cost of parking

[khook]

Food for though to go along with the discussion of core to shore.

Worldchanging: Bright Green: Free Parking Isn't Free

"Free Parking isnt Free "from World changing
Throughout the 1940s and 50s, as automobile use became prolific in the United States, parking became a problem, congesting streets and overflowing into neighbors' lots. In response, most municipalities instituted off-street parking minimums requiring developers to provide all the parking that the residences or shops would need on-site. This seemingly sensible notion has created a cascade of problems. It encourages sprawl by spreading buildings apart to make room for more parking (requirements usually demand more area for parking than the building it supports). It also weakens urban design, as urban buildings are torn down to make room for desolate surface lots, and hulking parking garages sprouted in downtown areas. It discourages revitalization of existing historic buildings, since developers have trouble meeting modern parking requirements in neighborhoods that were built before auto dominance. And the requirements drive up the cost of development: parking spaces can cost between $10,000 and $50,000 – typically more than the cost of the car that occupies it. High parking requirements can raise the price of homes and apartments by $50,000 to $100,000, a serious challenge to affordability.

[oneforone]

Let me guess your next solution is for cars to be banned and for people to restricted to bicycles and walking.

I swear the people of the United States today are some of the biggest whiners in the world. If you hate civilzation move to desolate a outpost of the world and leave the rest of us alone. Oh wait a minute you cannot do that, you would have to live wihout your trust fund,Hollister, A&F, Starbucks, IPhone and Whole Foods. I think the spolied brats need to go to work and contribute to the world instead of telling us all how to live.

[Midtowner]

Not really applicable to OKC. Especially when the cost of land isn't really a factor for most of our urban developers who are receiving it at a song via OCURA.

[PennyQuilts]

Let me guess your next solution is for cars to be banned and for people to restricted to bicycles and walking.

I swear the people of the United States today are some of the biggest whiners in the world. If you hate civilzation move to desolate a outpost of the world and leave the rest of us alone. Oh wait a minute you cannot do that, you would have to live wihout your trust fund,Hollister, A&F, Starbucks, IPhone and Whole Foods. I think the spolied brats need to go to work and contribute to the world instead of telling us all how to live.

I love you, Oneforone.

[bluedogok]

The title of the article is accurate, "free parking" is not free, someone paid for it whether it be a private developer (land, paving, etc.) or the public through taxes, neither method is free. Now the rest of the issues addressed in the article are a little less applicable but many points are still valid.

I will say that doing development projects in Austin that we use a pricing of 10,000 per spot for surface parking and 35,000 per spot for structured parking in preliminary pricing which is probably somewhat close to what the costs would be in OKC as well. We also have to do much more structured parking here than I ever did in OKC, mainly because of impervious cover restrictions that limit the amount of coverage, in one area it is as low as 5% and that includes all paving and buildings and the section of road in front of your property.

I get tired of people whining about the problems of finding parking in Bricktown or Downtown (or Downtown Austin), there is plenty of parking available, the price is still very small compared to most urban areas. If you don't want to pay for parking, don't go down to where you know you might have to pay.

[HVAC Instructor]

Let me guess your next solution is for cars to be banned and for people to restricted to bicycles and walking.

I swear the people of the United States today are some of the biggest whiners in the world. If you hate civilzation move to desolate a outpost of the world and leave the rest of us alone. Oh wait a minute you cannot do that, you would have to live wihout your trust fund,Hollister, A&F, Starbucks, IPhone and Whole Foods. I think the spolied brats need to go to work and contribute to the world instead of telling us all how to live.

How did you come to this conclusion about the OP? Looks to me like he posted an article discussing the issue of parking and the article offered some reasonable suggestions for solutions.

What is the reason for such hostility?

[PennyQuilts]

I'm not really hostile other than the angst constantly expressed is irrititating. I think the first post was giving information that is pretty straight forward if you think about it. At the same time, it is what it is. We live in a culture that relies on the automobile and parking goes along with that. To complain that cars are mucking up urban design is about as constructive as complaining that babies need diapers.

[HVAC Instructor]

I'm not really hostile other than the angst constantly expressed is irrititating. I think the first post was giving information that is pretty straight forward if you think about it. At the same time, it is what it is. We live in a culture that relies on the automobile and parking goes along with that. To complain that cars are mucking up urban design is about as constructive as complaining that babies need diapers.

But neither the OP nor the article was complaining. Did you guys actually read the article? It addressed problems being experienced with parking in urban areas, and offered solutions to help people and developers solve those problems. Nowhere was it suggested the everyone should give up driving and ride bikes and walk. But it did mention the intentional design of Vauban, a suburb of Freiberg, Germany that has deliberately become nearly car-free. So what's wrong with that? No one is suggesting that we give up all our cars, just that more new communities be designed where people do not have to drive. That is not an attack on the American way of life, it is simply another option where we will use less feul and become less dependent on these Muslim oil producing nations that use the profits from the oil we buy from them to eventually attack us.

Have any of you ever spent any time in countries and communities where you can actually walk everywhere you need to if you so desire? I have and it is an extremely plesant experience. One place here in the U.S. is Sanibel Island Florida. We have vacationed there many times. We load up our bicycles, stop at the grocery store and make our food purchase, and then park the SUV (yes, we own a diesel SUV that gets 23 MPG HWY that can haul the whole family, all our stuff and 2 retriever dogs) and ride bikes everywhere we want to go around the island. You all should try it at least once.

Look guys, just because someone suggests a way to drive less and use less fuel is not an attack on America. It's just a suggestion. Why not open those closed minds and have a look at it instead of immediately going on the attack?

[BDP]

If you hate civilzation move to desolate a outpost of the world and leave the rest of us alone.

That doesn't make any sense. It's usually the more populated and denser communities that don't have as many parking spaces. The land is too valuable to waste on surface parking.

The real whiners are the people who complain about not having enough parking or for paying $5 for a space. Get over yourselves and learn to walk a couple of blocks.

[PennyQuilts]

The posters with the most credibility are those who can see both sides even if they take one or the other. And they are open to discussion even if they aren't pursuaded.

The ones who have a burr up their butt on a particular issue and who launch into it along with instructions for the rest of the yokels are kind of irritating. First, they make the pronoucement that something we are all used to is a terrible problem, frequently an ethical one. Then, if you disagree that it is a problem, you are backward. They launch into a solution as if the rest of the world is too deaf, blind and stupid to figure it out on their own, and if someone disagrees with them, they name call and talk about other countries that allegedly do better than the United States, or what they have read somewhere. And they don't hold back about touting these special insights even when they are addressing people with more experience, more education, a thinking brain and their own opinion. The bottom line ends up being that they take the position that the world is going to end if people don't wake up (the assumption being that they are the only ones noticing that we are on the brink of disaster), and anyone who doesn't agree with them is dull witted.

I'm not saying the first poster did all that, at all. In fact, I am admitting that for some of us, there is a real temptation to do a knee jerk, "Oh here we go again with someone who thinks they are more intelligent than the rest of us by virtue of being smarter than a fifth grader and sometimes better educated." I admit it, I'm guilty from time to time. I just get so weary of people with all the answers assuming that anyone who disagrees with them or who isn't in awe of other countries are uneducated morons. No offense to morons.

But I am not saying the first poster did any of that.

[HVAC Instructor]

I know the type you are talking about ECO and they are indeed frustrating. I have found the best way to deal with them is to not drop to the name-calling level with them. Just ask legitimate, logical questions absent the political rhetoric and you just might end up with a discussion. It's a two-way street, and these type folks have probably been attacked by right leaning folks many times too, so they come in defensive right out of the gate.

Most of the U.S. is too spread out to facilitate converting to walking/biking communities, but new communities could be planned that way. Some of my co-workers in Norman bike to work everyday. I would too if I could, for both the excercise and the fuel cost savings.

[khook]

It's interesting that the same cost for parking were mentioned in the Sunday Oklahoman today about the article on all the developement going on around the health sciences center and to quote the article by Steve Lackmeyer:

The Oklahoma Health Center is growing up in many cases, replacing surface parking lots with garages as it tries to avoid running out of land. That transition is costly, Lamirand said with structured parking spaces running between $15,000 and $25,000 each.
The Oklahoma Health Center also no longer can afford the luxury of one- to two-story buildings, he said.


My thoughts are, is the the harbinger of things to expect with core to shore? If the density of the buildings shown in all the renderings, then addressing parking issues of whether parking is provided via surface lots or garages is going to become an on going and ever increasing question for development.

[hoya]

I'm going to agree with ECO here. There's a definite pattern on the internet of people doing exactly what he said. "Look at how terrible XYZ is," where XYZ is something traditionally heavily associated with American lifestyle or politics.

In all fairness to khook, his/her post was in perfectly good taste and didn't go too far at all. But, sort of like a trailer for a Steven Seagal movie, it gives a sense of impending dread. "Oh, maybe he'll make a good movie this time." Really? Do you really believe that?

The reaction from oneforone was a little bit premature. But reading the article seems to confirm that this is the same old Seagal we've seen before. "Why do Americans drive everywhere? Because everything’s far apart. Why’s it far apart? Often because there’s so much parking in between!" Statements like that, where the answer to a problem appears to be forehead-slappingly obvious, belong more in infomercials than in legitimate discussion ("It slices through tomatoes with no problem! It's just... that... easy!").

Above all others, Oklahoma Citians should know that paid parking is itself a manufactured concept. We should know because we created it. OKC invented the parking meter. Before that, all parking was free. We created the parking meter with the express intention to raise money by ticketing those who park. It had nothing to do with demand, it had nothing to do with reducing congestion, it was all about making money.

I'm all for redesigning neighborhoods to reduce traffic. I'd like a more walkable city where you didn't need a car. And to be fair, this article isn't nearly as bad as some. As far as Seagal movies go, this is an Under Seige, and not The Glimmer Man. But the hostile reaction that it got is because of the overall "quality" that these sorts of discussions usually bring out.

[Urbanized]

Point of clarification: the parking meter was invented to turn over parking spaces. The Chamber, not the City of OKC, commissioned the invention, owing to the fact that downtown merchants complained that "day parkers," people who worked downtown, would park on the street all day and take up valuable customer parking.

The income generated was a byproduct, which cities worldwide learned to value, exploit, and even become addicted to.

[BDP]

But I am not saying the first poster did any of that.

Actually, the second poster did that.

The first just provided some perspective to discuss in the context of urban planning in OKC going forward, specifically that of Core to Shore.

The second poster didn't like that perspective, suggested those proposing the perspective must hate civilization, and told those people to move to a desolate part of the world and "leave us alone" (which is kind of ironic considering the position the poster was trying to malign).

No doubt the knee jerk hostility started somewhere between the first and third posts to the thread.