Gothamist: Required Parking at New Developments Means More Congestion, Pollution

blablanyc

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:52:38 -0500

I'm waiting for Bloomberg to sell off portions of public spaces in the city to private interests. How could he be ignoring that?

NannyState

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:27:36 -0500

It's unbelievable. So many other less congested and dense cities are unwinding these antiquated zoning codes requiring parking...but New York? If Bloomberg is so fixated on congestion pricing, how could he ignore this?

blablanyc

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:58:05 -0500

Spirit - don't bust my balls. Bloomberg and the city council numbnuts do it enough already. Be a good American. Yes. You are correct about needing approved plans and permit for a driveway or garage. But it appears they city wants to outlaw that entirely. Jen - Parking does rank high on amenities for any building in the city.

Spiritof76

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:49:54 -0500

Hmm. Is English your second language? You seem to have more problems than Jen Chung does. Anyway... . You can't tell people they can't have a driveway or garage on private property. Uh, wrong. City government does it all the time. Go ahead and try to put in a driveway without filing plans for approval or getting a permit.

blablanyc

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:26:04 -0500

I like how they generalize the congestion problem. This is you call BS on these enviro-fascists. It's highly unlikely the cars parked in driveways and garages are used everyday. You can't tell people they can't have a driveway or garage on private property. Or tell somebody they can't own a car within the city. That's just un-American. I'll be waiting for the first person's with disabilities group to smack down these idiot's law.

arsguide

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:36:55 -0500

Not everyone lives around the block from a train station...some people live 15 blocks from a practically useless G train...A car is necessary to be able to commute to a decent train from lots of parts of the city. Other than that, everytime the city allows one of these monstrocties called luxary housing to be built it introduces, dozens or hundreds of new people to the area who use the same old parks, schools, hospitals and yes, parking spaces...let the developers lose some living space if it means the neighborhood doesnt lose any parking spaces... They should also limit the number of curb cuts for the driveways...I've seen these new buildings with so many driveways you can't park anywhere around them.

JenChungsBra

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:44:35 -0500

And how much cruising for parking does indoor garages eliminate? Sure, some people would choose to go without a car but others would park on the street and spend hours driving around looking for parking spots. Getting a spot in my building was one of the happiest days of my life because it meant no more driving around for parking or moving for alternate side regulations. Now my car spends a lot less time clogging up streets and polluting.

Spiritof76

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:00:00 -0500

170,000 cars, but for the most part they're sitting in underground stalls. The space below grade isn't good for anything else so why not let them build parking? If only they sat there permanently. Unfortunately, they come out eventually and roam the streets. With all the problems we have -- pollution, congestion, decreasing supply of gasoline with increasing demand from China and India -- we should be trying to discourage more cars. There should be required bicycle parking at new buildings. Many of these luxury tenants - as well as many working families - go away on summer vacations or have summer houses in the country where cars are essential. Same, old "thefacts." It's long been known that if you need a car on an occasional basis, it makes much more sense to rent it when you need it than to own one all the time and having to deal with all the hassles like parking, insurance, theft, maintenance, etc.

DannyL

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:23:59 -0500

I love this picture of East Broadway! Classic!

chuzzlewit

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:42:20 -0500

guo jingjing sure is lovely.

lanciano

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:35:50 -0500

when i was a kid, we had a car for weekend trips etc and we did what everyone else who didn't want to deal with alternate side of the street parking: paid for a monthly spot in a public garage down the block. yes, we had to skimp on something else to pay that monthly bill and walking those two blocks sure was a pain in the ass (sarcasm) but if you want the kind of flexibility having a car in the city provides, you have to pay for it. summer homes and all, having a car in NYC is a luxury not a necessity, an expensive one at that. the city should not turn parking spots into entitlements for the excessively coddled, luxury high rise set. the city's priorities are way off.

jenspellnogood

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:18:01 -0500

#11 I was just talking about that with my boss, VB girls are almost always smoking hot.

thefacts

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:45:30 -0500

Many of these luxury tenants - as well as many working families - go away on summer vacations or have summer houses in the country where cars are essential. They own cars. The cars need to be parked somewhere. TransAlt has waged a war to remove on-street parking. Also, downtown Manhattan south of 23rd Street has seen the loss of some 10,000 parking spots in the last ten years, replaced by multi-unit luxury buildings whose owners will not let the hippies at TA demand them of their right to own a car. Sorry, guys, you can't have it both ways.

babyhitler

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:44:19 -0500

off topic, but anybody else notice how hott the polish volleyball team are? also the chinese beach volleyball team is up there too.

Tgirl

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:41:03 -0500

am already choking on fumes, is there any end in sight? apparently, no.

lanciano

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:39:30 -0500

These regulations have to go. the city is not the suburbs. you do not "need" a car here and forcing new developments to include parking space is only going to encourage an unsustainable car culture.

jenspellnogood

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:33:48 -0500

TA may have good 'big picture' intentions, but the reality is that the source of all these new building lots are mainly former parking lots. You cannot take take the bloomberg calculus and assume that by eliminating resources the need will evaporate. If we want more open spaces, and more bike lanes, then the vehicles have to go somewhere.

smokedgouda

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:33:00 -0500

170,000 cars, but for the most part they're sitting in underground stalls. The space below grade isn't good for anything else so why not let them build parking? Let's see a report from a group that doesn't have a stake in the outcome.

ianmac47

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:22:16 -0500

Anyone who thinks minimum parking requirements are a good idea should take the PATH over the river and check out the high rise towers in Jersey City with the tumor like parking decks protruding from their sides. Not only does the parking space requirement encourage more cars, it also discourages pedestrians by creating cold, faceless streets with nothing but empty parking bays for five, six or more stories.

Politburo

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:21:04 -0500

There is a critical stat missing here. How many new cars would be on city streets in 2030 without the regulation?

bornbrednewyorker

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:17:21 -0500

For the money people are paying for these units there should be valet parking lots underground.

entropone

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:16:35 -0500

TA may not be impartial but their research methodology is sound. seems to me it's what they choose to study and release that shows bias - not their results. and that's hardly unusual.

Jen Chung

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:13:28 -0500

I wonder how high parking spaces rank on the amenities for new buildings. Sure, there are the building that offer private spaces (for lots of money) or the ability to drive your car to your apartment, but is it make or break these days?

glennQNYC

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:04:33 -0500

The Transportation Alternatives group is far from unbiased and impartial. I'm sure those estimates are weighted heavily to promote their autophobic tendencies.