In Phoenix And Houston, Effort To Attract Millennials Is Reshaping Downtown

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Obadno

To expect any city primarily grown in the last 70 years to not be extremely car focused is just absurd.

Its not going to happen, you aren't putting the cat back in the bag with Private Passenger Cars.

So, most people in PH/HO have cars, so nobody gets a choice, and everybody pays?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

There are very few 'urban' cities in this country. I can count them on one hand. There are others with patches of density/ urbanity but car is still king. It's just that Houston has piss poor transit options (the train smells like vomit and the buses sit in the same shit traffic cars do) and the city has to change (scale down) their parking requirements in denser urban areas.

People really don't "pay" for parking in their buildings unless you consider it part HOA dues, building maintenance and so on. You're not being charged hundreds hidden in your rent or HOA although some HOA fees are atrocious.

My mid-sized city was averaging 0.6 parking spaces per new apartment in a 2016 article in the Seattle Times. I bet we're not on your "one hand" cities. Portland would be another example.

Regarding payment, surely you understand that building parking costs money? And your rent or home price includes that? And if less parking is built money can be saved, and paid only by those who use parking? This feels way too obvious to have to explain.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

So, most people in PH/HO have cars, so nobody gets a choice, and everybody pays?

You somehow got on the topic of cars because unfortunately Huston and Phoenix didn't have major development until after they became common to own.

And no unfortunately there isn't a whole lot of a choice, if NYC had developed now instead of 200 years ago and if Seattle had boomed today instead of in the mid-late 1800's they would also be far less dense and car oriented. (and their suburbs are just as car oriented as anywhere eles) its only the historical cores that can manage not to be, a relatively small area and proportion of either metro's population.

As pedestrian friendly as Downtown Seattle and Manhattan are the VAST majority of people living in and around NYC and Seattle own their own cars.

Its like asking cities to get rid of electricity or sewers, its a part of the way humans get around and until something that offers more mobility and freedom than a car gets invented you are going to need to work with them getting in and out of urban places.

I hate these endless urban complaints about "why didn't something total different happen than actually happened????" what's the point of such lamenting? Are we going to undo 100 years of car culture? NO. we aren't.

[mhays]

Where did I say anything about getting rid of cars, or even getting rid of parking? I'm talking about SOME buildings (only NEW ones) having less parking or no parking per their choice, so residents have an option.

Large sections of any urban city (including my mid-sized one) typically get fewer parking spaces than housing units in new developments.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yes it does but it isn't as limiting as the skyline would have you believe.

The further south you go the more extreme the height limits but they are like 50-60 floors and our tallest is ~40 floors. and as you go north the height restrictions disappear pretty rapidly.

The reason Phoenix doesn't have height is because there was never demand for height and what little existed downtown from its days as a farm town in the 1930's and 1940's was pretty much left desolate after the 1970 in favor of suburban sprawl, Until recently.


So you wont ever see buildings in phoenix much above 60/70 floors in the downtown core until planes take off vertically.

Of course you can have 100 stories up in midtown if there was demand.

Ah, that makes sense then! I'm pretty sure Denver had a limit as well when Stapleton was the airport. Planes heading west flew right over downtown. I believe that's why the 3 tallest buildings (close to 60 floors) all appear to be the same height. No restrictions now though.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

I like having $10,000 additional dollars per year (AAA's reported average plus what I make by renting out my parking space).

Regardless, a city should allow choice. Don't make people pay for parking unless they want it. Many people don't have cars, particularly in core districts...think 20-something professionals.

I just paid 185.00 to get a new tire. My apartment offers us parking, but at a cost. As soon as I get out of the military, and start going to school here in town, the car payment, parking, gas, insurance, maintenance...all going away. Im biking to school. Of course my wife has a car, if not, no way I would go with no car here in Norfolk.

Oh, and we recently built a 80 unit building here that included zero parking. Residents have the choice of renting spots monthly from the public parking garages. I love the idea and it keeps rents down as a building just down the road is built over a two-story garage, I am certain they are paying a lot more in rent to subsidize the parking garage then the new apartments down the street.

Point is, we dont have to be tolitarian here, just give people real choices.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JManc

There are very few 'urban' cities in this country. I can count them on one hand. There are others with patches of density/ urbanity but car is still king. It's just that Houston has piss poor transit options (the train smells like vomit and the buses sit in the same shit traffic cars do) and the city has to change (scale down) their parking requirements in denser urban areas.

People really don't "pay" for parking in their buildings unless you consider it part HOA dues, building maintenance and so on. You're not being charged hundreds hidden in your rent or HOA although some HOA fees are atrocious.

I contend that they do. Developers have to pay to build the garage to hold the parking mandated by the city. That's debt that they have to pay back, either to an equity partner or a bank, which requires revenue to offset.

Rent could theoretically be 10-30% lower (SWAG) if there were zero parking requirements. In my (super capitalist) fantasy world, there would be zero parking requirements from the city, and that same developer could then go build a public garage nearby and rent spaces out on a monthly basis.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Rent could theoretically be 10-30% lower (SWAG) if there were zero parking requirements. In my (super capitalist) fantasy world, there would be zero parking requirements from the city, and that same developer could then go build a public garage nearby and rent spaces out on a monthly basis.

This is the way it should be done, parking requirements are a vestige of old and terrible urban planning practices, pretty much like all mid century urban planning practices.

[mhays]

Ok, we're agreeing on parking requirements.

The savings can vary dramatically in percentage terms...below-grade or above, the size of the housing unit, and many other variables. For a small apartment and below-grade parking, the 30% figure is probably a common savings percentage, especially with land involved.

[10023]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

It's still better to buy more if you can. That's not a feature of urban living, it's a limitation.

No it's not.

Other than some pantry items, most foods you buy shouldn't last more than a few days anyway. If you're eating properly, there's no way you can buy everything you need for a week at once.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 10023

No it's not.

Other than some pantry items, most foods you buy shouldn't last more than a few days anyway. If you're eating properly, there's no way you can buy everything you need for a week at once.

I'll let you in on a little secret:

Most people don't eat properly.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

My mid-sized city was averaging 0.6 parking spaces per new apartment in a 2016 article in the Seattle Times. I bet we're not on your "one hand" cities. Portland would be another example.

Regarding payment, surely you understand that building parking costs money? And your rent or home price includes that? And if less parking is built money can be saved, and paid only by those who use parking? This feels way too obvious to have to explain.

Seattle probably has sensible parking requirements. Houston does not. The CoH requires way more parking than is needed even in more urban areas; one sized fits all.

Yes, parking does cost money; engineering, extra materials and the upkeep but the cost passed onto the renter/ owner is minimal. Rents here are competitive. I bet if we were talking about downtown Boston, inner loop Chicago, Manhattan, SF or even your area...things would be very different. Space is a huge premium there and that is definitely passed on but they have the option to opt out and they also have a more transit friendly culture. We do not. Even downtown and dense areas, people still drive so it's assumed that people will want parking and it's automatically included. People without cars don't care about having a space they don't use.

BTW, why do you have a parking spot? You can't opt out or is this an opportunity to make some $$?

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I just paid 185.00 to get a new tire. My apartment offers us parking, but at a cost. As soon as I get out of the military, and start going to school here in town, the car payment, parking, gas, insurance, maintenance...all going away. Im biking to school. Of course my wife has a car, if not, no way I would go with no car here in Norfolk.

Oh, and we recently built a 80 unit building here that included zero parking. Residents have the choice of renting spots monthly from the public parking garages. I love the idea and it keeps rents down as a building just down the road is built over a two-story garage, I am certain they are paying a lot more in rent to subsidize the parking garage then the new apartments down the street.

Point is, we dont have to be tolitarian here, just give people real choices.

Excellent post! You sound like a liberal, though

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Seattle probably has sensible parking requirements. Houston does not. The CoH requires way more parking than is needed even in more urban areas; one sized fits all.

Yes, parking does cost money; engineering, extra materials and the upkeep but the cost passed onto the renter/ owner is minimal. Rents here are competitive. I bet if we were talking about downtown Boston, inner loop Chicago, Manhattan, SF or even your area...things would be very different. Space is a huge premium there and that is definitely passed on but they have the option to opt out and they also have a more transit friendly culture. We do not. Even downtown and dense areas, people still drive so it's assumed that people will want parking and it's automatically included. People without cars don't care about having a space they don't use.

BTW, why do you have a parking spot? You can't opt out or is this an opportunity to make some $$?

I bought a condo in the previous boom. A parking space came with the unit. Seattle doesn't build many condos (due to liability laws) but they've generally lagged the rental market in reducing/eliminating parking. Regarding our land use codes, substantial areas of the city don't have parking requirements (based on transit coverage primarily), and other areas allow fairly low ratios.

You're incorrect about how costs are passed to renters. In any growing city, new supply is the pressure valve that keeps rents down. Supply only grows when projected rents are high enough to cover costs. Parking is a very large component of the equation.

Even in Houston, land isn't free. Actual construction costs (referring to ENR etc.) aren't that much lower. My company doesn't build there (and I'm not a technical expert in any case) but there's no question that the cost of parking is significant.

[subterranean]

It's happening because of Instagram. Millennials are moving to downtowns because of Instagram.

[badrunner]

In Phoenix it's hazardous to your health to be outdoors in the sun. For about three months out of the year you're dealing with triple digit temps. So I don't see downtown Phoenix becoming some kinda of walkable hipster haven anytime soon.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by badrunner

In Phoenix it's hazardous to your health to be outdoors in the sun. For about three months out of the year you're dealing with triple digit temps. So I don't see downtown Phoenix becoming some kinda of walkable hipster haven anytime soon.

Hazardous to your health is a bit much, but the heat/sun is definitely one of the biggest impediments to walkability in Phoenix. I consider this perhaps the best argument for building tall buildings in Phoenix--we have the opposite issue of the NIMBY folks that oppose the supertalls around Central Park. The direct sunlight is as bad or worse than the temperature itself. Tall buildings to block out the sun would help a lot.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Excellent post! You sound like a liberal, though

The current events page only encourages me to comment on things I dont agree with, usually that liberals agree with. I am completely liberal on many issues and I associate with many liberals since my city is....liberal lol But I think open minds are most important since I've learned a lot from my very liberal friends(such as how socialized healthcare could help the economy).

In any case, thanks for the response!

[M II A II R II K]

But Phoenix can be a lot more walkable in the winter when many other places are snowy and miserable which makes those places less walkable on bad days.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by badrunner

In Phoenix it's hazardous to your health to be outdoors in the sun. For about three months out of the year you're dealing with triple digit temps. So I don't see downtown Phoenix becoming some kinda of walkable hipster haven anytime soon.

Yes because in the Midwest and Northeast where you will literally Freeze to death in a matter of an hour is much less hazardous than needing water and some shade. Dangerous heat only exists for a few days a year in the peak of the day 12:00-5pm or so all of which is very easy to deal with because of air conditioning, water and NOT doing strenuous activity in the middle of the day without water.

Hot weather is vastly less hazardous to your health than the frigid cold, ice and snow of the winter. Chicago, Minneapolis and Boston do fine despite being dangerous temperature wise for months at a time.