing.
Even without considering the land costs, parking spaces can cost $30,000 each to build or more. Adding this cost to every unit downtown can make a large difference for more affordable units in the $150,000 to $250,000 range for condominiums.
As professor Shoup explains:
Off-street parking requirements harm low income and renter families because the own few cars but still pay for parking indirectly, and the hidden costs for all the required parking consume a greater share of their income.
Imposing hidden costs on the entire population to subsidize parking takes money from the poorest renters to subsidize richer homeowners.
High Cost of Free Parking Page 165. Amit Ghosh, San Francisco’ chief of comprehensive planning stated:
Parking requirements are a huge obstacle to new affordable housing and transit-oriented development in San Francisco. Nonprofit developers estimate that they add 20 percent to the cost of each unit, and reduce the number of units that can be built on a site by 20 percent. We’re forcing people to build parking that people cannot afford. We’re letting parking drive not only our transportation policies, but jeopardize our housing policies, too. We want to get away from the situation where people are forced to pay for parking regardless of whether they have a car.
Pg. 167. In many circumstances, parking spaces mandated for low income housing are not used. Lower income residents do not own as many cars. Page 165. Thus, they are more likely to use public transportation. Requiring offstreet parking for low income housing takes away the choice for residents to use their limited funds for other purposes, serves as a barrier to obtaining housing and essentially forces them to become automobile dependent. If low-income residents cannot afford to buy both housing and parking together as a package, they are barred from any housing at all. Thus, many cities such as Seattle now “de-couple� housing and parking and allows them to be purchased separately as needed.
Subsidized Housing
Local and federal agencies have limited funds to build and subsidize housing. Mandating that each resident have a parking space diminishes the number of low income housing units that can be built with any set amount of dollars.
Because of the current requirement to build costly parking spaces with each unit, builders are forced to favor building larger and more expensive residential units which have a lower parking requirement per sq. ft in order to make the project financially feasible. Thus, the city’s current parking policy has many unfortunate consequences, which reduce the affordability of housing in downtown Tacoma.
Q5: How does Tacoma’s requirement for off street parking increase congestion downtown and increase pollution?
The off-street parking requirements essentially mandate that all Tacomans downtown use cars. Once the pricey housing and parking space package is purchased, the parking space appears as “free� to the resident and takes away any incentive to share a car or use public transportation.
Once someone is forced to spend $30,000 by the city for a parking space, most of the costs required to live a car centric lifestyle have been expended, leaving little incentive to use mass transit.
Many Tacomans, if given the choice may choose to use mass transportation, bicycle, car share, walk or find other ways of getting around the city. Yet, off street parking takes away the residents ability to weigh the costs and benefits of using mass transit.
Pollution
The city council has recently passed resolution to reduce pollution in the city as well as greenhouse gases. Forcing residents downtown to purchase spaces for cars takes away residents choice to cut down on auto use and needlessly increases congestion in violation of this environmental policy.
At the very least, the City of Tacoma should be neutral with respect to using a car and not require the purchase of parking space when residents consider whether to buy or rent a living space downtown.
Q6: How do other model West Coast cities regulate off street parking?
After studying the matter, most model West Coast cities such as Portland, Seattle and San Francisco have now removed off street parking requirements.
Seattle, Washington
In 2005, Seattle eliminated the requirement for off-street parking in the downtown. See the Seattle Times article 12/10/2006. Yet, Seattle has a far higher demand for parking than downtown Tacoma.
San Francisco, California
Off-street parking requirements have been eliminated in San Francisco. The city has taken a further step and has set a maximum of parking units which can be built of .75 per unit.
In San Francisco, more downtown housing has been approved over the last few years than in the last 20 years combined, said Joshua Switzky, a city planner. The booming real estate market there inspired local officials to revoke minimum-parking requirements in the central core, Mr. Switzky said. “The city’s modus operandi is ‘transit first,’ � he said. “Everyone recognized the existing rules didn’t match the policy.�
Under San Francisco’s new parking maximums, downtown developers are also required to “unbundle� the price of parking from the price of the condo. “Buyers aren’t obligated to buy a parking space, and developers don’t have the incentive to build spaces they can’t sell,� Mr. Switzky said. (emphasis added)
Portland, Oregon
Portland eliminated off-street parking requirements in 2000.
In Portland, where central city parking minimums were eliminated six years ago, developers are breaking ground on projects with restricted parking.
The Civic, a 261-unit project, includes 24 condos without parking. The building is six blocks from downtown and near a major bus and light-rail line, and will offer residents a rental-car-sharing arrangement.
No Parking: Condos Leave Out Cars New York Times, November 12, 2006.
Q7: How does the off street-parking requirement hurt the attractiveness and aesthetics of new buildings downtown?
Requiring off-street parking undermines the attractiveness of buildings in three significant ways.
First, having the first few floors serve as a parking garage certainly cannot result in the best aesthetic design regardless of the ingenuity of the architect.
Second, if the building uses a surface level parking lot to satisfy the parking requirement, the lot distracts aesthetically from the building creating an adjacent dead zone.
Third, a even a small surface level parking lot or parking garage requires an entrance and exit for cars that runs over the sidewalk and poses gapping holes in the buildings posing an aesthetic as well as a functional detriment.
Q8: What policy should Tacoma adopt for off street parking that would most benefit downtown, encourage the development of an attractive, walkable downtown with high density of residential, workspaces and retail while providing adequate parking?
First, the City of Tacoma should let potential business decide how much parking they need based on the cost and demand for parking spaces. Certainly, some lenders will likely still require off street parking to obtain financing.
Potential residents, developers, and businesses are in the best position to judge the market and make the decision as to the appropriate amount of parking that should purchased and built.
Second, the City of Tacoma should then charge the “right price" for on street parking so as to maintain a 15 percent vacancy and use the funds for local improvements. This will keep the on street parking spaces nearly full yet maintain sufficient on street parking availability for people seeking to park. Page 305.
Conclusion
The city of Tacoma should follow other successful and attractive cities such as Portland, Seattle and San Francisco which have infilled their downtown with businesses, retail and residential units and eliminated their off street parking requirement.
by Erik B.
7/28/2007 @ 11:31pm
Another fine example of a city dealing with parking is New York. Much of the zoning in Manhattan has a MAXIMUM parking ratio of 0.25 spaces per housing unit. There was a recent article about residents of a new building paying up to $300,000 for one of the six underground spaces available in the building.
Of course, New York City is the American epitome of balancing reduced parking with widespread availability of public transit. At almost any geographical location in Manhattan, you are within only a couple blocks of a subway station. It is highly unlikely that a city like Tacoma will ever reach the critical mass of public transportation that you will find in most major cities. However, the goal is to get people to rely less on their cars and walk more.
At the moment, the Destination Downtown comprehensive plan contradicts itself because it advocates for mixed use, street level businesses and services and decreased car usage, but contains minimum parking regulations that make it challenging for many new buildings to pencil out. As a result, the plan cannot be implemented as intended; the parking regulations get in the way.
Erik B sums this argument up very nicely.
by Andre
7/29/2007 @ 6:11am
Sorry but not requiring condo builders to include parking is another way Greg Nickles in Seattle caters to developers so they can make a bigger profit with their McTenements. Not a good way to improve the city. There is a lot of unhappiness about what is happening to the neighborhoods in Seattle. No built in parking equals more bucks for developers.
by Delfina Jones
7/29/2007 @ 9:14am
I think gobbling up surface with parking lots is a mistake but developers should have to do something. The thought over at Pool's Corner with the parking underneath is good and doesn't interfere with street level pedestrian access much at all.
by KevinFreitas
7/29/2007 @ 11:29am
Ok 3 things
1) $30,000 for a parking spot seems hign. Thats about $100 per square foot for painted concrete- more than it costs to build office space that is carpeted, lighted , phones ect. Lets be realistict here. $20,000 - $24,000.
#2) Every city you mention had a working Transit system in place before the removed the requirement ( I read that in one of Dr. Shoup's articles you reffered me to, perhaps other research i did on my own.)
#3 - I read somewhere( I read alot in the last couple of days) about in-leiu of fees.
Seems that they allow for deveopers to buy down requirements at a discount and use the $$$ to make improvemnets in centralized parking and Transit systems.
Win for developer.
Win for Tacoma.
by Tacomite
7/29/2007 @ 11:34am
one more-
Q4: How does the requirement to provide free parking pose a barrier to the construction of affordable housing.
Who says the parking has to be free?
Your questions are leading your assumptions, and therefore distorting your answers.
by Tacomite
7/29/2007 @ 4:47pm
"Q4: How does the requirement to provide free parking pose a barrier to the construction of affordable housing. "
The case study done in San Francisco linked below explains the relationship pretty well.
See below.
By the way, some cities now place a maximum amount of parking spaces allowed to enhance infilling. The proposal in Tacoma is simply eliminate the minimum. People can still build as much parking as they want and that is approprite for the project.
Its fundamentally a choice between a city with an urban form of Portland or Federal Way.
Downtown and much of Proctor are good examples of areas built before the off-street parking requirements (although Proctor has a couple of strip malls at the edge which were built later).
38th Avenue is an area which was built after the requirement was in place.
Planner on Andre Stone on Exit 133 discusses how the off-street parking requirements poses a barrier to construction of a significant commercial building in downtown. A barrier which many other cities do not have.
-Erik B.
by Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco
7/29/2007 @ 11:41pm
I'm sorry, I think I misstated my question.
Who says it has to be free?
I see the relationship, but why can't there be a charge?
Could the developer request a variance under the current system?
Wasn't this plan a response to parking problems in areas like proctor and downtown?
by Tacomite