My city has several parking garages. The downtowns are not empty. The families coming down there to use the public skating rink are the reason why it's been so lively.
@@xandercruz900 If your city has "several" parking garages, it has far fewer than most American cities. Nothing wrong with a few garages, in moderation. The problems happen when the city is built such that driving is basically the only way in. Those families driving in to use the public skating rink - imagine if there were a train that ran every 5-10 minutes for almost the whole day, from wherever they live to the skating rink, with at most one transfer. They'd be able to get in for much less money. That would mean more of them could come in, or they could come in more often, and the city would be even more lively.
One thing I love about parking reform is that it actually gives businesses more freedom to determine how much parking their business needs to be successful, and business owners can actually save money this way. It's something that actually makes the market more free and makes it easier for people to start businesses. I love parking reform.
Agreed, because they make big sweeping statements about how many parking spaces businesses need to provide, but not all businesses work by volume of customers, or at least not the volumes the people writing the minimum parking requirements think. There are dentists who have to provide close to the same amount of parking as a fast food place. And the dentist would only have one or two dentists in the practice, as well.
There have been bars temporarily closed (withheld permits) by their city on Bar Rescue because they didn't have enough parking spots available...how of all things, this is what a city decides to enforce?!
@@AssBlasster yeah, the place where you really shouldn't drive after going to has a minimum parking requirement? Better would be having a taxi drop off and pick up area, plus a few spots for the groups with designated drivers.
@@evanflynn4680 Yup make it make sense. The bar had plenty of spots too. Dedicated late-night bus routes are a good idea too. To better serve drinking students, my alma mater college town had a late-night bus service from 6pm-3am between downtown bars, campus, and many student apartment complexes. It was widely used on weekends, but they discontinued after 4 years.
I know you love your top ten lists but I really love these standalone videos about a specific topic related to city planning and urbanism! I wished you'd do more of them (but you're free to do whatever you like of course) c:
My husband used to work at circa and they did not allow employees (dealers at least) to park in the fancy parking garage and made them pay to park in surface lots off property
i know someone who worked there and she said there is no employee canteen like all the other properties have. there are break rooms, but no free meal for working your shift
Since there’s already so many defacto videos on “the best college towns”, I’d love to see a dishonorable list on the worst urbanist colleges (or the towns where you would be trapped on campus like on an island). Either that, or a sort of series where you visit a different top 10 for liberal arts vs SEC vs Pac 12 vs ACC vs state schools and etc. As always, love your work and analysis!
Loved Ohio State's walkability. They designed a gigantic campus correctly and the undergrad experience was easily car-free. A good barometer would be: at a university centered around football, can students walk to the stadium, or do they have to drive there? At schools like Cincinnati & Ohio State the stadium is super walkable, compared to schools like South Carolina and Indiana University Bloomington where the norm is to have your pledges drive you to the game so all the upperclassmen can get blasted.
The City of Lakeland, FL, made a promotional tourism social media campaign, promoting the abundance of free downtown parking as a lure to visit our downtown. 🤦🏽♀️
Your point that parking garages are a pain to tear down is very interesting to me. Boston has been trying to tear down a parking garage downtown, and it's been a mess. They've repeatedly had to shut down the subway underneath for safety reasons, a busy street nearby is closed, and a worker died. The first generation of parking garages are reaching the end of their lifespan now (along with the rest of car infrastructure) and it's so expensive to deal with.
That’s something he forgot to mention as he is in Las Vegas. Parking garages in the North rust into oblivion after 40 years or so, which make them even more expensive.
Parking reform !!!!!! I wrote my masters thesis on it and people still look at me funny when I try to describe how actually parking is at the center of everything
The survey of the Garage Mahal is one of the funniest things I've watched in months. I can see why you couldn't resist spending valuable holiday time to make this!
In some cases, a parking garage is a deal with the devil worth making. There's a great shopping plaza in my area but the vast majority of space is surface parking, which makes it really hard for pedestrians to get around in peace. If they took half the space used for surface parking and turned it into a pedestrianized zone and added more shops in exchange for moving all those cars to a garage nearby, I'd take that deal.
Exactly my position. Parking garages and park and rides are both MAJOR improvements as stop gaps between massive car dependent sprawl and something that’s sensible.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 I guess realistically they’re better than sprawling parking lots. But it inevitably just functions like the extra lane on a freeway… it’s just going to give people a reason to drive there and use it.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 disagree a bit on this. Park and rides are tremendously expensive and at best they REDUCE one commuter trip. If it’s a garage you’re spending $50k to just shorten one person’s drive? Terrible ROI. In nearly all cases it’s better to let people who already get in a car drive the whole way and to build housing and add bus service to get people to transit and commerce.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 I’d rather have parking garages which car owners themselves have to pay for rather than “free” parking that is supported by taxpayers or mandated by parking minimums.
"So, a parking garage ends up being expensive shelter for cars at a time when we seem to have more and more *actual humans* who are unsheltered" Wow, well said!
instead of blaming the parking garage, maybe blame the politicians that have no issue throwing $4,000 / month at illegal beaners to be in the country, probably to illegally vote for them, while at the same time do jack shit for the housing and homeless issues in the country.
DC is interesting. Most of its parking garages are underground, so you have a lot of parking, but very little surface space and street facing property is taken up
I wonder how this works financially. I feel like it’s gotta be even more expensive per stall than above ground parking structures and even harder to repurpose. It does have the benefit of not taking away from a different above ground structure so it could be a net positive.
It's because of this that I laugh at people who think we're going to go car-free. No, even if you jettison parking mandates, we're still going to keep building parking garages. There will be some people who go car-free and some who go car-light, but the vast majority will drive a lot. What I've found anecdotally is that the closer people live to where they work, the less of a problem traffic is. Alexandria has added probably 10,000 units of mid-rises in the last few years, all with parking garages, and traffic isn't any worse. You don't have cut-through traffic when people are already where they want to be.
And I thought it was blasphemy when Trump built his own Taj Mahal-style hotel in Atlantic City (which is now a Hard Rock Hotel), but naming your parking garage after that is even more so. When I think of a bad use of land for a parking garage, Ronkonkoma LIRR and Newport Centre mall in Jersey City both come to mind. Ronkonkoma already has a huge parking lot on the southern side of the tracks, and only a small portion of it is even used by cars, so it's just a waste, even more if so with a parking garage on the northern side. Ronkonkoma is the easternmost electrified LIRR station, which makes it quite popular, so the area around the station has a lot of potential and yet...they prefer not to change. And then for Newport, they have no excuse to build a parking garage when they're in such an accessible location thanks to the PATH, dollar vans, and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. Newport on the HBLR is the most popular stop, and yet instead of using the land the garage sits on for an expansion, it thinks the people of Jersey City, the majority of which takes transit, would find a garage useful...I can't.
Detroit's downtown "renaissance" is a perfect example of this. Every new building is dwarfed by the accompanying parking garage. But in a city with the worst public transit in the country it is perhaps inevitable. While other places are demolishing urban freeways Michigan is widening I-94 through a city has already been ruined by them.
Given the recent flight cancellations, could you talk about the differences between air travel and rail and how they're each affected by extreme weather events etc?
You made a nice but very short list of the harms that car-storage structures cause to cities, so here's a few more - They add large volumes of traffic to constrained city streets (car traffic, which is the least efficient and most noxious [noise, stink, pollution] version of transport in terms of space usage in a public right-of-way). - Availability of parking at a designation is the top generator (or one of the top generators) of car traffic demand; it depresses transit use and arrival by other modes - The exit and entry driveways cross public sidewalks, which introduces more or less constant vehicle-pedestrian movement conflicts directly into a pedestrian zone - They block off light and cast shade, with their huge bulk chunking up large volumes of air and light with inert concrete and darkness - They interrupt the continuous streetwall of economic activity and pedestrian interest (i.e., storefronts and restos, shops and services) that is part of the essential engine of downtown success - They take foot traffic (pedestrians) off the sidewalk usually for a block or more; this foot traffic is part of the essential engine of downtown economic activity - They are a very low-value use of high-value urban land - Contribute nothing to the economic synergy effect of having densely active uses in close proximity to one another (the reasons downtowns work) - They are usually either (1) subsidized with scarce public funds, eliminating the other more important things that can be done with public funds; - or they are (2) imposed by non-market forces (regulations) - If they are attached to one particular land use or enterprise, such as a casino, or a hotel, they are generally unavailable as a car-storage resource for other businesses. If parking is provided at all in a downtown, it should at least be publicly available to serve multiple uses, or you may get an even WORSE situation which is MULTIPLE, DUPLICATIVE parking structures = exponentially worse than even just one such structure. At least if there is to be car storage downtown, it should be a "park once, walk around to your multiple destinations" type. Dedicated parking lots and structures are thus compounding the harm - They are impossible to re-use and adapt to anything but car storage. Ability to flex structures to new uses and economic conditions is a core strength of downtown buildings' (old hotel -> senior apartments; a storefront building can convert to a shop, a restaurant, offices, a maker space, anything that relies on high visitation really) adaptivity that helps downtowns thrive over time. Parking garages are completely non-market-responsive and can't contribute anything but generating more traffic. I hope you like this list and if I missed anything, I'm sure other commenters will catch it ;)
I love downtown Vegas and the Smith Center. They are heading in the right direction, but the people of the US are still stuck in the past for the most part. Thanx for mentioning PRN. I'd not heard of them.
One of the saddest things I've seen in Downtown Las Vegas in recent years is the Amtrak mural inside the Plaza Hotel's lobby, which used to mark the hallway to the Amtrak stop behind the hotel. Sigh.
The photo example from Chicago is interesting. It took me a moment to recognize it from above, despite being by there hundreds of times. It's on (and owned by) the campus of DePaul University in Lincoln Park. And other than the nearby garage which used to serve the Children's Hospital (which has, since, moved downtown) it's about the only place to park in the area that isn't what little is available on the street. As I recall, it used to be tennis courts. An irony is that the smallish gym and arena built around the same time next door was never seen as enough capacity for the men's basketball team. Meaning that the university long rented space in a big arena by O'Hare (where students were bussed if they actually cared to journey that far) with tons of surface parking (it was said the fan based lived in the burbs and didn't want to come into the city.) The city has since significantly funded a new stadium south of downtown, right by the convention center (which, of course, has tons of parking.)
7:50 Your point on what comes next after parking reform is great! Abolishing minimums unlocks potential for big gains in housing, transportation, climate, and local wealth generation, but if the next steps aren't handled well, it could have minimal impact and we could even see the return of mandatory car storage.
To get rid of parking garages is tricky. In a car centric country like the US, it's not like they don't get used. You'd have to put in the pedestrian focused infrastructure before phasing out the parking garages closest to or in downtown, otherwise you'll still have all the drivers looking for parking spaces, because they still come from car dependant areas. The biggest change that would improve things is getting rid of R1 zoning entirely, and replacing it with general mixed use, with noise restrictions on areas not specifically for industry. Having a height limit on buildings is common in the rest of the world. My town has a ten floor above the ground maximum, for example. Once you have medium density areas, all of a sudden public transport becomes much more viable. But if you have the US model where you go from big high rise condos, hit the R1 zoning line and go straight to single family homes as far as the eye can see, buses can't service all that area efficiently, so people don't use the buses unless they have no other choice. So they drive everywhere, which leads to minimum parking requirements. So to reverse this, you need to go back and get rid of the R1 zoning, and base the maximum density of any given area on what the power, water and waste management infrastructure can handle.
God thank you for bringing this up. My home city of Springfield ma is absolutely riddled with parking garages. A few years back they built a 3,400. Car garage for a casino right in the middle of downtown. And just a few months ago the demolished a different large garage downtown, and are they gonna replace it with new housing? No. Commercial development? No. New park? Nope. They’re replacing this old garage, with a new modern fancy garage, but this one with some EV ports! And the best part is that this garage is for the neighboring mass mutual center, which already has a dedicated underground parking facility and is literally 2 blocks away from the aforementioned 3,400 car garage. American city planning and auto oriented development at its finest.
Parking garages are only good in 2 applications that I can think of Near venues for sports or music that are NOT located in dense areas Near park and ride style transit stops as part of more dense TOD to accommodate lower density residents using transit to access city centers
Parking garages in non-dense areas will never be competitive with dirt-cheap surface parking. Also, parking garages kind of suck for sports or music venues. Everyone leaves at once, so there's a massive traffic jam INSIDE of the garage.
@@TheRealE.B. surface parking is especially cheap if you can get away with just a grass lawn or gravel lot instead of a fully paved lot. (Which is better for the environment and cheaper considering its water permiable and if its grass is technically green space, not good green space but better than a sea of asphalt concrete) Although from experience i can day that sports & concert venues are perfect matches for transit. I drove out of a surface lot from a concert once (only sober person in the car) and it was a mega jam and very stressful. And then at a different venue we decided to take a bus from a random smaller lot to the venue and it was an amazing feeling just passing the traffic jam in a dedicated lane. I will always support park and ride as a means to link rural to urban, or for something like a big venue to just distribute the load of the sudden impulse of demand far enough to stop overloading the local transportation network. (Cars are a part of the network, but suck as a main backbone)
The parking garages contribute a lot to making Vegas such a heinous city. Just making them underground would've helped a lot to make the city more palatable.
Topic suggestion for heinous land usage: Suburban street parking. Some issues: - Wider than necessary carriageways. If parking along the kerb wasn't permitted, a 6m wide carriageway would be more than sufficient for two way traffic, leaving extra space for the footway, landscaping and community use. - a more dangerous road environment. Suburban street parking tends to be provided in such abundance that it is rarely all in use. This contributes to a sense of wide open space for drivers that encourages faster, less safe driving. - it encourages car ownership and use. Having plenty of space to store multiple cars at home reduces the cost of owning those cars. This means people think less about acquiring extra cars and in turn think less about using them once they have then. - it hinders the development of adjacent higher order nodes. High per capita car ownership and use injects high levels of traffic and congestion into adjacent higher order nodes. This in turn puts pressure on these nodes to either limit their development or dedicate more of their valuable land to car infrastructure. - it entrenches low density in the built form. A significant reason for opposition to higher order land uses in low density suburbs is that it might overwhelm the available street parking.
Tony Hsieh was in my AP Computer Science course in high school (there were only three of us in those days). When he said he was going to found a company selling shoes online I carefully explained to him that was a dumb idea and would never work because shopping is a social activity for women, and they will never buy shoes online without trying them on to see how they look and checking for size. It is possible that I miscalculated.
I'd focus on three priorities in this order: 1. Allow developers to build little or no parking. This is typical in the more urban cities/districts. They tend to build just enough to keep rents high, but less over time. The less they build the more the car-less culture grows. Urban cities and even mid-majors like Seattle build a ton of buildings with no parking. 2. Put it below-ground. This is easier and cheaper in some places than others, but when possible it allows the above-ground space to focus on high-value human uses. 3. If it's above-grade, at least keep the walking environment positive. Make the driveways safe to cross, activate the primary streets, require interesting facades everywhere else, etc. 4. Enable conversion if possible, but who's going to build extra floor-to-floor height, and what will you do with the ramps?
Below-ground car storage is a huge fire safety and air quality concern. Huge fans, maybe 5hp/5,000 sf of parking, are required to remove carbon monoxide and are usually constantly on. Car fires are also a problem, extra hazard sprinkler systems are costly to install, but at least they don't actively cost money to have, unlike constant exhaust extraction. Subsidies for cars would be pretty out of control with this method. Not saying it's not useful but should be limited cases due to how energy intensive it is to keep these garages safe for humans.
In my area most new parking is below-grade (and relatively low in quantity). Land availability/cost and land use codes are the main reasons. Every sustainability/carbon equation is unique but I suspect the added density/proximity would often tilt things in below-grade's favor for sustainability. Do you have any sources on this?
I think that electric cars have a common thread with the parking garage as a land use. You have something that is more expensive and arguably "better" but still serves the overall function of reducing the friction of driving, making it just that one step easier to drive for everything. I know I have personally thought "well, it's short enough drive that I can do it in the Leaf so it basically doesn't count" but from an urbanism perspective I can know that is backward.
even if you drive a leaf we still need room in the carbon budget for parking lots, roads and highways, garages and car chargers. just the concrete would eat up your carbon budget for transportation.
@@Lildizzle420 yeah that's what I mean- as the driver, it feels free to drive somewhere but most of the societal costs are still there. Similarly, a parking garage feels like you're being more urbanist because you are increasing the density but actually it's not.
Rewatching this video in light of the recent absurdity: the city I live in is trying to make one of its largest parking garages a historic landmark because “cool architecture”
The boomers in my city would love that. We had a parking garage that looked ugly when it was first constructed collapse just before the pandemic and the city decided to say screw it and demolish it. They also pedestrianised the entire surrounding area and it's so much nicer and busier. The boomers are complaining there's not enough parking and that this decision will kill the city centre. Thing is even if you look at pics of the city centre when it wasn't at all pedestrianised, it was empty and all you'd see is a few people in the streets and parked cars everywhere. Now you can't go there on the weekend without meeting a wall of people.
video suggestion: how many homes for how many people could be built if the parking subsidies went to housing instead of parking, so the US would start prioritizing people over cars. i think we usually talk about the absurd amount of space parking steals from the cities and how many housing units could be built in that wasted space, and in that sense parking garages kind of tricks us into thinking the downtown areas are actually pretty built up, but when you take off the garages very little remains. but i think it would be interesting to flip the discussion a bit and talk about how many housing units a city could build if it dropped all the subsidies for free surface parking, and specially parking garages. not to mention the economic deadzone that free parking is, and how much more a city would profit if all the land was put to actual reasonable use
Ray: "Near the top of the list would be parking garages..." Me: "Even closer to the top would be parking NON-garages. A garage at least allows the land footprint for cars to be stacked vertically, freeing up other land for better uses and you can at least cover a side or two of it with apartments, businesses or other attractions to mask the hideous facade. Surface parking, not so much.
@@elizabethhenning778 I did. Pretty much anything multi-story and esspecially super multi-story (5+ levels) is going to cost many times over per sq ft, per stall, etc than a single story/surface equivalent. What needs to be asked is if that extra cost is worth it when you consider that you now have 3-8x the land available for things that actually can generate tax revenue or provide better living space for residents and visitors.
Thanks for another great video! The city that I work in has so much surface parking, but it also has tons of garages. The city is basically an entire parking lot, and do you know what the number one complaint of everyone who works there is? Parking. I was like that too when I started, before I really got into urbanism, but it's truly incredible how space inefficient cars are when an entire city is essentially parking and a few office buildings and people still can't find parking. Anyways, I wanted to suggest a video topic for you: city aesthetics. RM Transit did a video talking about how European cities design transit that's more aesthetically pleasing, and I've always felt that cities outside of the US are just better looking. My suspicion is that's because of cars, but I was hoping you might be able to talk about how car infrastructure degrades our visual space and makes our cities uglier. Thanks!
Another effect of minimums and the resulting garage in every condo mid-rise is the loss of potential commercial space to animate surrounding sidewalks. I was just looking at plans for a five story condo block here in Nashville in a district that should be trending walkable. After all, Nashville council abolished parking minimums about a month ago, but the design predated that. The parking is to be in an expensive excavated hole, and the ramps and two cutaways - one each for cars to enter and exit the garage - means there’s barely space for a lobby left over and no commercial frontage. So much for increasing space for shops so tenants can pop out to the street for a couple of items without unstabling the Toyota.
Here in downtown L.A, my 77-year old neighbour becomes incensed when I tell her of new high-rises being built on the sites of former parking lots (which themselves were buildings decades earlier, why does she not think of that?) She insists that tenants should only pay $2 a day to park, which is what prices were a dozen years ago before gentrification. She keeps me on my toes!
That’s two weeks in a row DePaul university footage has been shown, as a geography student there I am glad we are being recognized for both our bad and good uses of prime Chicago real estate.
We have parking garages in London, particularly in shopping areas and attached to supermarkets or malls. Thing is, people come by car to do their shopping and then walk the rest of the area - they only need to park once. The local stores on the street front then don't need parking - because the big store is housing the car and the little errands get done at the same time. Central parking garages make much more sense than sprawling lot parking attached to each individual store.
I am from a Central European city founded in the Middle Ages, and parking garages are very common and hugely popular. Built by the city (!) the represent significant revenue from parking from people who would otherwise go to the city centre and drive back and forth anyway.We have a six storey one one block from the 17th century city hall, it is nicely incorporated in the surrounding architecture, and the square around the corner is now a pedestrian zone, it used to be a parking lot for people without permits (meaning they would try parking there even without one). Let’s admit that some people simply WILL drive to the city centre (such as my friend from a village just outside the city who has three kids under 10). More importantly, I am shocked by the existance of "courts" for traffic violations in the U.S., we have a "city hall office" for that, plus cops can collect the fees to a limited extent. But hey, a city owned and operated parking garage can wipe from the face of the earth many outdoor spaces that can be used for bike lanes or playgrounds
The 9th Avenue Parking Garage in Downtown Calgary is an interesting example of the future proofed parking structure. It was finished in 2021, cost $57M to build and is in a prime location next to the also new public library. Interestingly, it’s placed right along the CP rail corridor, which is used for freight. I can’t help but feel that money and land could have been put to better use! Great video.
@@beatle497 Well, it's more than just a parking structure, for one, and is intended for eventual conversion into other uses, which inflates the costs. But even absent that, it's 500 slots, and you can charge twenty bucks for an 'all-day' parking slot in downtown Calgary (Or $8/hr). And while it's not guaranteed that all those slots will be full the whole *reason* you can charge that much is because downtown Calgary has very specifically been designed to have less parking than it 'ought' to, in order to discourage driving trips in and shift people to transit (for which purpose the high parking prices for the spaces that *are* available is a feature, not a bug). So there's a lot of demand for those spaces and they're likely to be mostly full most of the time on weekdays. So the parking alone can probably cover cost of construction in about twenty to twenty five years.
@@foamyesque Wow, thanks for the local appraisal (from one Calgarian to another) I know construction takes time, and they are planning to make better use of the land imminently. But conference centres always felt like a low bar to shoot for 😅 I've always been wary of Calgary's character cause we have a comparatively tame downtown that keeps getting better. (Just got bike lanes not long ago!) But I know our roots aren't changing, we're still very oil-dependent, living is still expensive and it's hard to find mixed use areas. I'm still guarded in spite of how good it's gotten, unfortunately.
I enjoy watching your videos, and I'm very car heavy being a chauffeur. I drive mostly in greater Boston, and find the struggle between cars and public transit fascinating. While I don't agree with every point you make, I enjoy watching the different views to educate and inform my personal view.
If you're looking for suggestions on topics for future videos, I've noticed that there is a difference between older neighborhoods in American downtowns, where buildings tend to have smaller lots, almost like row houses, vs current urbanist developments which seem to often be much bigger projects that cover a large portion of a city block or even a whole neighborhood. I'd be interested in seeing how this affects the fabric of the neighborhood and whether it has a positive/negative or neutral affect on the city long-term. It seems to me like the smaller lots would be more flexible & easier to repurpose/redevelop in the future, and also tend to support more variety in a smaller area due to smaller street frontage, but those rarely seem to be built anymore. I'm curious whether my thoughts about this are on-point.
I definitely think this is an interesting thought, because personally I like the vibe of smaller scale, older developments. However, I would also say that development of high rise-housing is pretty future proof in most areas, due to the high demand for housing, especially if the lower levels are mixed use that can support a variety of commercial uses.
Much of Las Vegas's business is people making the four-hour drive from the Los Angles or Phoenix areas. I'd imagine that allot of those gamblers would stay closer to home and play at the Indian casinos if you eliminate the parking at the Vegas resorts.
Have you done anything with malls/“lifestyle centers” with transit connections? Maybe something along the lines of your stadiums and airport transit videos. It came to mind because there are a couple of stops on the San Diego trolley that are labeled as being mall stops, but they’re really far away from the actual malls. Maybe other places do it better.
Cedar Point is the big amusement park on a peninsula in Lake Erie. They don't have much space to build another big roller coaster. If only they didn't have to take so much of the land for surface parking. I wonder if they would invest in a parking structure. Banning private cars from the peninsula and providing trains or busses would be better! It is no fun to drive home when you are tired from a long day at the park.
I think the best was to use parking garages is to build a significant amount JUST outside a city center, and pedestrianized the crap out of the downtown. This would be a clear signal that the city is meant for people, not cars, and would encourage visitors to drive to a garage, and then navigate the rest of the city on foot, on bike, or with transit. Putting them inside the city center though is bad specifically because it makes people drive within the city center
This is Vegas. Parking garages are a loss leader. It would be financial suicide to not build a parking garage at your facility. They would do this whether there were parking mandates or not.
Thank you for pointing out the new development in Vegas, but I noticed they still have massive streets. I guess it is hard to wean us off cars as the main choice.
I like having the massive streets. Having come from Atlanta, a lot of the streets seemed very narrow and difficult to navigate, especially when there were delivery vehicles or semis on them. Vegas knows that it needs those streets, even if it becomes a walker's paradise. Finally, I like being able to stay away from the more suicidal drivers that seem a mainstay of any city.
@@RyanZerby Narrow roads that are difficult to navigate are actually a good thing because it forces drivers to drive slowly and be more aware of their surroundings. You of course have to do more to make drivers go slower, but narrow roads, especially in areas with lots of pedestrians, are the preferred system for traffic management. As for semis on those roads, that's on the driver for being where they shouldn't be.
@@CityNerd Yeah, yeah... I misspoke! Made the mistake of street vs road. I live on the corner of Eastern and St Rose that was featured on this channel, so my concept of 'the street outside my house' is techically two six-lane divided highways :)
As a resident of a city which allows on street parking on almost any street, including arterials, I would say parking garages are pretty okay compared to it. And a far superior way of providing parking for nearby residents of apartments and townhouses compared to having parking on every last square feet of outdoor space. I still think garages are the only correct way to provide parking in cities. (Assuming of course we are honest about the cost of it. But that is also a problem for the other forms of parking. On street parking in particular is criminally underrated)
Parking garages are like the extra six lanes on a freeway all stacked on top of each other. I suppose the premise is that it they are supposed to make accessing the city more streamlined, but all I see the owner of the garage profiting off of attracting lots of car traffic downtown. Like imagine if parking garages were all magically connected and replaced with commuter railway or tram stations
Basically every parking garage would be better off as a transit hub/station linked to a park & ride at the far end of the line. Everyone between the line and core could just ride the line into town and everyone beyond it only has to drive to the rural/suburban surface parking lot and then ride the rest of the distance on something more city friendly. (Ideally every small town would have a train station and halfway decent service to get them onto a major line linked to the big cites so even rural folks would only have to drive a relatively short distance into town to get all the way to the concert in the big city or just shopping downtown. Park and rides at the end of the line is just a bridge to this ideal case.)
This video changed my mind about Las Vegas. You see it as glass half full but I had it completely empty! I thought it was hopeless and that the only interesting thing there was gambling and the Strip. How should we balance off-street space with giving on-street space back to people? Especially in older cities with narrower streets, bus priority, safe cycle access, trees, public seating, and other amenities compete with on-street parking, let alone moving vehicular lanes as well. Right now I'm in camp "stop building new garages, but use existing ones to remove on-street parking".
Walking around the Minneapolis/St. Paul Skyways it's *always* instantly clear when you're walking through a parking garage, it just has a completely different feel to any other type of building You walk through a skybridge and suddenly you're in a poorly warmed/cooled hallway with no windows, no shops, and very bland walls, at best maybe a few ads around (80% of the time for parking)? You're in a parking garage.
If i walk from my Downtown Albuquerque apartment to one of the ART stations, i pass FIVE parking garages. In just a few blocks. In Lil old Albuquerque. Not to mention all the surface parking that's left over from the "Urban Renewal" movement. And with about 18000 parking spaces in the Downtown Core, most of which are empty day or night, people still tell me they hate going downtown because "it's so hard to park." Awful! At least Albuquerque is now also discussing some zoning changes and parking requirement reforms.
Parking garages are great for cities to create destiny and value to existing structure. Much of the mid to late 20th century surface lots have ripped down buildings down, older buildings usually for a cheap fix for parking. Which only exacerbates the lack of desinty in an old downtown and diversity of older structures.
On this topic, I would be interested to see a video exploring just cement parking lots within what is considered to be a city's downtown to see who the most egregious cities are. I remember in my Urban Sustainability class we watched a documentary about Cleveland gentrification and I remember just how much waste of space the city has that is taken up by parking lots.
The upside of garages is in creating political opportunities to reallocate parking space that is otherwise politically off-limits. There are plenty of downtown streets in US cities that allocate lanes to parked cars. If you can arrange to swap the street parking for the garage parking, an immediate benefit to every other transport mode can also be pitched, it's just a question of how to make the stakeholders agree on financing such a scheme. This is roughly how the story played out with San Francisco's JFK Drive. An underground parking garage was added to the Music Concourse many years ago, but the terms of its management were such that it was not useful to the public compared to parking on JFK - the prices were too high and the hours were too limited, because that was what the private operator found profitable. JFK closed to car traffic early in the pandemic, and years after, it went to the voters, in separate ballot propositions, to decide whether or not JFK should reopen(back to the status quo) and whether the garage management should be made city-operated to fix its operational issues. The voters went strongly towards both keeping JFK car-free, and to hand over the garage to the city. It took a very tortured story where the plan had to fail before it succeeded, but the original promise of the garage has finally been realized. (It probably cost too much.)
I didn’t notice at first that you hovered over StL when on the PRN website in the video. It makes me more proud than ever to learn that there have never been parking minimums downtown here. Yet it also makes me more frustrated at how much parking there still is! These people didn’t even have to destroy half the downtown for cars; they chose too! :/ At least it should be easier to fix now though.
Pine street should be renamed Park Street, because 90% of what you see, from the arch westwards for about a mile, is just parking garages. The entire downtown is designed about events and a very small set of office buildings. Outside of said events, every road is oversized, too fast, and a barrier to pedestrians. The city has to put residents first, instead of the companies that rely on business from people living in west county. I don't know how we can fix downtown itself though, as there are way too many office buildings with large setbacks, built to be pedestrian-averse. But the few places that have some semi-decent density should be the focus of development that isn't centered on cars. It's still crazy to me that two blocks north of SLU, and to the west of the Fox theater, we have extremely underdeveloped land.
In downtown St. Louis we don’t have parking minimums, but developers, renters, owners all expect parking. At least our loft in an old warehouse had our parking underground. When I was single & car-free I leased my space to a couple that had 2 cars. We’ve been car light for almost 9 years now, 1 car for 2 people. I’m interested in automated parking, they claim to need half as much space. A person who works in affordable housing says they can’t detach parking from units because rent must be inclusive - so market rate and low income housing all get parking included.
There are some "good" parking structures. My personal fave is Ballet Valet in South Beach, also known as the "Chia Building." It has street-level retail and is festooned with vines and other plants that soften its appearance and help clean the air. It lacks a rooftop solar shed and rainwater collection, but they didn't ask for my input when they built it. Another favorite of mine is the extremely cool, extremely compact underground parking structure at the Summit Grand Parc (historic office building repurposed to mixed-use office/commercial/residential) in DC that's fully automated. Tenants drive onto a platform in the entry bay that sinks below street level and shoves their car into any available storage slot. They don't have to know which one - the computer keeps track of the cars. When they want their car back, they hit a button on the way out of their office or apartment and their car will be waiting in the exit bay, facing the street even though it was facing the other direction when it entered the building. FYI, the building is VERY close to the McPherson Square Metro station, so it's a great location for car-light living. The building manager was kind enough to allow me to photograph the heck out of it about 19 years ago and to give me a thorough tour with some interesting background info. One great thing about parking structures is that they enable me to get fantastic panoramic photos of CBDs where it's illegal to fly drones. I pay to park, climb to the top floor, and work my way around shooting photos as I go. I still don't need a drone!
Nah, they still use up land. Apart from the fact that they use up building space that could've been used for something productive, more parking induced more people to drive, meaning you'll need more car infrastructure.
I'm generally not fond of those either, but I've kinda resigned myself to the fact that they are probably unavoidable in the political climate. And while they are very expensive at least they allow limited good use for the land still, not fond of the traffic associated with filling and emptying them though! I do however consider underground bicycle parking garages to be quite neat, especially next to the larger train and bus stations here in the Netherlands. They remove a lot of the clutter of improperly parked bicycles outside the designated areas and as a bonus you're less likely to show up to a wet saddle.
@@alex2143 The fewer cars the better. But a below-grade garage would typically be below the building, not on separate land. Geometric considerations favor larger garage floorplates but you can for example put 300 spaces on 1/3 acre below a 400-unit tower.
i'm a big fan of reusing structures in ways that preserve their original layout, so a parking garage would probably turn into some sort of weird mini mall where the long sloped surfaces play host to an emergent accissibility compromise that's uncomfortable for both wheelchair and leg users. since large swaths of floor area are not level.
Shout-out to the parking garage directly on the waterfront in Portland, ME. Not exactly the best thing to see from the window of your water-view hotel room.
The building with 8-10 floors of parking before getting to the apartments was pretty hideous. There is a building along Miami Beach which, while more pleasing to the eye, is in its conception a monstrosity. It is the Porsche Design Tower, where you and your Porsche take the elevator to your condo. (I have only seen it while walking or riding the bus by it. I like walking in the Miami area. The sidewalks are so empty of pedestrians!)
I actually like parking garages in cities as this is a way to get rid of street parking. I live in the suburbs of DC and I reserve a parking spot before I go into town so I don't have to search (sometimes a long time) for an open spot...not to mention the added safety of parking in a garage. If everybody was forced to park in nearby garages (through reservations to make it easier on the drivers), street parking could be eliminated or be used for pickup/dropoff. Perhaps the number of garages can come down...but until street parking is eliminated and there is still a ton of space left in garages, I'm not for repurposing them.
I'd love to better use space, but until we solve the problem of suburbia being super low density, we will never have a better connection between our dense areas and the low-density areas that help to fuel them. Even in our public transit friendly cities, we don't have good access to our dense areas aside from driving. If downtown is 20 miles east, why drive 5 miles south to get to transit and then take transit 20 miles to get downtown? That adds extra distance and often more than doubles the one-way access time. Until we make our suburban areas dense to support good public transit we are faced with three bad choices: have flat parking lots which immediately kill the urban feel and use of a neighborhood; have parking garages that are expensive and difficult to replace, but can with good planning at least preserve the street level urbanism of a neighborhood; or have little parking and just accept that a great deal of the suburban money will just choose to not bother with the inconvenience and spend their money at strip malls, lifestyle centers, and single level office parks instead. As it stands, I'd pick downtown Portland with its numerous parking structures over a pavement with several buildings called downtown (Tulsa), or over more and more suburbs.
The Garage Mahal is a fantastic name for a Ritzy Vegas Resort Parking Garage: it’s named after a famous Mughalese mausoleum and that’s fitting for a place where walkable, inviting public spaces goes to die
Let's by saying, I am an American designer (not urban, transport, or anything related to this topic) though I reside overseas on a land-scarce island with a large population. I have seen a lot of creativity when it comes to shoehorning developments into narrow or zigzagged plots of land. From what I observe, this issue around cars, parking, walkability, etc all seems like value signaling. I guess it's time for me to also do some signaling. I believe in the rules of improv, "Yes, and". I believe the vast amounts of land that the US possesses have made us lackluster when it comes to creative solutions while at the same time thinking we must force our way of life upon our fellow brothers. I don't know what you want to call it but it comes from both sides of the spectrum. Why can't we have walkable cities that also accommodate people who drive as well? I would much prefer city ordinances that restrict surface parking in favor of structured (yes, all of your points about costs are valid, no disagreement) While I am a designer, now, my education and early years in business were as a financial economist and M&A banker. I believe in using economic principles to guide market behavior. Restrict surface parking by raising taxes and fees on them, increase the cost of permitting and building them by mandating green coverage and permeable materials and blah blah, but also get rid of mandated parking minimums. Stop subsidizing the construction of all parking structures. If developers begin to feel true costs, they will in turn change their calculus. The final point, create city ordinances that for permitting purposes parking structures must provide commercial retail space at street level. Streets lined with street-facing retail at ground level go a long way in creating a sense of walkability. The structured parking can be located behind and above the retail space. I envision the street-facing facades being occupied commercial or residential and the parking occupying the rear cheaper portions without a view so you don't see towers resting on a platform of parking. To me, it's a packaging problem. I'll talk about street parking in a different post.
Walkable cities are accommodationg for drivers. Just a lot nicer. It doesn't make a difference if you have to walk 300m from your parking spot to the shop through a no-car area or the same distance from the parking garage to whatever.
Ideally all parking should be underground, but that's not always economically feasible. If that's the case then developers should surround the garages with the retail or housing that the garages were built for, in order to provide a more aesthetic environment. Basically they should be hiding the garages, which is the opposite of what most malls do.
Great video. The UK traffic related fatalities compared to other countries is a surprise, living there. But I'm a pedestrian and public transport user.
Funny I am working on my fist parking garage design for the City of Waco, TX. 455 cars. I do not think I ever want to work on that type of project again.
Las Vegas, the national capital of anything goes, hahaha, best urban definition ever. But Miami, competes closely. PS: structured parking is horrendous land using. Greetings from Bogotá Colombia
Do you have a list of city/urbanism/transportation books you’d recommend? Apologies if you’ve already made a video and i haven’t seen it. Ive read Confessions of a Recovering Engineer and I got Strong Towns for Christmas. I have a few on my to-get list like Walkable City and Great Streets.
You should look at Jacksonville, FL. First Baptist Church owns most of the downtown parking garages and then gets revenue from people who use them during the week.
While it's not hard to understand the argument that dense urban parking (at least certainly surface parking, and also above-ground parking garages as you note here - underground parking might have a bit more nuance) are bad uses of high-demand urban land, it's also common for urbanists in general (and yourself) to regularly comment that park-and-rides are a bad idea and also represent a bad use of land. On the other side of the same token, it's common to claim that urbanism does not seek to eliminate rural or suburban living, but instead to provide better options and environments for those who instead prefer urban living, typically in conjunction with car-free or car-light lifestyles. This makes perfect sense (and is something I fully endorse), especially in North America where individuals preferring human-scale urban living have been historically greatly under-served by the existing constructed environment which favours suburban living almost to the exclusion of other options. However, if this is true (that the goal is to reduce, not eliminate, rural and suburban living for those who truly prefer it), then I'm not clear on why park-and-rides are considered such a terrible affront, and what the better alternative is. Unless you're proposing a purely urban lifestyle for nearly all of the population (something as unrealistic as it is unlikely to garner broad support), what is the appropriate course for a rural individual or suburbanite who needs to visit an urban area for some reason? By design, such areas are low enough density that effective frequent transit is impractical, necessitating car use; obviously, this channel's focus highlights this fact quite clearly. Since driving a car from a suburban or rural area into an urban center is obviously the worst possible outcome, there must be some practical solution for a suburbanite wanting to travel downtown occasionally without driving their car there and exacerbating traffic and parking issues. If they choose to live and work outside an urban environment (avoiding contributing to traffic, pollution, and parking in urban spaces), what solution other than a park and ride allows them to travel to an urban centre efficiently without also taking their car to do so? Park and ride structures are typically built at the far ends of transit lines (where the line is least busy relatively speaking and land is under the least contention relative to other parts of the line) so this would seem to be the ideal way to encourage individuals who live and work outside the urban area to *not* bring their cars downtown and instead take advantage of the transit system instead once they reach the outer ends of the transit-serviced higher-density core. Is there some other solution than park-and-rides that I'm missing that does not alienate suburban or rural individuals from entering urban centres that doesn't simply require/assume all those individuals will all happily adopt urban lifestyles (even if that's incompatible with their hobbies, jobs, or preferences)?
Is there any chance you could do a video of best improvements to traffic. I live in Bremerton and would love some bridges built. The geography of the Seattle area is just frustrating. I would love to see a top ten of most improved traffic’s pattern projects. What benefits the tax payer the most. This could be relevant with new federal funding coming out.
Once you start noticing parking garages downtown you realize how empty it (the downtown itself) really is
My city has several parking garages. The downtowns are not empty. The families coming down there to use the public skating rink are the reason why it's been so lively.
One 20 story parking garage per 40 story office tower, and they take up the same footprint!
@@xandercruz900 If your city has "several" parking garages, it has far fewer than most American cities. Nothing wrong with a few garages, in moderation. The problems happen when the city is built such that driving is basically the only way in.
Those families driving in to use the public skating rink - imagine if there were a train that ran every 5-10 minutes for almost the whole day, from wherever they live to the skating rink, with at most one transfer. They'd be able to get in for much less money. That would mean more of them could come in, or they could come in more often, and the city would be even more lively.
@@xandercruz900 they’re saying that the city is empty not the garage. Basically like garages fluff up buildings
@@xandercruz900 Is your city Mississauga, ON by any chance?
One thing I love about parking reform is that it actually gives businesses more freedom to determine how much parking their business needs to be successful, and business owners can actually save money this way. It's something that actually makes the market more free and makes it easier for people to start businesses. I love parking reform.
Yes, the logic behind minimum parking requirements is extremely weird if you even think about it for a second.
Agreed, because they make big sweeping statements about how many parking spaces businesses need to provide, but not all businesses work by volume of customers, or at least not the volumes the people writing the minimum parking requirements think. There are dentists who have to provide close to the same amount of parking as a fast food place. And the dentist would only have one or two dentists in the practice, as well.
There have been bars temporarily closed (withheld permits) by their city on Bar Rescue because they didn't have enough parking spots available...how of all things, this is what a city decides to enforce?!
@@AssBlasster yeah, the place where you really shouldn't drive after going to has a minimum parking requirement? Better would be having a taxi drop off and pick up area, plus a few spots for the groups with designated drivers.
@@evanflynn4680 Yup make it make sense. The bar had plenty of spots too.
Dedicated late-night bus routes are a good idea too. To better serve drinking students, my alma mater college town had a late-night bus service from 6pm-3am between downtown bars, campus, and many student apartment complexes. It was widely used on weekends, but they discontinued after 4 years.
I know you love your top ten lists but I really love these standalone videos about a specific topic related to city planning and urbanism! I wished you'd do more of them (but you're free to do whatever you like of course) c:
Appreciate hearing it!
My husband used to work at circa and they did not allow employees (dealers at least) to park in the fancy parking garage and made them pay to park in surface lots off property
So classy!
i know someone who worked there and she said there is no employee canteen like all the other properties have. there are break rooms, but no free meal for working your shift
When I worked at an outdoor shopping mall in the Chicagoland area, I had to park all the way in the back to leave the good spots for shoppers.
Since there’s already so many defacto videos on “the best college towns”, I’d love to see a dishonorable list on the worst urbanist colleges (or the towns where you would be trapped on campus like on an island).
Either that, or a sort of series where you visit a different top 10 for liberal arts vs SEC vs Pac 12 vs ACC vs state schools and etc.
As always, love your work and analysis!
Loved Ohio State's walkability. They designed a gigantic campus correctly and the undergrad experience was easily car-free. A good barometer would be: at a university centered around football, can students walk to the stadium, or do they have to drive there? At schools like Cincinnati & Ohio State the stadium is super walkable, compared to schools like South Carolina and Indiana University Bloomington where the norm is to have your pledges drive you to the game so all the upperclassmen can get blasted.
I’m waiting for the College Station bashing
Bar Ilan University where I went for my MBA would probably be on that list...
Santa Cruz. It can't be within view of the city, apparently, so it's over a mile away.
I really, genuinely thought that the name “garage mahal” was a joke from your side - until I saw it on the actual signs. Mind. Blown.
Same here. I thought it would enter the top tier slam, along with "edifice complex," and "starter castles."
The City of Lakeland, FL, made a promotional tourism social media campaign, promoting the abundance of free downtown parking as a lure to visit our downtown. 🤦🏽♀️
We did it to encourage people to shop downtown it isn’t a bad idea. We want people down here everyone drive down here
@@heinuchung8680Why would one want to shop in a place where every other building is a parking garage?
You think people on bikes will make up the loss?
If you do, then it's time to get off the internet.
@@ZMW7 Every one of them arent. But if you want the places down there to close, then make none of them one.
@@xandercruz900 people on bikes consistently spend more than people in cars. Bike infrastructure is good for business.
Your point that parking garages are a pain to tear down is very interesting to me. Boston has been trying to tear down a parking garage downtown, and it's been a mess. They've repeatedly had to shut down the subway underneath for safety reasons, a busy street nearby is closed, and a worker died. The first generation of parking garages are reaching the end of their lifespan now (along with the rest of car infrastructure) and it's so expensive to deal with.
That’s something he forgot to mention as he is in Las Vegas. Parking garages in the North rust into oblivion after 40 years or so, which make them even more expensive.
They're eventually just going to need to build a New Boston and abandon the old one.
Parking reform !!!!!!
I wrote my masters thesis on it and people still look at me funny when I try to describe how actually parking is at the center of everything
awesome! have you joined the Parking Reform Network? :)
Yes, there is nothing wrong with parking per se. But that we make it the center of land use policies is what is wrong.
The survey of the Garage Mahal is one of the funniest things I've watched in months. I can see why you couldn't resist spending valuable holiday time to make this!
I didn't even manage to gain admittance to the air-conditioned level, which is a thing that apparently exists.
@@CityNerd AC is a parking garage? Lmao we don't even do that in Florida
@@CityNerd one thing I learned about Vegas garages is that they have tubes that pump cool air into limos to condition them before pickup!
@@twjordan Spare no expense for the high rollers!!
The introductory music was the icing on the cake.
lmfao 'The Garage Mahal'. Man Vegas never ceases to impress me with the levels of tacky to which it will climb
In some cases, a parking garage is a deal with the devil worth making. There's a great shopping plaza in my area but the vast majority of space is surface parking, which makes it really hard for pedestrians to get around in peace. If they took half the space used for surface parking and turned it into a pedestrianized zone and added more shops in exchange for moving all those cars to a garage nearby, I'd take that deal.
Exactly my position. Parking garages and park and rides are both MAJOR improvements as stop gaps between massive car dependent sprawl and something that’s sensible.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 I guess realistically they’re better than sprawling parking lots. But it inevitably just functions like the extra lane on a freeway… it’s just going to give people a reason to drive there and use it.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 disagree a bit on this. Park and rides are tremendously expensive and at best they REDUCE one commuter trip. If it’s a garage you’re spending $50k to just shorten one person’s drive? Terrible ROI.
In nearly all cases it’s better to let people who already get in a car drive the whole way and to build housing and add bus service to get people to transit and commerce.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 I’d rather have parking garages which car owners themselves have to pay for rather than “free” parking that is supported by taxpayers or mandated by parking minimums.
That's my thought. There is so many surface parking lots in my downtown that a parking garage is an improvement from an abysmal starting point.
"So, a parking garage ends up being expensive shelter for cars at a time when we seem to have more and more *actual humans* who are unsheltered" Wow, well said!
I don't claim to have the answer for it, but it's pretty notable
Very ironic and twisted reality.
But cars are useful, and many of the "residentially challenged" people are useless.
instead of blaming the parking garage, maybe blame the politicians that have no issue throwing $4,000 / month at illegal beaners to be in the country, probably to illegally vote for them, while at the same time do jack shit for the housing and homeless issues in the country.
DC is interesting. Most of its parking garages are underground, so you have a lot of parking, but very little surface space and street facing property is taken up
I I this is the best solution so far. Houston also has a lot of underground parking garages
@@--julian_and above ground.
I wonder how this works financially. I feel like it’s gotta be even more expensive per stall than above ground parking structures and even harder to repurpose. It does have the benefit of not taking away from a different above ground structure so it could be a net positive.
It's because of this that I laugh at people who think we're going to go car-free. No, even if you jettison parking mandates, we're still going to keep building parking garages. There will be some people who go car-free and some who go car-light, but the vast majority will drive a lot. What I've found anecdotally is that the closer people live to where they work, the less of a problem traffic is. Alexandria has added probably 10,000 units of mid-rises in the last few years, all with parking garages, and traffic isn't any worse. You don't have cut-through traffic when people are already where they want to be.
"mahal" just means "mansion" - but is also used for other group accommodations (like dormitories, servants' quarters)
Garage Mahal is quite fitting.
Perhaps so, but most people in the USA equate Mahal with the Taj...not a regular mansion...so his comment/opinion.
And I thought it was blasphemy when Trump built his own Taj Mahal-style hotel in Atlantic City (which is now a Hard Rock Hotel), but naming your parking garage after that is even more so. When I think of a bad use of land for a parking garage, Ronkonkoma LIRR and Newport Centre mall in Jersey City both come to mind. Ronkonkoma already has a huge parking lot on the southern side of the tracks, and only a small portion of it is even used by cars, so it's just a waste, even more if so with a parking garage on the northern side. Ronkonkoma is the easternmost electrified LIRR station, which makes it quite popular, so the area around the station has a lot of potential and yet...they prefer not to change.
And then for Newport, they have no excuse to build a parking garage when they're in such an accessible location thanks to the PATH, dollar vans, and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. Newport on the HBLR is the most popular stop, and yet instead of using the land the garage sits on for an expansion, it thinks the people of Jersey City, the majority of which takes transit, would find a garage useful...I can't.
Detroit's downtown "renaissance" is a perfect example of this. Every new building is dwarfed by the accompanying parking garage. But in a city with the worst public transit in the country it is perhaps inevitable. While other places are demolishing urban freeways Michigan is widening I-94 through a city has already been ruined by them.
the only benifit of parking garages is city centers is the view from the top haha
I endorse this
Unfortunately these days security guards may arrive to shoo you out of the garage. I've had that happen.
Given the recent flight cancellations, could you talk about the differences between air travel and rail and how they're each affected by extreme weather events etc?
You made a nice but very short list of the harms that car-storage structures cause to cities, so here's a few more
- They add large volumes of traffic to constrained city streets (car traffic, which is the least efficient and most noxious [noise, stink, pollution] version of transport in terms of space usage in a public right-of-way).
- Availability of parking at a designation is the top generator (or one of the top generators) of car traffic demand; it depresses transit use and arrival by other modes
- The exit and entry driveways cross public sidewalks, which introduces more or less constant vehicle-pedestrian movement conflicts directly into a pedestrian zone
- They block off light and cast shade, with their huge bulk chunking up large volumes of air and light with inert concrete and darkness
- They interrupt the continuous streetwall of economic activity and pedestrian interest (i.e., storefronts and restos, shops and services) that is part of the essential engine of downtown success
- They take foot traffic (pedestrians) off the sidewalk usually for a block or more; this foot traffic is part of the essential engine of downtown economic activity
- They are a very low-value use of high-value urban land
- Contribute nothing to the economic synergy effect of having densely active uses in close proximity to one another (the reasons downtowns work)
- They are usually either (1) subsidized with scarce public funds, eliminating the other more important things that can be done with public funds;
- or they are (2) imposed by non-market forces (regulations)
- If they are attached to one particular land use or enterprise, such as a casino, or a hotel, they are generally unavailable as a car-storage resource for other businesses. If parking is provided at all in a downtown, it should at least be publicly available to serve multiple uses, or you may get an even WORSE situation which is MULTIPLE, DUPLICATIVE parking structures = exponentially worse than even just one such structure. At least if there is to be car storage downtown, it should be a "park once, walk around to your multiple destinations" type. Dedicated parking lots and structures are thus compounding the harm
- They are impossible to re-use and adapt to anything but car storage. Ability to flex structures to new uses and economic conditions is a core strength of downtown buildings' (old hotel -> senior apartments; a storefront building can convert to a shop, a restaurant, offices, a maker space, anything that relies on high visitation really) adaptivity that helps downtowns thrive over time. Parking garages are completely non-market-responsive and can't contribute anything but generating more traffic.
I hope you like this list and if I missed anything, I'm sure other commenters will catch it ;)
I like that transit center. Secure bike parking is a key amenity for me.
I love downtown Vegas and the Smith Center. They are heading in the right direction, but the people of the US are still stuck in the past for the most part. Thanx for mentioning PRN. I'd not heard of them.
One of the saddest things I've seen in Downtown Las Vegas in recent years is the Amtrak mural inside the Plaza Hotel's lobby, which used to mark the hallway to the Amtrak stop behind the hotel. Sigh.
i sure cant wait to take the (single-tracked) brightline west and go to vegas to die in elon musk's car tunnels 🤣
Allegedly they're opening a high speed line between Vegas and LA... believe it when I see it
The photo example from Chicago is interesting. It took me a moment to recognize it from above, despite being by there hundreds of times. It's on (and owned by) the campus of DePaul University in Lincoln Park. And other than the nearby garage which used to serve the Children's Hospital (which has, since, moved downtown) it's about the only place to park in the area that isn't what little is available on the street. As I recall, it used to be tennis courts. An irony is that the smallish gym and arena built around the same time next door was never seen as enough capacity for the men's basketball team. Meaning that the university long rented space in a big arena by O'Hare (where students were bussed if they actually cared to journey that far) with tons of surface parking (it was said the fan based lived in the burbs and didn't want to come into the city.) The city has since significantly funded a new stadium south of downtown, right by the convention center (which, of course, has tons of parking.)
7:50 Your point on what comes next after parking reform is great! Abolishing minimums unlocks potential for big gains in housing, transportation, climate, and local wealth generation, but if the next steps aren't handled well, it could have minimal impact and we could even see the return of mandatory car storage.
To get rid of parking garages is tricky. In a car centric country like the US, it's not like they don't get used. You'd have to put in the pedestrian focused infrastructure before phasing out the parking garages closest to or in downtown, otherwise you'll still have all the drivers looking for parking spaces, because they still come from car dependant areas. The biggest change that would improve things is getting rid of R1 zoning entirely, and replacing it with general mixed use, with noise restrictions on areas not specifically for industry. Having a height limit on buildings is common in the rest of the world. My town has a ten floor above the ground maximum, for example. Once you have medium density areas, all of a sudden public transport becomes much more viable. But if you have the US model where you go from big high rise condos, hit the R1 zoning line and go straight to single family homes as far as the eye can see, buses can't service all that area efficiently, so people don't use the buses unless they have no other choice. So they drive everywhere, which leads to minimum parking requirements. So to reverse this, you need to go back and get rid of the R1 zoning, and base the maximum density of any given area on what the power, water and waste management infrastructure can handle.
Also New York City mostly stopped operating public garages, like the ones that used to stand at Queens Plaza and 8th Avenue and W 53rd St.
Is it just me or is your camera settings/filter off? Looking a lot more white/gray than normal.
It's Vegas. It's sucking the life out of him 😂
I heard he got a new camera. Not 100% sure
God thank you for bringing this up. My home city of Springfield ma is absolutely riddled with parking garages. A few years back they built a 3,400. Car garage for a casino right in the middle of downtown. And just a few months ago the demolished a different large garage downtown, and are they gonna replace it with new housing? No. Commercial development? No. New park? Nope. They’re replacing this old garage, with a new modern fancy garage, but this one with some EV ports! And the best part is that this garage is for the neighboring mass mutual center, which already has a dedicated underground parking facility and is literally 2 blocks away from the aforementioned 3,400 car garage. American city planning and auto oriented development at its finest.
The parking garages I use here in the Netherlands are often underground. Leaving room for stores, offices or a park on ground level.
The fact that a parking organization exists and rates parking garages is so peak American.
Parking garages are only good in 2 applications that I can think of
Near venues for sports or music that are NOT located in dense areas
Near park and ride style transit stops as part of more dense TOD to accommodate lower density residents using transit to access city centers
Parking garages in non-dense areas will never be competitive with dirt-cheap surface parking.
Also, parking garages kind of suck for sports or music venues. Everyone leaves at once, so there's a massive traffic jam INSIDE of the garage.
@@TheRealE.B. surface parking is especially cheap if you can get away with just a grass lawn or gravel lot instead of a fully paved lot. (Which is better for the environment and cheaper considering its water permiable and if its grass is technically green space, not good green space but better than a sea of asphalt concrete)
Although from experience i can day that sports & concert venues are perfect matches for transit. I drove out of a surface lot from a concert once (only sober person in the car) and it was a mega jam and very stressful. And then at a different venue we decided to take a bus from a random smaller lot to the venue and it was an amazing feeling just passing the traffic jam in a dedicated lane.
I will always support park and ride as a means to link rural to urban, or for something like a big venue to just distribute the load of the sudden impulse of demand far enough to stop overloading the local transportation network. (Cars are a part of the network, but suck as a main backbone)
Park and Ride is the opposite of TOD. It's for people who live nowhere near transit but can drive to it.
The parking garages contribute a lot to making Vegas such a heinous city. Just making them underground would've helped a lot to make the city more palatable.
Topic suggestion for heinous land usage: Suburban street parking.
Some issues:
- Wider than necessary carriageways. If parking along the kerb wasn't permitted, a 6m wide carriageway would be more than sufficient for two way traffic, leaving extra space for the footway, landscaping and community use.
- a more dangerous road environment. Suburban street parking tends to be provided in such abundance that it is rarely all in use. This contributes to a sense of wide open space for drivers that encourages faster, less safe driving.
- it encourages car ownership and use. Having plenty of space to store multiple cars at home reduces the cost of owning those cars. This means people think less about acquiring extra cars and in turn think less about using them once they have then.
- it hinders the development of adjacent higher order nodes. High per capita car ownership and use injects high levels of traffic and congestion into adjacent higher order nodes. This in turn puts pressure on these nodes to either limit their development or dedicate more of their valuable land to car infrastructure.
- it entrenches low density in the built form. A significant reason for opposition to higher order land uses in low density suburbs is that it might overwhelm the available street parking.
Tony Hsieh was in my AP Computer Science course in high school (there were only three of us in those days). When he said he was going to found a company selling shoes online I carefully explained to him that was a dumb idea and would never work because shopping is a social activity for women, and they will never buy shoes online without trying them on to see how they look and checking for size. It is possible that I miscalculated.
Yeah, well he ended up dead in a drug-induced fire, so don't be too hard on yourself
I'd focus on three priorities in this order:
1. Allow developers to build little or no parking. This is typical in the more urban cities/districts. They tend to build just enough to keep rents high, but less over time. The less they build the more the car-less culture grows. Urban cities and even mid-majors like Seattle build a ton of buildings with no parking.
2. Put it below-ground. This is easier and cheaper in some places than others, but when possible it allows the above-ground space to focus on high-value human uses.
3. If it's above-grade, at least keep the walking environment positive. Make the driveways safe to cross, activate the primary streets, require interesting facades everywhere else, etc.
4. Enable conversion if possible, but who's going to build extra floor-to-floor height, and what will you do with the ramps?
Below-ground car storage is a huge fire safety and air quality concern. Huge fans, maybe 5hp/5,000 sf of parking, are required to remove carbon monoxide and are usually constantly on. Car fires are also a problem, extra hazard sprinkler systems are costly to install, but at least they don't actively cost money to have, unlike constant exhaust extraction. Subsidies for cars would be pretty out of control with this method. Not saying it's not useful but should be limited cases due to how energy intensive it is to keep these garages safe for humans.
In my area most new parking is below-grade (and relatively low in quantity). Land availability/cost and land use codes are the main reasons. Every sustainability/carbon equation is unique but I suspect the added density/proximity would often tilt things in below-grade's favor for sustainability. Do you have any sources on this?
4. Wheelchair ramps for if there's a fire.
Conversion is not really a thing (what are you going to do with that space?), but I agree with the rest.
A shipping container based food cart pod sounds awesome.
Our downtown food truck lot was closed and turned into storage for a nearby garden store. :(
I think that electric cars have a common thread with the parking garage as a land use. You have something that is more expensive and arguably "better" but still serves the overall function of reducing the friction of driving, making it just that one step easier to drive for everything. I know I have personally thought "well, it's short enough drive that I can do it in the Leaf so it basically doesn't count" but from an urbanism perspective I can know that is backward.
even if you drive a leaf we still need room in the carbon budget for parking lots, roads and highways, garages and car chargers. just the concrete would eat up your carbon budget for transportation.
@@Lildizzle420 yeah that's what I mean- as the driver, it feels free to drive somewhere but most of the societal costs are still there. Similarly, a parking garage feels like you're being more urbanist because you are increasing the density but actually it's not.
Rewatching this video in light of the recent absurdity: the city I live in is trying to make one of its largest parking garages a historic landmark because “cool architecture”
The boomers in my city would love that. We had a parking garage that looked ugly when it was first constructed collapse just before the pandemic and the city decided to say screw it and demolish it. They also pedestrianised the entire surrounding area and it's so much nicer and busier. The boomers are complaining there's not enough parking and that this decision will kill the city centre. Thing is even if you look at pics of the city centre when it wasn't at all pedestrianised, it was empty and all you'd see is a few people in the streets and parked cars everywhere. Now you can't go there on the weekend without meeting a wall of people.
video suggestion: how many homes for how many people could be built if the parking subsidies went to housing instead of parking, so the US would start prioritizing people over cars. i think we usually talk about the absurd amount of space parking steals from the cities and how many housing units could be built in that wasted space, and in that sense parking garages kind of tricks us into thinking the downtown areas are actually pretty built up, but when you take off the garages very little remains. but i think it would be interesting to flip the discussion a bit and talk about how many housing units a city could build if it dropped all the subsidies for free surface parking, and specially parking garages. not to mention the economic deadzone that free parking is, and how much more a city would profit if all the land was put to actual reasonable use
Ray: "Near the top of the list would be parking garages..."
Me: "Even closer to the top would be parking NON-garages. A garage at least allows the land footprint for cars to be stacked vertically, freeing up other land for better uses and you can at least cover a side or two of it with apartments, businesses or other attractions to mask the hideous facade. Surface parking, not so much.
Watch the last 90 seconds of the video, please
@@elizabethhenning778 I did. Pretty much anything multi-story and esspecially super multi-story (5+ levels) is going to cost many times over per sq ft, per stall, etc than a single story/surface equivalent. What needs to be asked is if that extra cost is worth it when you consider that you now have 3-8x the land available for things that actually can generate tax revenue or provide better living space for residents and visitors.
Thanks for another great video!
The city that I work in has so much surface parking, but it also has tons of garages. The city is basically an entire parking lot, and do you know what the number one complaint of everyone who works there is?
Parking.
I was like that too when I started, before I really got into urbanism, but it's truly incredible how space inefficient cars are when an entire city is essentially parking and a few office buildings and people still can't find parking.
Anyways, I wanted to suggest a video topic for you: city aesthetics.
RM Transit did a video talking about how European cities design transit that's more aesthetically pleasing, and I've always felt that cities outside of the US are just better looking. My suspicion is that's because of cars, but I was hoping you might be able to talk about how car infrastructure degrades our visual space and makes our cities uglier.
Thanks!
Another effect of minimums and the resulting garage in every condo mid-rise is the loss of potential commercial space to animate surrounding sidewalks. I was just looking at plans for a five story condo block here in Nashville in a district that should be trending walkable. After all, Nashville council abolished parking minimums about a month ago, but the design predated that. The parking is to be in an expensive excavated hole, and the ramps and two cutaways - one each for cars to enter and exit the garage - means there’s barely space for a lobby left over and no commercial frontage. So much for increasing space for shops so tenants can pop out to the street for a couple of items without unstabling the Toyota.
Parking garages: bad
Surface parking: orders of magnitude worse
Here in downtown L.A, my 77-year old neighbour becomes incensed when I tell her of new high-rises being built on the sites of former parking lots (which themselves were buildings decades earlier, why does she not think of that?) She insists that tenants should only pay $2 a day to park, which is what prices were a dozen years ago before gentrification.
She keeps me on my toes!
That’s two weeks in a row DePaul university footage has been shown, as a geography student there I am glad we are being recognized for both our bad and good uses of prime Chicago real estate.
We have parking garages in London, particularly in shopping areas and attached to supermarkets or malls. Thing is, people come by car to do their shopping and then walk the rest of the area - they only need to park once. The local stores on the street front then don't need parking - because the big store is housing the car and the little errands get done at the same time. Central parking garages make much more sense than sprawling lot parking attached to each individual store.
I am from a Central European city founded in the Middle Ages, and parking garages are very common and hugely popular. Built by the city (!) the represent significant revenue from parking from people who would otherwise go to the city centre and drive back and forth anyway.We have a six storey one one block from the 17th century city hall, it is nicely incorporated in the surrounding architecture, and the square around the corner is now a pedestrian zone, it used to be a parking lot for people without permits (meaning they would try parking there even without one). Let’s admit that some people simply WILL drive to the city centre (such as my friend from a village just outside the city who has three kids under 10). More importantly, I am shocked by the existance of "courts" for traffic violations in the U.S., we have a "city hall office" for that, plus cops can collect the fees to a limited extent. But hey, a city owned and operated parking garage can wipe from the face of the earth many outdoor spaces that can be used for bike lanes or playgrounds
Further evidence that people who think we shouldn't have parking garages at all are kidding themselves.
In Merrifield, Virginia, we have a ginormous parking garage with the WMATA logo carved in.
The Dutch parking solution!
Bury it... Everywhere. So much underground parking.
The 9th Avenue Parking Garage in Downtown Calgary is an interesting example of the future proofed parking structure. It was finished in 2021, cost $57M to build and is in a prime location next to the also new public library. Interestingly, it’s placed right along the CP rail corridor, which is used for freight. I can’t help but feel that money and land could have been put to better use! Great video.
Ooohh, I had to go look that one up. Super interesting!
It could've, but with Calgary parking rates, parking structures are pretty dang valuable... to their owners, at least. :v
57m for a parking garage?! that's wild
@@beatle497 Well, it's more than just a parking structure, for one, and is intended for eventual conversion into other uses, which inflates the costs. But even absent that, it's 500 slots, and you can charge twenty bucks for an 'all-day' parking slot in downtown Calgary (Or $8/hr). And while it's not guaranteed that all those slots will be full the whole *reason* you can charge that much is because downtown Calgary has very specifically been designed to have less parking than it 'ought' to, in order to discourage driving trips in and shift people to transit (for which purpose the high parking prices for the spaces that *are* available is a feature, not a bug). So there's a lot of demand for those spaces and they're likely to be mostly full most of the time on weekdays. So the parking alone can probably cover cost of construction in about twenty to twenty five years.
@@foamyesque Wow, thanks for the local appraisal (from one Calgarian to another)
I know construction takes time, and they are planning to make better use of the land imminently. But conference centres always felt like a low bar to shoot for 😅 I've always been wary of Calgary's character cause we have a comparatively tame downtown that keeps getting better. (Just got bike lanes not long ago!) But I know our roots aren't changing, we're still very oil-dependent, living is still expensive and it's hard to find mixed use areas. I'm still guarded in spite of how good it's gotten, unfortunately.
Drive-through wedding chapels!? I couldn't stop laughing for 5 minutes when I saw that.
I enjoy watching your videos, and I'm very car heavy being a chauffeur. I drive mostly in greater Boston, and find the struggle between cars and public transit fascinating. While I don't agree with every point you make, I enjoy watching the different views to educate and inform my personal view.
I've started a monthly contribution to PRN at your suggestion! It feels like we're on the cusp of real progress and I'm so excited for it!
If you're looking for suggestions on topics for future videos, I've noticed that there is a difference between older neighborhoods in American downtowns, where buildings tend to have smaller lots, almost like row houses, vs current urbanist developments which seem to often be much bigger projects that cover a large portion of a city block or even a whole neighborhood. I'd be interested in seeing how this affects the fabric of the neighborhood and whether it has a positive/negative or neutral affect on the city long-term. It seems to me like the smaller lots would be more flexible & easier to repurpose/redevelop in the future, and also tend to support more variety in a smaller area due to smaller street frontage, but those rarely seem to be built anymore. I'm curious whether my thoughts about this are on-point.
I definitely think this is an interesting thought, because personally I like the vibe of smaller scale, older developments.
However, I would also say that development of high rise-housing is pretty future proof in most areas, due to the high demand for housing, especially if the lower levels are mixed use that can support a variety of commercial uses.
Iron Gate Motor Condos in Naperville IL. It's literally housing ONLY for cars. Mostly very expensive ones at that.
Much of Las Vegas's business is people making the four-hour drive from the Los Angles or Phoenix areas. I'd imagine that allot of those gamblers would stay closer to home and play at the Indian casinos if you eliminate the parking at the Vegas resorts.
Have you ever given any thought to the weird level of urbanism exhibited by trailer parks? They're unique, but are they CityNerd approved?
Five stars for "discerning vehicle storage customer"!
Have you done anything with malls/“lifestyle centers” with transit connections? Maybe something along the lines of your stadiums and airport transit videos. It came to mind because there are a couple of stops on the San Diego trolley that are labeled as being mall stops, but they’re really far away from the actual malls. Maybe other places do it better.
Cedar Point is the big amusement park on a peninsula in Lake Erie. They don't have much space to build another big roller coaster. If only they didn't have to take so much of the land for surface parking. I wonder if they would invest in a parking structure. Banning private cars from the peninsula and providing trains or busses would be better! It is no fun to drive home when you are tired from a long day at the park.
I think the best was to use parking garages is to build a significant amount JUST outside a city center, and pedestrianized the crap out of the downtown. This would be a clear signal that the city is meant for people, not cars, and would encourage visitors to drive to a garage, and then navigate the rest of the city on foot, on bike, or with transit.
Putting them inside the city center though is bad specifically because it makes people drive within the city center
This is Vegas. Parking garages are a loss leader. It would be financial suicide to not build a parking garage at your facility. They would do this whether there were parking mandates or not.
Thank you for pointing out the new development in Vegas, but I noticed they still have massive streets. I guess it is hard to wean us off cars as the main choice.
I like having the massive streets. Having come from Atlanta, a lot of the streets seemed very narrow and difficult to navigate, especially when there were delivery vehicles or semis on them. Vegas knows that it needs those streets, even if it becomes a walker's paradise. Finally, I like being able to stay away from the more suicidal drivers that seem a mainstay of any city.
@@RyanZerby Why are semis on city streets?
Delivery trucks ok.
They're too dangerous to mix with cyclists and pedestrians.
@@RyanZerby Narrow roads that are difficult to navigate are actually a good thing because it forces drivers to drive slowly and be more aware of their surroundings. You of course have to do more to make drivers go slower, but narrow roads, especially in areas with lots of pedestrians, are the preferred system for traffic management.
As for semis on those roads, that's on the driver for being where they shouldn't be.
It's all relative! Those ARE small streets, for Vegas!
@@CityNerd Yeah, yeah... I misspoke! Made the mistake of street vs road. I live on the corner of Eastern and St Rose that was featured on this channel, so my concept of 'the street outside my house' is techically two six-lane divided highways :)
Thanks!
You bet!
As a resident of a city which allows on street parking on almost any street, including arterials, I would say parking garages are pretty okay compared to it. And a far superior way of providing parking for nearby residents of apartments and townhouses compared to having parking on every last square feet of outdoor space. I still think garages are the only correct way to provide parking in cities.
(Assuming of course we are honest about the cost of it. But that is also a problem for the other forms of parking. On street parking in particular is criminally underrated)
You are on an epic white balance journey and I'm here for it.
Haha, the struggle is real. New phone is really making some funky choices with my normal lighting setup!
Parking garages are like the extra six lanes on a freeway all stacked on top of each other. I suppose the premise is that it they are supposed to make accessing the city more streamlined, but all I see the owner of the garage profiting off of attracting lots of car traffic downtown. Like imagine if parking garages were all magically connected and replaced with commuter railway or tram stations
Basically every parking garage would be better off as a transit hub/station linked to a park & ride at the far end of the line. Everyone between the line and core could just ride the line into town and everyone beyond it only has to drive to the rural/suburban surface parking lot and then ride the rest of the distance on something more city friendly. (Ideally every small town would have a train station and halfway decent service to get them onto a major line linked to the big cites so even rural folks would only have to drive a relatively short distance into town to get all the way to the concert in the big city or just shopping downtown. Park and rides at the end of the line is just a bridge to this ideal case.)
This video changed my mind about Las Vegas. You see it as glass half full but I had it completely empty! I thought it was hopeless and that the only interesting thing there was gambling and the Strip.
How should we balance off-street space with giving on-street space back to people? Especially in older cities with narrower streets, bus priority, safe cycle access, trees, public seating, and other amenities compete with on-street parking, let alone moving vehicular lanes as well. Right now I'm in camp "stop building new garages, but use existing ones to remove on-street parking".
The use of liberal "we" and mask in profile pick, where is your Ukrainian flag?
Walking around the Minneapolis/St. Paul Skyways it's *always* instantly clear when you're walking through a parking garage, it just has a completely different feel to any other type of building
You walk through a skybridge and suddenly you're in a poorly warmed/cooled hallway with no windows, no shops, and very bland walls, at best maybe a few ads around (80% of the time for parking)? You're in a parking garage.
If i walk from my Downtown Albuquerque apartment to one of the ART stations, i pass FIVE parking garages. In just a few blocks. In Lil old Albuquerque. Not to mention all the surface parking that's left over from the "Urban Renewal" movement. And with about 18000 parking spaces in the Downtown Core, most of which are empty day or night, people still tell me they hate going downtown because "it's so hard to park." Awful! At least Albuquerque is now also discussing some zoning changes and parking requirement reforms.
Parking garages are great for cities to create destiny and value to existing structure. Much of the mid to late 20th century surface lots have ripped down buildings down, older buildings usually for a cheap fix for parking. Which only exacerbates the lack of desinty in an old downtown and diversity of older structures.
On this topic, I would be interested to see a video exploring just cement parking lots within what is considered to be a city's downtown to see who the most egregious cities are. I remember in my Urban Sustainability class we watched a documentary about Cleveland gentrification and I remember just how much waste of space the city has that is taken up by parking lots.
The upside of garages is in creating political opportunities to reallocate parking space that is otherwise politically off-limits. There are plenty of downtown streets in US cities that allocate lanes to parked cars. If you can arrange to swap the street parking for the garage parking, an immediate benefit to every other transport mode can also be pitched, it's just a question of how to make the stakeholders agree on financing such a scheme.
This is roughly how the story played out with San Francisco's JFK Drive. An underground parking garage was added to the Music Concourse many years ago, but the terms of its management were such that it was not useful to the public compared to parking on JFK - the prices were too high and the hours were too limited, because that was what the private operator found profitable. JFK closed to car traffic early in the pandemic, and years after, it went to the voters, in separate ballot propositions, to decide whether or not JFK should reopen(back to the status quo) and whether the garage management should be made city-operated to fix its operational issues.
The voters went strongly towards both keeping JFK car-free, and to hand over the garage to the city. It took a very tortured story where the plan had to fail before it succeeded, but the original promise of the garage has finally been realized.
(It probably cost too much.)
I didn’t notice at first that you hovered over StL when on the PRN website in the video. It makes me more proud than ever to learn that there have never been parking minimums downtown here. Yet it also makes me more frustrated at how much parking there still is! These people didn’t even have to destroy half the downtown for cars; they chose too! :/ At least it should be easier to fix now though.
Pine street should be renamed Park Street, because 90% of what you see, from the arch westwards for about a mile, is just parking garages. The entire downtown is designed about events and a very small set of office buildings. Outside of said events, every road is oversized, too fast, and a barrier to pedestrians. The city has to put residents first, instead of the companies that rely on business from people living in west county.
I don't know how we can fix downtown itself though, as there are way too many office buildings with large setbacks, built to be pedestrian-averse. But the few places that have some semi-decent density should be the focus of development that isn't centered on cars. It's still crazy to me that two blocks north of SLU, and to the west of the Fox theater, we have extremely underdeveloped land.
In downtown St. Louis we don’t have parking minimums, but developers, renters, owners all expect parking. At least our loft in an old warehouse had our parking underground. When I was single & car-free I leased my space to a couple that had 2 cars. We’ve been car light for almost 9 years now, 1 car for 2 people.
I’m interested in automated parking, they claim to need half as much space.
A person who works in affordable housing says they can’t detach parking from units because rent must be inclusive - so market rate and low income housing all get parking included.
Are their websites and orginizations we can use to help Canadians fix our parking problems? Thank you for the great video by the way!
If you live in Vancouver, get rid of your car.
The PRN appears to work in Canada too. They have our cities on their map.
There are some "good" parking structures. My personal fave is Ballet Valet in South Beach, also known as the "Chia Building." It has street-level retail and is festooned with vines and other plants that soften its appearance and help clean the air. It lacks a rooftop solar shed and rainwater collection, but they didn't ask for my input when they built it.
Another favorite of mine is the extremely cool, extremely compact underground parking structure at the Summit Grand Parc (historic office building repurposed to mixed-use office/commercial/residential) in DC that's fully automated. Tenants drive onto a platform in the entry bay that sinks below street level and shoves their car into any available storage slot. They don't have to know which one - the computer keeps track of the cars. When they want their car back, they hit a button on the way out of their office or apartment and their car will be waiting in the exit bay, facing the street even though it was facing the other direction when it entered the building. FYI, the building is VERY close to the McPherson Square Metro station, so it's a great location for car-light living. The building manager was kind enough to allow me to photograph the heck out of it about 19 years ago and to give me a thorough tour with some interesting background info.
One great thing about parking structures is that they enable me to get fantastic panoramic photos of CBDs where it's illegal to fly drones. I pay to park, climb to the top floor, and work my way around shooting photos as I go. I still don't need a drone!
What is your opinion on underground parking garages? Still horribly expensive, but they don't use up land and are not visible.
Still extremely expensive and reinforce car dependency. Think of parking garages like a battery for traffic.
Not Just Bike's most recent video covers a ton of the problems with those.
Nah, they still use up land. Apart from the fact that they use up building space that could've been used for something productive, more parking induced more people to drive, meaning you'll need more car infrastructure.
I'm generally not fond of those either, but I've kinda resigned myself to the fact that they are probably unavoidable in the political climate. And while they are very expensive at least they allow limited good use for the land still, not fond of the traffic associated with filling and emptying them though!
I do however consider underground bicycle parking garages to be quite neat, especially next to the larger train and bus stations here in the Netherlands. They remove a lot of the clutter of improperly parked bicycles outside the designated areas and as a bonus you're less likely to show up to a wet saddle.
@@alex2143 The fewer cars the better. But a below-grade garage would typically be below the building, not on separate land. Geometric considerations favor larger garage floorplates but you can for example put 300 spaces on 1/3 acre below a 400-unit tower.
i'm a big fan of reusing structures in ways that preserve their original layout, so a parking garage would probably turn into some sort of weird mini mall where the long sloped surfaces play host to an emergent accissibility compromise that's uncomfortable for both wheelchair and leg users. since large swaths of floor area are not level.
Shout-out to the parking garage directly on the waterfront in Portland, ME. Not exactly the best thing to see from the window of your water-view hotel room.
Haha wow I am no Portland expert, having only been through a few times, but I know exactly what you're talking about. Great point
Loving your videos! Can you do an snapshot of a city? Like Ogden, Utah - we could use the attention, city planners are... struggling :(
The building with 8-10 floors of parking before getting to the apartments was pretty hideous. There is a building along Miami Beach which, while more pleasing to the eye, is in its conception a monstrosity. It is the Porsche Design Tower, where you and your Porsche take the elevator to your condo. (I have only seen it while walking or riding the bus by it. I like walking in the Miami area. The sidewalks are so empty of pedestrians!)
I actually like parking garages in cities as this is a way to get rid of street parking. I live in the suburbs of DC and I reserve a parking spot before I go into town so I don't have to search (sometimes a long time) for an open spot...not to mention the added safety of parking in a garage. If everybody was forced to park in nearby garages (through reservations to make it easier on the drivers), street parking could be eliminated or be used for pickup/dropoff. Perhaps the number of garages can come down...but until street parking is eliminated and there is still a ton of space left in garages, I'm not for repurposing them.
I'd love to better use space, but until we solve the problem of suburbia being super low density, we will never have a better connection between our dense areas and the low-density areas that help to fuel them. Even in our public transit friendly cities, we don't have good access to our dense areas aside from driving. If downtown is 20 miles east, why drive 5 miles south to get to transit and then take transit 20 miles to get downtown? That adds extra distance and often more than doubles the one-way access time. Until we make our suburban areas dense to support good public transit we are faced with three bad choices: have flat parking lots which immediately kill the urban feel and use of a neighborhood; have parking garages that are expensive and difficult to replace, but can with good planning at least preserve the street level urbanism of a neighborhood; or have little parking and just accept that a great deal of the suburban money will just choose to not bother with the inconvenience and spend their money at strip malls, lifestyle centers, and single level office parks instead. As it stands, I'd pick downtown Portland with its numerous parking structures over a pavement with several buildings called downtown (Tulsa), or over more and more suburbs.
The Garage Mahal is a fantastic name for a Ritzy Vegas Resort Parking Garage: it’s named after a famous Mughalese mausoleum and that’s fitting for a place where walkable, inviting public spaces goes to die
Vegas is one of the worst places I've ever been. Traps... traps everywhere. So hard to navigate as a pedestrian.
4:30 Garage Mahal
Gotta remember this
Let's by saying, I am an American designer (not urban, transport, or anything related to this topic) though I reside overseas on a land-scarce island with a large population. I have seen a lot of creativity when it comes to shoehorning developments into narrow or zigzagged plots of land. From what I observe, this issue around cars, parking, walkability, etc all seems like value signaling. I guess it's time for me to also do some signaling. I believe in the rules of improv, "Yes, and". I believe the vast amounts of land that the US possesses have made us lackluster when it comes to creative solutions while at the same time thinking we must force our way of life upon our fellow brothers. I don't know what you want to call it but it comes from both sides of the spectrum. Why can't we have walkable cities that also accommodate people who drive as well? I would much prefer city ordinances that restrict surface parking in favor of structured (yes, all of your points about costs are valid, no disagreement) While I am a designer, now, my education and early years in business were as a financial economist and M&A banker. I believe in using economic principles to guide market behavior. Restrict surface parking by raising taxes and fees on them, increase the cost of permitting and building them by mandating green coverage and permeable materials and blah blah, but also get rid of mandated parking minimums. Stop subsidizing the construction of all parking structures. If developers begin to feel true costs, they will in turn change their calculus. The final point, create city ordinances that for permitting purposes parking structures must provide commercial retail space at street level. Streets lined with street-facing retail at ground level go a long way in creating a sense of walkability. The structured parking can be located behind and above the retail space. I envision the street-facing facades being occupied commercial or residential and the parking occupying the rear cheaper portions without a view so you don't see towers resting on a platform of parking. To me, it's a packaging problem. I'll talk about street parking in a different post.
Walkable cities are accommodationg for drivers. Just a lot nicer.
It doesn't make a difference if you have to walk 300m from your parking spot to the shop through a no-car area or the same distance from the parking garage to whatever.
Ideally all parking should be underground, but that's not always economically feasible. If that's the case then developers should surround the garages with the retail or housing that the garages were built for, in order to provide a more aesthetic environment. Basically they should be hiding the garages, which is the opposite of what most malls do.
Great video. The UK traffic related fatalities compared to other countries is a surprise, living there. But I'm a pedestrian and public transport user.
Funny I am working on my fist parking garage design for the City of Waco, TX. 455 cars. I do not think I ever want to work on that type of project again.
Las Vegas, the national capital of anything goes, hahaha, best urban definition ever. But Miami, competes closely. PS: structured parking is horrendous land using. Greetings from Bogotá Colombia
Do you have a list of city/urbanism/transportation books you’d recommend? Apologies if you’ve already made a video and i haven’t seen it.
Ive read Confessions of a Recovering Engineer and I got Strong Towns for Christmas. I have a few on my to-get list like Walkable City and Great Streets.
For bicycling: "Building the cycling city: the dutch blueprint for urban vitality" by Melissa Bruntlett and Chris Bruntlett
For public transport, I unfortunately haven't found anything comparable yet, but I guess it would be written by a Swiss or Japanese ;)
You should look at Jacksonville, FL. First Baptist Church owns most of the downtown parking garages and then gets revenue from people who use them during the week.
Criminals have an easy time robbing cars and pedestrians in a lot of garages
Wow, I lived on Fremont St. when it was still skid row. That was before Elvis died. No more penny slots.
While it's not hard to understand the argument that dense urban parking (at least certainly surface parking, and also above-ground parking garages as you note here - underground parking might have a bit more nuance) are bad uses of high-demand urban land, it's also common for urbanists in general (and yourself) to regularly comment that park-and-rides are a bad idea and also represent a bad use of land.
On the other side of the same token, it's common to claim that urbanism does not seek to eliminate rural or suburban living, but instead to provide better options and environments for those who instead prefer urban living, typically in conjunction with car-free or car-light lifestyles.
This makes perfect sense (and is something I fully endorse), especially in North America where individuals preferring human-scale urban living have been historically greatly under-served by the existing constructed environment which favours suburban living almost to the exclusion of other options.
However, if this is true (that the goal is to reduce, not eliminate, rural and suburban living for those who truly prefer it), then I'm not clear on why park-and-rides are considered such a terrible affront, and what the better alternative is. Unless you're proposing a purely urban lifestyle for nearly all of the population (something as unrealistic as it is unlikely to garner broad support), what is the appropriate course for a rural individual or suburbanite who needs to visit an urban area for some reason?
By design, such areas are low enough density that effective frequent transit is impractical, necessitating car use; obviously, this channel's focus highlights this fact quite clearly. Since driving a car from a suburban or rural area into an urban center is obviously the worst possible outcome, there must be some practical solution for a suburbanite wanting to travel downtown occasionally without driving their car there and exacerbating traffic and parking issues.
If they choose to live and work outside an urban environment (avoiding contributing to traffic, pollution, and parking in urban spaces), what solution other than a park and ride allows them to travel to an urban centre efficiently without also taking their car to do so? Park and ride structures are typically built at the far ends of transit lines (where the line is least busy relatively speaking and land is under the least contention relative to other parts of the line) so this would seem to be the ideal way to encourage individuals who live and work outside the urban area to *not* bring their cars downtown and instead take advantage of the transit system instead once they reach the outer ends of the transit-serviced higher-density core.
Is there some other solution than park-and-rides that I'm missing that does not alienate suburban or rural individuals from entering urban centres that doesn't simply require/assume all those individuals will all happily adopt urban lifestyles (even if that's incompatible with their hobbies, jobs, or preferences)?
Norman Garrick and his students did some great work on plotting the evolution of downtowns into parking lots
I look at parking garages as the lesser of two evils. At least it's not surface parking.
Top 10 worst downtown highways. My nomination is louisville because i-64 literally took a crap all over downtown waterfront possibilities.
Is there any chance you could do a video of best improvements to traffic. I live in Bremerton and would love some bridges built. The geography of the Seattle area is just frustrating. I would love to see a top ten of most improved traffic’s pattern projects. What benefits the tax payer the most. This could be relevant with new federal funding coming out.