Surface Level Parking Lots

[RyeJay]

For any city, I believe it's too unrealistic a request for the entire elimination of parking lots at the surface level. For many of us of this forum, however, the argument has been that Halifax has an embarrassingly high volume of surface level parking, not confinedly based on a city of its size, but for the age of our downtown. The urbanised approach to changing direction on this is, as we've discussed: parking garages, both above ground and under--both solely developed and concurrently developed with future buildings.

I'm not well versed in laws regarding the maintenance of vehicles in larger cities. What are the implications for a legal governance to force developers to include, for example, underground parking in the plans for their buildings? Are tax credit incentives seen as the only useful tool?

Take this picture for instance:



This is a prime example of how prime waterfront property is absurdly used for parking.

I would love to see some kind of development go here... But if that is impossible I would still prefer something other than a parking lot. l've often considered the severe foot traffic on this part of the waterfront; it is, after all, beside the ferry terminal. This foot traffic can be better served, and relieved, by use of this parking lot in a different nature...

To compliment Halifax's Heritage District, which is adjacent, I've often thought this is the perfect spot for a waterfront park. The heritage context would be in the species of trees used: only those naturally found in our Acadian Forest. This would help bring a stronger sense of Old Halifax to the downtown, and serve as a natural extension of Chebucto Landing.

Halifax is seeing recent success in a series of developments going through. As a counterbalance we also need some focus on green space to properly service the additional foot traffic.

[CorbeauNoir]

Halifax right now in a lot of ways reminds me of Calgary back when I was a kid. In particular large chunks of what you would think is prime real estate in the Eau Claire area along the Bow River were parking lots, or even just empty grass plots. It continues to amaze me how it's completely unrecognizable 10-15 years on, that entire area is built up now and it seems like every time I return there they've built something new.

Not that I'd expect Halifax's growth to ever become as explosive as Calgary's has been, but we're already starting to see plans for a handful of these empty lots to fill up (the Library, Three Sisters, presumably the Nova Centre) and once the shipyards start getting busy it'll likely provide a catalyst for future projects. It won't happen overnight but it's pretty amazing how quickly it can turn around if the economic impetus exists.

[fenwick16]

It isn't uncommon for major cities to have surface parking lots. Toronto has several surface parking areas within walking distance of the Rogers Centre. Here is a link - Toronto Google Map

I have a read a few stories about rising water levels and how this will make it less practical to have underground parking on the Halifax waterfront (these areas are primarily infill and are just a few feet above sea-level). So as far as the waterfront is concerned, parking garages would have to be raised and will limit access to the waterfront. I have reservations about building raised parking garages that will limit access to the waterfront.

In my opinion, a better objective would be to have bylaws specifying that long term surface parking areas be paved, well landscaped and properly maintained.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

For any city, I believe it's too unrealistic a request for the entire elimination of parking lots at the surface level.

For entire city, yes. For the central city, no. It may be rare in NA for even central cities to be free of surface parking (although some come pretty close) but in other parts of the world - even sprawlish places like Australia - there are virtually no surface lots right downtown.

For many of us of this forum, however, the argument has been that Halifax has an embarrassingly high volume of surface level parking, not confinedly based on a city of its size, but for the age of our downtown. The urbanised approach to changing direction on this is, as we've discussed: parking garages, both above ground and under--both solely developed and concurrently developed with future buildings.

How about less auto usage downtown and more alternative forms of transit. There are always parts of a city where making due without a car can be difficult, but if that even includes the downtown, things are pretty dire.

After all, downtowns are usually the easiest areas to serve with transit and the hardest to serve with automobile capacity.

But I agree that parking garages, either under or above ground are a decent next-best option.

Take this picture for instance:



This is a prime example of how prime waterfront property is absurdly used for parking.

I would love to see some kind of development go here... But if that is impossible I would still prefer something other than a parking lot. l've often considered the severe foot traffic on this part of the waterfront; it is, after all, beside the ferry terminal. This foot traffic can be better served, and relieved, by use of this parking lot in a different nature...

To compliment Halifax's Heritage District, which is adjacent, I've often thought this is the perfect spot for a waterfront park. The heritage context would be in the species of trees used: only those naturally found in our Acadian Forest. This would help bring a stronger sense of Old Halifax to the downtown, and serve as a natural extension of Chebucto Landing.

Halifax is seeing recent success in a series of developments going through. As a counterbalance we also need some focus on green space to properly service the additional foot traffic.

That parking lot is ugly, but fortunately it isn't huge. There are certainly others that bother me just as much if not more. That huge one on South Park by the VG is heinous, as is the one on the DND waterfront property. The DND one is ugly mainly because it's so conspicuous. I realise that the DND lands aren't really the public realm and aren't subject to planning urban planning, but I still cant help but wonder if they couldn't be using the land better.

[W.Sobchak]

I'm of the opinion of RyeJay. Would it be possible for the city to enact a building code where any residential development in the core have solely underground parking included into the design?

The idea in itself is progressive, while being a bit expensive though, to the developer. The only off set to that point, would be the desirablity of heated parking, which is something new condo and apartment hunters look for.

I know my wife and I passed on some lovely units, because either they had no parking, or were simply open air. The location we did settle on has underground parking, the salesperson even made sure it was clearly advertised as well.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It isn't uncommon for major cities to have surface parking lots. Toronto has several surface parking areas within walking distance of the Rogers Centre. Here is a link - Toronto Google Map

The surface lots in Toronto are being rapidly developed. The main reason that they're even there is that the land in that area wasn't originally a nabe or part of the urban fabric. It was an industrial area owned by CN and it hosted a major rail yard. After the industry in the area waned and/or relocated, it has just taken time for it all to be redeveloped.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

For any city, I believe it's too unrealistic a request for the entire elimination of parking lots at the surface level. For many of us of this forum, however, the argument has been that Halifax has an embarrassingly high volume of surface level parking, not confinedly based on a city of its size, but for the age of our downtown. The urbanised approach to changing direction on this is, as we've discussed: parking garages, both above ground and under--both solely developed and concurrently developed with future buildings.

I'm not well versed in laws regarding the maintenance of vehicles in larger cities. What are the implications for a legal governance to force developers to include, for example, underground parking in the plans for their buildings? Are tax credit incentives seen as the only useful tool?

Take this picture for instance:



This is a prime example of how prime waterfront property is absurdly used for parking.

I would love to see some kind of development go here... But if that is impossible I would still prefer something other than a parking lot. l've often considered the severe foot traffic on this part of the waterfront; it is, after all, beside the ferry terminal. This foot traffic can be better served, and relieved, by use of this parking lot in a different nature...

To compliment Halifax's Heritage District, which is adjacent, I've often thought this is the perfect spot for a waterfront park. The heritage context would be in the species of trees used: only those naturally found in our Acadian Forest. This would help bring a stronger sense of Old Halifax to the downtown, and serve as a natural extension of Chebucto Landing.

Halifax is seeing recent success in a series of developments going through. As a counterbalance we also need some focus on green space to properly service the additional foot traffic.

Queen's Landing... http://www.armourgroup.com/building_...building_id=10

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by W.Sobchak

I'm of the opinion of RyeJay. Would it be possible for the city to enact a building code where any residential development in the core have solely underground parking included into the design?

The idea in itself is progressive, while being a bit expensive though, to the developer. The only off set to that point, would be the desirablity of heated parking, which is something new condo and apartment hunters look for.

I know my wife and I passed on some lovely units, because either they had no parking, or were simply open air. The location we did settle on has underground parking, the salesperson even made sure it was clearly advertised as well.

The Downtown Land Use Bylaw can be amended (if it doesn't have a provision already) to require a percentage of the parking be underground (anywhere from zero to 100%). The problem would be the cost to the developer.

One way which developers out here in Alberta have been dealing with it is to do a combination of underground and above ground parking. One of my favorite examples of this is Colours by Batastella here in Calgary. Here you can get a good sense of the building from streetview. There is an underground parking garage but the levels above the commercial (which are the 'colours') are also parking. I thought it was a rather unique way to do an above ground parking area and make it look pretty.

This is another example of doing above ground parking - but doesn't do as well as colours as they don't really do a good attempt (in my opinion) to hide the parking too well. I mean it's okay, but it's not great.

So if the LUB was to be amended, I'd like to see it as a combination method - but zero % at surface.

As to the question of parking lots...I give you my example. Very few of the lots that you see in this photo have been developed yet; but I am sure applications are in progress.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

This is a prime example of how prime waterfront property is absurdly used for parking.

I would love to see some kind of development go here... But if that is impossible I would still prefer something other than a parking lot.

Much like we look back at the postcard pictures from the 70s and are amazed at how the run-down industrial waterfront has been mostly replaced with improved infrastructure, I have to believe that 25 years from now we are going to look back at that picture and think back to the time when downtown Halifax used to have so many surface parking lots. It has already started to change with the sister's lots, the library etc, and will continue to change with (as Worldly pointed out) Queen's Wharf etc.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

The Downtown Land Use Bylaw can be amended (if it doesn't have a provision already) to require a percentage of the parking be underground (anywhere from zero to 100%). The problem would be the cost to the developer.

One way which developers out here in Alberta have been dealing with it is to do a combination of underground and above ground parking. One of my favorite examples of this is Colours by Batastella here in Calgary. Here you can get a good sense of the building from streetview. There is an underground parking garage but the levels above the commercial (which are the 'colours') are also parking. I thought it was a rather unique way to do an above ground parking area and make it look pretty.

This is another example of doing above ground parking - but doesn't do as well as colours as they don't really do a good attempt (in my opinion) to hide the parking too well. I mean it's okay, but it's not great.

I actually prefer your second example, by quite a margin. The first, I feel, is an abuse of colours Maybe if it was a different scheme, I would appreciate it.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

As to the question of parking lots...I give you my example. Very few of the lots that you see in this photo have been developed yet; but I am sure applications are in progress.

OMG! Gross! I didn't know Edmonton has that much surface parking. That never occured to me, given the mature magnitude of their skyline.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I actually prefer your second example, by quite a margin. The first, I feel, is an abuse of colours Maybe if it was a different scheme, I would appreciate it.

OMG! Gross! I didn't know Edmonton has that much surface parking. That never occured to me, given the mature magnitude of their skyline.

I think you have to see colours at night to truely like how it blends in with that area - it's got quite a bit of density on that corner, considering there are two other high density buildings kitty-corner and then another Batastella project just down the road called Chocolate (because it's brown). I find their naming ideas cute, personally.

I don't mind the building that had the blue glass to cover the parking - my whole point is that the bylaw could provide provision for a combination of parking methods, my only hope would be that surface parking be zero percent. Above ground parking in a garage (however you conceal it) is much cheaper than below grade. The last number I heard (for the Calgary area) was an underground stall cost somewhere in the tune of about $65 to 75,000 (per stall). An above grade stall was somewhere in the $40,000 range. I can imagine with Halifax's geology and the challenges of digging, the cost for underground would be much higher.

I will never forget the first time I went to Edmonton and stayed in a highrise hotel (the coast on 105th street). I was in my room on the 20th floor, looking out over the city and I thought - why so much parking? As a planner, I was shocked...but then I saw the potential. If even 25% of those lots disappear, it will be an amazing change.

[CorbeauNoir]

Colours does look better at night - if only because I know this from having gotten drunk many a time at that irish pub across the street

I'm a little surprised that the actual 'colours' are for screening off parking, though. I'd have thought that the visual centerpiece of the building would have had a function that was a little less...menial.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir

Colours does look better at night - if only because I know this from having gotten drunk many a time at that irish pub across the street

I'm a little surprised that the actual 'colours' are for screening off parking, though. I'd have thought that the visual centerpiece of the building would have had a function that was a little less...menial.

Surprise - it does have such a menial function. Well, yes and no. It does add to the attractive urban realm, but if you look carefully - that's parking my friend. Have a closer look the next time you are about to head into the pub for a drink and you will find that's parking. It took me be surprise as well, but I thought it was a rather clever way to hide it.