C Do AwayWith Parking


OLUMBUS, OH, IS REDUCING THE number of parking spaces required for businesses in its downtown area. It’s a beginning, but UCLA Professor Don Shoup recommends that parking


requirements be done awaywith completely.The argu- ment goes like this:


Parking requirements are usually based on “silly” numbers


that have little basis in reality (e.g., nunnery, 1 space per every three nuns; swimming pool, 1 space for each 15,000 gallons of water; beauty shop, 1 space for every station; adult book store, 1 space for every 1,000 square feet. The point is that none of these absolute requirements, nor


most others, hold up well to scrutiny. The result is that when a business wants to open in an area and if the business it is replac- ing doesn’t meet the parking requirement, urban renewal simply won’t happen. If I want to put a restaurant where a hardware store used to


be, I should be able to do so. The business risk is mine. They don’t build churches for Easter and Christmas, and we shouldn’t require parking for the day after Thanksgiving. Columbus has made a good start; simply reducing the requirements by 20% helps, but it doesn’t solve the problem. I know it’s difficult for “planners” to get their minds around


the concept of “unplanned” parking requirements, but in most cases, parking is overbuilt. And if it’s not, people and the free marketwill fix the problem. Somewill decide to ride the bus, car- pool or move to the area, assuming it’s attractive, so they don’t need a car. Urban density is seen as a good thing. One way to get it is to let the parking requirements go the way of the dodo bird.


Woody responds: One trip toMumbai or Delhi (India),Abu Dhabi or Dubai


(UAE), or toMexico City ought to cure anyone of the “freemar- ket” approach to parking requirements for real estate developers. These cities demonstrate that 9 out of 10 developers will cut cor- ners on parking to save themselves time, space andmoney. Yet, it is a proven fact that new development means more


cars will come into an area. If developers do not provide ample parking spaces to meet the increased demand generated by their projects, then cars will circle around looking for parking spaces, which increases traffic and noise&air pollution. The reason all of these developing nations are adopting strict


parking requirements for developers is that they are sick and tired of the pollution, blaring horns, short tempers and endless time spent circling around looking for parking spaces. After spending a lot of time in these cities, I am very glad


28 JUNE 2010 • PARKING TODAY • www.parkingtoday.com


they came to their senses and startingmandating parking as a part of their real estate development approvals.Why in God’s name would we want to repeat theirmistakes? Your examples of linking parking spaces to gallons of water


are funny, but they distract the reader from the fact that most requirements are directly linked to very relevant metrics, such as number of bedrooms, seats for restaurant patrons, or square footage of rentable office space. I understand all too well that this is more difficult in tight


urban redevelopment projects (after all, fitting cars in tight spaces is our business).While it used to be more difficult to fit the cars, there aremany newtechnologies – fromSMS-enabled valet opera- tions tomechanical stackers and fully automated systems like ours – thatmake it cost-effective to achieve greater vehicle density. Like it or not, parking is a basic infrastructure element that a


developer must factor into their business model. If the project cannot support adequate parking, then it probably should not get built until some more creative developer finds a use for that land that will support the parking requirement. If Enron and the subprime (housing) meltdown have taught


us anything, it’s that “free markets” work best when they have some boundaries within which to operate. Parking requirements are one of those boundaries in the real estate development game.


JVH responds: Woody says he has travelled to major cities worldwide and


the “freemarket” has caused developers to build complexeswith- out enough parking, and that has caused chaos in traffic and park- ing. I certainly agree that Manila has chaos, as does Mumbai, Delhi, Bangkok andMexico City. ( I could add São Paulo, Lon- don, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Cairo, NewYork, LosAngeles, Toron- to,Miami, Houston, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, etc.) I note that the last eight cities (except Houston) have strict parking requirements and, frankly, the traffic seems equally hectic. The probleminmost cities is not the lack of parking, but the Continued on Page 30


Requirements? Yes!!No!!


The following is a PT Blog conversation that took place last month among Editor John Van Horn,Woody Nash of Boomerang Systems and Paul Barter of the National University of Singapore. JVH Begins:


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56