Dahon.Steve

Here's a news article about a luxury complex constructed in Austin without parking! Too often, this type of building come with indoor parking taking up the first 5 floors or more. I'm glad the developer paid off a number of politicians to make this happen as locals scream when they find out a new building will not including parking. After all, those tenants will end up parking on the street making life miserable for those already there.

You can see the carfree revolution marches on and it's good to see Austin is leading the way. In my neighborhood, they built a very expensive complex with in door parking making it more costly to live there. There's no question in mind, the cost of living in these luxury building is directly effected by the developer having to waste space and resources providing free parking. In my opinion, more people will become carfree if they just stopped providing parking.


The future of Downtown Austin: Car-less complexes? - Story | KTBC

Ekdog

Great news! Not surprised, really, to see it happening in Austin, perhaps the most progressive city in Texas.

tandempower

It makes me wonder how easy it is to convert existing parking garage space into residences, offices, or other human habitation. Will existing buildings be retrofitting increasingly as ever more car-free options come on-line?

cooker

We had a thread about new buildings in Boston with reduced parking, and of course one of the cited complainants was a guy who thought it was unfair that his free on-street parking would now be ruined by their free on-street parking, with no insight that he has actually been getting a taxpayer-funded free parking spot for years.

Dahon.Steve

If you want to get people out off their cars, you have to stop creating maga hi-rise parking lots. They recently built a hospital three blocks from where I live and the parking should have been under ground like the supermarket across the street. Instead, they built a high 5 story parking garage in the back and it looks horrible. The should have at least dedicated the first floor to shops and stores.

Dahon.Steve

In my opinion, there should be an ordinance to have the first floor dedicated for stores, shops and restaurants. Retrofitting the first floor is going to be expensive but not impossible. It shouldn't be allowed to be created in the first place without retail in mind so you don't end up creating blight.

Ekdog

That's the way it is here in Spain: shops and other businesses are located on the ground floor. I've never seen a multi-storey parking lot like the ones in the States. Newer buildings have underground parking lots for residents, but older buildings tend not to have parking lots or garages at all because up until the '70s not that many people owned cars. This has made it very difficult to find parking spaces on the street in neighborhoods like mine, and those who insist on driving into such areas often end up having to park in expensive underground lots that are run by private firms. I warn people who come to visit about this and urge them to either leave their car at home or bring plenty of moolah along with them.

Seattle Forrest

Can you blame them? It's human nature to be upset when something you've enjoyed for a long time is taken away or threatened. I'd feel exactly the same way if one of "my" bike lanes was turned into parking.

cooker

Well, I'm not surprised, but his argument was that it was unfair that "they" didn't have to pay for parking.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sounds similar to your complaining about the unfairness of your paying for transportation infrastructure (like roads and streets) that "they" use (i.e. people who don't share your lifestyle), and that you think don't provide any benefit to you.

Seattle Forrest

It's amazing what a valuable commodity an empty space can be. There was talk of putting in a bike lane on a road I used to use to commute to work, it would have gone in an uphill section and been useful. Home owners in the neighborhood cried foul. That space was too valuable to waste on a bike lane. Owners felt that easy and accessible parking improved their property values. Whether you agree with them or not, it isn't a trivial matter.

I grew up in a rural place and people there wouldn't be able to comprehend there being any animosity over parking, just park behind them and walk an extra six feet. In a city, it's somebody coming home after fighting their way through traffic, then having to circle the blocks endlessly, trapped in their cars, having to pee desperately but not being able to. That's one of the many reasons I hate driving in urban places; in some ways it's very convenient and it often saves time, but in other ways it's hugely constraining. Maybe the biggest factor that tips the scales in favor of the bike is how much easier it is to park.

Seattle Forrest

I pay for roads and streets through my taxes.

Even if I didn't have a car, roads and streets would benefit me in obvious ways, like by allowing food to reach my local grocery stores.

Walter S

One cool thing about bicycles is I can almost always find a place to pee close by. If I drove though I'd have a pee jug stashed in my car! When you gota go...

cooker

In both cases, I think the costs should be shared fairly.

tandempower

The density movement has staunch opponents who are eager to build parking garages anywhere that LCF is supposedly growing because it generates more construction contracts and jobs to fund life outside the area. The more blight they cause, the more they'll profit from the eventual exodus from the area that results from bad development, i.e. by selling their suburban houses and moving to (develop) new ones. Driving people out of the inner cities into suburbs is a tried and proven method of boosting economic growth. It's surprising that it could be repeated after so much anger the first time, but what means to we really have to prevent such blight from forming when governments and police are bought off by developers and organized crime?

Seattle Forrest

That struck a chord with somebody!!

I'm not trying to pull this thread off topic, but now that it's been here a few days I'm going to chime in with my experience. For starters I'll say I've never been to Texas. But I live in Seattle, which has something in common with Austin, both being cities.

City driving means congestion. It means there are too many cars on the road, at all hours. Other drivers are usually not happy to be driving, so there is a lot of aggressive driving and cars will move in erratic patterns, changing lanes seemingly at random, etc. Driving a car means stress: paying constant attention like flexing a muscle, because of the liability and the risk of damage to what for many people is their most expensive asset. On top of that, parking is severely limited. Street parking can cost up to $4/hr in Seattle. When you find an empty spot you have to verify that it's legal (it's not always entirely clear), you may have to pay for it, you need to know what time period you've paid for, etc. Or you could come back and find your car towed or ticketed. You may need street smarts to make sure it's not stolen or broken into. That's assuming you find a spot within walking distance of your destination.

Congestion means accidents which means higher insurance premiums. This type of driving is not efficient with gasoline. Geographically cities are not huge places, at least usually. Living in a city is a very strong incentive to going car free.

wolfchild

Those residences without parking are great for single people without kids or family responsibilities. Who work from home, never have to travel more then 1 mile from their home, do all their grocery and other shopping online and have everything delivered to their doorstep.

cooker

That's who they are aimed at, as the article says. Except they can travel as much as they want outside 1 mile from home.

Ekdog

I don't see anything in the article about this being aimed at single people without children, and I don't see why it wouldn't work for families, too, as long as there are schools, shops and essential services in the downtown area or close enough to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to.

cooker

You're right, it doesn't explicitly say it - I guess I was reading between the lines, when it repeatedly mentions people walking to work and doesn't say anything about schools or families, etc.

Ekdog

It looks like there are plenty of schools near downtown.

The Best 10 Elementary Schools near Downtown, Austin, TX

Nor is there any paucity of grocery stores in the area.

The Ten Best Grocery Stores near Downtown Austin.

Ekdog

If you had taken the time to read the article, you would have learned that that isn't the case.

"We believe there is a growing population base, in downtown, that is happy to walk, use alternative forms of transportation, ridesharing, that kind of thing, that really don't have a need for a car that'll sit in a parking garage," he said.

Miles Powell is a part of that growing population. Powell said he has never owned a car.

"I walk to work almost every day. If it's raining I'll use one of the ridesharing apps to get to work," he said.

I-Like-To-Bike

Of course you are correct; some of our LCF comrades feel that it is unfair that urban folks like themselves ( even if they own and drive cars) should have to help support road and street infrastructure located in any location elsewhere that they deem as contributing to unholy sprawl.

Mobile 155

Well you still might have a point. 420 to 970 sq. feet isn't typically family sized. Though we only had a condo when we had our first born. 980 sq feet and two bedrooms. But it could be doable. However it seems they still don't have financing so the May 1, 2017 ground breaking may be wishful thinking at this point. But it will be interesting to see how it works. When I was in college I can remember apartment buildings with little or no parking but there was always somewhere on street to park.

But if the people living there are in town 24/7 it could I guess.

Seattle Forrest

They're also great for people who aren't like you just described!