79 comments

      1. Yup, sec 4.2.1.3.1 and they’re just as bad as before. In fact, they’re worse because now bicycle parking is required too!

        Reply

        1. So something that discourages motor vehicle dominance, and is tons easier to provide than car parking is now evil? That’s a sad “lets free-market everything” attittude, if I understand your slant right – what is your opposition to bicycle parking. Its not exactly rocket science OR expensive, especially at these still quite low rates…

        2. I’m not opposed to people providing bicycle parking if they want, and if I must choose between the two, it’s a better use of space than carparks. But I’m opposed to a requirement that people provide more bicycle parking than anyone wants. And I’m not as much of a bicycle booster as a lot of people on this blog. They are safer and less unpleasant than cars, but cities dominated by bicycles can be unwelcoming too.

          http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2012/05/bike-share-transit-and-traditional.html

          If I’ve lost this fight though, I suggest we should start having umbrella parking minimums, and raincoat parking minimums, and USB charging port minimums. There’s never anywhere to hang your coat or charge your phone.

        3. As I expected – you consider it a nanny state regulation. Well, I will give you the example of my apartment building. Built without bike parking. And now, 10 years later, lots of people would like to have it in our building. But because the common areas are not suited / too small, and the outside areas wouldn’t be safe enough, we can’t provide any. All other space is owned by individual owners. This building will quite possibly go 50 years or more without bike parking (unless the bike revolution takes off massively in Auckland) thanks to lack of mandatory bike parking rules.

          “but cities dominated by bicycles can be unwelcoming too.”

          Eh? Maybe, but not because of the bicycles.

        4. Max, assuming the demand is as great as you suggest, get the body corp to raise a special levy, buy out a suitable ground floor apartment, redesignate it as common area, convert it to a cycle park. No problem if the demand is from owners. If a tenant, canvas your landlord and offer to pay more rent to cover it. It might only be necessary to use part of the apartment in which case it could be reconfigured and resold to recoup some of the cost.

        5. Max – I’m sure in the 1980s people were regretting having built apartments years before without any carparks. That doesn’t make car parking requirements a good idea. You seem to be happy to let the market sort out carparks from your comment at http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/03/15/draft-unitary-plan-released-today/#comment-62384 , so what makes bikes so special, other than that you happen to like them?

          In fact, although the effect is much more minor, bike parking mandates are even stupider in their logic. Cars can only be parked in special spots, whereas a bicycle can be stored pretty much anywhere. Just put it in your apartment! If you really want a special spot, Jonno’s idea is a bit overboard, but if your apartment building has carparks in it, you should be able to convert one or two to bike parking.

        6. Steve D, yes my comment was a bit OTT, but I was trying to make the point that there’s always a solution if you think about it hard enough and are prepared to pay for it. Also, Max did exclude outdoor bike parking so the carpark idea wouldn’t work either unless of course you literally built a bike shed.

        7. Well, I was wondering if his apartment building had some inside carparks, which many 10-year old buildings do. It may not of course, especially if it’s in the central city. I didn’t think about outside carparks, but I don’t think a bike shed is that hard. Pop down to Mitre 10 and grab a pre-fab shed, and you can erect it in an afternoon.

          The company I was working for in Wellington a couple of years ago moved to a new building, and the lease came with a couple of carparks. Management were all keen cyclists, so they decided to convert the spaces into a dozen or so bike parking spaces, including a couple of work bikes for riding to meetings and so on. Meanwhile, the apartment building I lived in in Auckland last year had converted a dozen or so carparks into storage units for residents. The joys of a world without MPRs!

          I think there’s going to be a lot of this sort of re-purposing happening in the future as car use declines, which is another good reason not to have bike parking mandates. We’re about to have a glut of carparks, and one of the few things they can be reused for is… bike parks.

      2. Actually, I’m sorry, I misread it. There are maximums, not minimums for the various ‘centres’, and mixed use and townhouse/apartment zones. So actually, a lot better than at current. They’re also not required in something called the ‘City Centre fringe area’ which I can’t find on the map.

        Reply

        1. Still allows a maximum of 2 carparks for a dwelling with 2 or more bedrooms in the City Fringe, Town Centre, Mixed Res & Apartments/Terraced Housing zones. The question is, will developers take the opportunity to provide less?

          Quick carpark rules comparison between proposed Unitary and existing Auckland City District plan (rates are per m2 of gross floor area):
          Commerical: 1 per 25m2 (Unitary) / 1 per 17m2 (District)
          Offices: 1 per 60m2 in within parking overlay & City Fringe, 1 per 30m2 elsewhere (Unitary) / 1 per 40m2 GFA (District)

          The parking overlay covers the CBD, Parnell, Grafton, Ponsonby, Freemans Bay, Eden Terrace, northern Mt Eden, Kingsland, Newmarket. So for many parts of the city, office developments may have to provide MORE carparks.

        2. Edit for above:
          The rules for parking are maximums in the City Fringe, Town Centre, Mixed and Apartments/Terraces, so what I stated above is not quite correct. Offices in those zones, and in the parking overlay, will have parking maximums, not minimums. For offices in all other area, the minimum rate is 1 per 45m2, so slightly better than the current plan.

        3. I’d imagine smart developers will consider building apartments with fewer carparks. Certainly in the CBD. My complex has 200 apartments, and I’m not sure how many carparks, but there are always a few available for rent, and the going rate is $40 to $50 a week. That’s worth, say, $2,300 a year. But a basement carpark costs $30,000 or more to provide when you’re doing the building. Best case, that’s a 7.6% return, which is pretty lousy. And I think carparks actually cost a fair bit more than that to provide.

          I’m pretty sure my building has far too many carparks for the demand. People use them because they’re there, but I doubt they would have been willing to pay the true cost for them.

        4. Well this is what is happening in Melbourne. By not building one or many parking levels the apartments can be either cheaper or better at the same price point, therefore a competitive advantage for the developer. And the street level is also not blighted by vehicle crossings, can have retail etc. of course is best done near train or permanent well served bus and ferry stations.

  2. Overall, the car parking, bicycle parking and density rules – the stuff I care about as a transport / cycle advocate – look good, if not quite as ambitiously dedicated to reducing car dominance as I had hoped. The question is now: will they survive the submissions/appeals process?

    Reply

    1. Yay for cycle parking. BOOH for retaining the minimum for each suburban 2-bedroom dwelling at 2 car parks. Much of Grey Lynn / Ponsonby or Parnell still couldn’t be built again under these rules.

      Reply

      1. Heritage zones – not allowed to knock anything down because it’s so great, but not allowed to build anything else like it because it’s a horrible slum. YAY URBAN PLANNING.

        Reply

  4. So if I’ve got this right:
    Residential: Max of 2 spaces per dwelling everywhere except single house lots, there Mins of 2 [fill your boots suburbanites].
    Commercial: offices Max of 1/60m2 City Centre Fringe, 1/30m2 otherwise, in ‘burbs: 1/45m2
    Retail: Max 1/10m2 [hardly tough] but in res areas it’s Mins of 1/25m2

    Still a whole lot of crazy shit:
    Taverns MINIMUM! 1/20m2 [council mandated drinking and driving]
    Schools MINIMUM! 1/.5 teacher and 1/classroom WTF
    Uni 1/.5 teacher plus 1/4 students Craaaaazy!

    On other hand, required cycling parks and showering at greater than 1000m2 GFA Offices, ed, + med.

    Reply

    1. I also note there’s no rule for restaurants. Maybe they slapped that together with Taverns in the “other areas”?

      Reply

        2. How big is a car park – 20m2 with turning space? Double the area dedicated to parking than that given to the preparation and consumption of food… planners get out of the kitchen.

        3. More MPR cray cray. If I want to got to a bar or restaurant, I’ll decide if I need parking or not. Those without parking that need it will fail, those without parking that do not need it will be more profitable.

          These are rules which are being made for their own sakes, with significant externalities being imposed on society.

        4. 20sqm if you’re lucky, i.e. have a conveniently shaped and contoured site. Usually closer to 25-30 sqm per car-park on most sites.

          This means every “tavern” has to provide 2-3 sqm of parking for every 1 sqm of tavern. That’s just great – let’s recreate the pub from “Once were Warriors” across every suburb in Auckland, complete with boy racer mobiles, smashed glass and chairs being smahed into heads. That’s the sort of city … I want to move away from.

          P.s. Records show that it was about 500 years since someone last used the word “tavern” in a serious sentence.

        5. Sorry Stu, but even at 30 sqm for 1 car park per 20 sqm tavern, its only 1.5 sqm for every 1 sqm of tavern, not 2-3. Or am I missing something?

          But yeah, worth commenting / submitting on.

        6. Ben said “1 per 10m2 GFA + outdoor seating area”

          Is equivalent to 25-30 sqm carparking per 10 sqm GFA (divide both sides by ten)

          2.5-3.0 sqm carparking per 1 sqm GFA.

          Or am I missing something?

      1. Oh yes, Auckland Council’s definition of “mixed housing” seems to mean a bit of housing mixed with a lot of parking.

        Reply

  5. > Schools MINIMUM! 1/.5 teacher and 1/classroom WTF

    I actually think that is quite enlightened. It is 0.5 spaces per employee (not 1 per every half teacher 😉 ) and 1 / classroom, which is going to take care of visiting parents, tradesmen etc… no parking for students required, which seems a no-brainer, but some of the crazier plans around NZ actually required car parking for older students, I believe.

    The old plan (Isthmus) had 2 / classroom, so this is arguably lower?

    The old plan (Istmhus) had 1 / 3 tertiary people, so despite it looking ridiculous, it is again a decrease, though I agree it should be lower yet. Though universities in city centres would be exempt anyway.

    Reply

    1. I was thinking about that Centre City exemption: it’s like a tax break. The class I’m teaching this semester would require the Uni, if elsewhere, to provide 1/2 a space for me [I ride my bike in, or sometime bus] and 5 for the nearly 20 students. Interesting how we all get on fine without this rule in the city and my employer is saving by not having to provide around 5 sparking spaces. If Architecture moved up to the new site in Newmarket they would lose this exemption for my course, pushing up the cost of it to some degree? Next week i will find out how everyone got yo Uni in my class.

      Reply

      2. The logic (not saying I agree, or agree to the same level) is of course that if you provide a uni way outside a centre, then PT is going to (comparatively) suck. And thus students will drive (this being NZ), and thus there is a higher car park demand. Not saying it is desirable. But there’s some truth to it.

        I like your tax break example – at least its a tax break aimed in the right direction. “Build your tertiary education facility HERE and you don’t have to spend oodles of money on creating car parks”.

        Reply

    2. Also Max there was the case last year of the school that had to demolish a classroom to comply with MPRs… I don’t give a damn if I have to park on the street or walk or whatever to visit my kid’s school, I just want all their energies and resources on the little tykes… the Council has no business telling them how car parks they have to supply. Some will over supply, some will under; I know which one I’d rather be involved with.

      Reply

      1. Which case was that?

        Look, I simply don’t think that 2 car parks per classroom total (which is what it results in) is all that bad. A 500 student school gets 25 car parks (assuming 20-student classes – no idea how high numbers actually are). I am currently planning a similar-sized school in Canterbury, and our parent parking drop-off zone is that big, to my shame-facedness. Sure, I also managed to get them a hundred bike parks, but I would have been happy had I felt I could have gotten away with suggesting 25 car parks total only…

        Reply

        1. “our parent parking drop-off zone is that big, to my shame-facedness”

          I.e. the drop-off zone is that big alone, there’s another 15-plus staff car parks.

        4. I thought that was the school that was expanding, and had to kick out the kindy they had on site, because they needed more car parks? Slightly different, but admittedly a similar result.

          That is actually a good example for what I said further below – Council should at least have the flexibility to ignore the MPR in some circumstances. I am probably patting myself on the back too much, but the consultancy I work with (we specialise in parking to a good degree) could have probably made a pretty strong case for a dispensation from the MPR in that particular case, if the school had wanted to fight it more.

        5. Max, with all due respect MPRs should be abolished.

          And your consultancy should know that, and should say that, whenever it gets the chance. Unfortunately not enough consultants are prepared to drop the pretense and admit that the engineering and planning professions have, for the last 50 years, got it seriously wrong when it comes to parking policy.

          Praising dispensations from MPR is like being grateful when your torturer brings you stale bread to eat.

        6. Lol, I am afraid you will not like who my consultancy is advising on regarding parking-related input into the Unitary Plan!

          I am fully aware that depending on highly paid consultants to do an end-run around bad rules is a stupid way of doing it, and available only to few. I have no problem with abolishing MPRs. I am with you. I just had no real hope they would go, which is why I am not shocked – whereas you seemed to have held out hope, and are now very crushed.

        7. Great we agree. Then the first statement should always be: “There is not rational basis for MPR, but …”

          I.e. if you must have them then they should be as low and as easy to avoid as possible.

        8. As I mentioned below – so we should ask that the assessment criteria should have as many mitigating circumstances as possible. Do you provide twice the bike parking & showers than required? You are allowed to take off 5% of the minimum. Do you have a QTN route nearby? Take off 10%. An RTN stop? 20% off. Can you show, via surveys, that your local on-street parking is often unoccupied? Reduce by 10-30%. Stuff like that.

  6. One thing I notice from the Unitary Plan is that almost all of the inner suburbs is still zoned for single houses only, even if it’s not “heritage” which most of it is as well. The higher density zones have been pushed further out, into areas where more intense development is going to be less attractive.

    If there is hope for the inner suburbs, it lies in the Mixed Use zone, which at least might be redeveloped from low-rise car yards and panelbeaters into apartments. Since the MU zone is mostly along main roads, it’s going to be critical to make them nice places to live – at the very least lower speed limits and better pedestrian consideration.

    Reply

      1. It’s a pity. The problem isn’t that the plan was radical. It was conservative. The blue ‘heritage’ suburbs get to stay the way they are, while the low and middle-class and middle intensity ones are slated for moderate intensification.

        The government may yet win and force Auckland into shapes it would rather not adopt, but it will be a victory over a very moderate plan.

        Reply

        2. Well it may just turn out that customer demand will be influence developers to build the sort of dwellings that the market wants. Looking like demand will be highest for couple/no kids and singles! Market share for families will drop from 47per cent of market to 41per cent I think in around 2031. Currently not enough one and two beds being built now.

        3. The plan seems to allow for pretty easy “house-internal subdivision” though, which could be an interesting response. I.e. from what I read, you can pretty easily split off a 30 sqm “dwelling” from a larger one. You don’t even need car parking! Not sure if that applies to all zones (probably not, I lost where I had seen it).

          But it could mean that all the 30 and 40 year olds who are flatting because they can’t find anything small to suit themselves can live in subdivided large houses. Knock in another door, put in an extra bathroom maybe, and bang, practical density increase, because less likely that people will rent or buy a house than is actually larger than they need. They just rent / buy half of one.

        4. My problem is this. One of the goals of the plan is economic development. Income inequality is very stark in Auckland. And income inequality is a known barrier to economic development. I think the plan will make inequality worse, so it will not achieve its main goal.
          E.g. Many more units in lower income tamaki will lower land values, fewer units north of west tamaki rd will starve supply and send values up. In 20years we will still have a deprivation 1 zone pushing up against a dep10 zone. I also see nothing in the plan around encouraging ownership, so the chance of most residents here buying a house will still be distant. They will rents flats from the state, or from landlords who live in dep10 areas.
          In economic terms, there is more value creating more units in areas where the underlying land value is most expensive, and the most scarce. Where is the density in Kohi, st johns, remmers, glendowie and meadowbank? All closer to the cbd, all with excellent schools and on bus routes. The planners are dodging a fight against the blue rinse brigade and externalising intensity cost to residents who won’t even realise it has happened until some cheap, ugly flats pop up next door.
          Can some of you turn your brains to this issue rather than stressing about car parks?

        5. yes Tamaki it’s a political document, shaped in part by the very loud noises coming from the most entitled sections of the community. Twas ever thus. But having said that many of the entitled have no idea what’s good for them: In their determination to ‘keep things as they are’ they may have just forced a great deal of vibrant economic activity out of established areas for areas they don’t value. Net result work and growth in areas that have been dozy for decades, say like Panmure.

          As for dwelling ownership opportunities for lower income people you want take a look at Labour’s Kiwibuild policy: 10 000 new dwelling per year for a decade, all sold to new owners [not investors] with financial tools to make this possible… give it a google. The majority in Auckland.

        6. “Many more units in lower income tamaki will lower land values, fewer units north of west tamaki rd will starve supply and send values up”

          No to the first one, possibly yes to the second, in my opinion. Extra units don’t have to be bad for land value at all. Its only the really fancy areas where the prices could spiral further because of attractiveness vs continued constrained supply. You seem to assume however that extra units either HAVE to be grotty or at least be in deprived or to-be-deprived areas. That is not the case in my opinion.

          “I also see nothing in the plan around encouraging ownership, so the chance of most residents here buying a house will still be distant. They will rents flats from the state, or from landlords who live in dep10 areas.”

          What ARE your suggestions to increase ownership? Auckland Council can’t fix, for example, the fact that NZ wages are low. All they can do is try to fix the supply-side, and how to best do that is a hugely controversial topic. However, smaller, quality apartmenst ARE one way to increase ownership.

          “The planners are dodging a fight against the blue rinse brigade”

          Agreed. Maybe I am more cynical than others, but I didn’t expect them to take up that fight particularly strongly anyway.

          “won’t even realise it has happened until some cheap, ugly flats pop up next door.”

          Again with that – why do you, like so many, always assume that flats HAVE to crap? Or cheap, as in tacky? Because many were in the past? Given. We know this. There’s no magic rule requiring it though, and density rules alone won’t create new crappy apartments. Its other rules in the plan and in the building codes (which the Unitary Plan can’t modify) that ensure / prevent that.

          “Can some of you turn your brains to this issue rather than stressing about car parks?”

          With car parks in some locations making up a large (if often hidden) part of the cost especially of smaller dwellings, this is very relevant. Also, this is a transport blog, so why are you surprised / frustrated at the fact that we discuss car park levels? The other aspects are already being discussed here so often that sometimes one could call it the “Auckland Housing Blog” 😉

        7. Oh, and Tamaki – sorry if my above post comes across a bit “cross”. Not enough sleep 😉 I do share some of your concerns, I just think that apartments – in the most neutral sense of the word – are part of the solution, not the problem.

    2. What I dont get is why “old” seems to equal “character”. I note that whilst the older parts of the city seem to be preserved, and all pre 1944 houses are going to need special consent to get knocked down, other areas with unique character are zoned for development. I am no architect, but I would have thought a lot of the areas around Porrit Ave and Chatswood on the North Shore are excellent and well preserved examples of the prevailing styles of architecture at the time of their development. I see no reason why these areas (for example) would be any less worthy of protection than every villa in Auckland. Indeed there are probably more villas and cottages than there are [whatever the style of architecture is that uses fibre cement board, concrete block arches, double garages, two storey etc etc]. It all seems a bit subjective to me.

      Reply

  7. Another key question to ask: How will the unitary plan handle applicants who will want more parking than the maximums, or less than the minimums. What assessment criteria are used, and does the plan hint to the planner checking the applications that they CAN be flexible, especially regarding allowing you to go below?

    Reply

    1. I have another key question to ask: Why does the unitary plan have parking maximums? Why does it have parking minimums? Why? Why? Why?

      Reply

      1. You are presumably meaning “minimums”?

        Because that’s the way things have always been. Can’t change it, its tradition. Now take a sweet and be silent, dear….

        Reply

      2. I mean both. What is the problem to be solved in both cases? Is that clearly articulated? I’m interested …

        Reply

        1. The problem is that the planning profession / politicians do not trust either residents or developers to do the right thing, as defined in their heads. And is used to micro-manage parking, so this is just a somewhat greener version of the previous arrangements.

          I mean, why do we mandate that dimensions either – such as that car parks on private lane have to be at least 2.5m wide? I can see it for a retail car park, but for an office or private home? Let the builder who gets it wrong suffer the commercial damage from it. Yet we still mandate it.

        3. “And planners wonder why they get accused of social engineering.”

          Uhm. Planning IS the very definition of social engineering? Has never been anything except that? People just disagree over the how much and what. This blog, like any conglomerate of human being, alternatively asks for more and less regulation.*

          *I am not saying that Auckland Transport Blog does so in a capricious fashion. But ATB wants some rules relaxed that you think are harmful, and others introduced to prevent what you think are harmful effects.

          And since human beings are good at disagreeing, the people codifying the rules (planners and politicians) get flak. Nice to see its not the engineers in the firing line this time, though, despite the term “social engineering”. 🙂

        4. With the advent of parking maximums, the power-lust of the planners is really betrayed. Practically nowhere has neither a parking maximum or minimum (except maybe sportsfields from what I can see). How on earth can this be logical? How can it either be OK to have “x and no more” or “x and no less”?? To this engineer it is about as logical as saying – “for this beam, put at least this much steel in it, and for that beam, no more than this much”.

          Seriously, how can they keep a straight face?

        5. And offices have both a minimum and maximum. It’s amazingly specific – you must have between 1 park / 30sqm and 1 park / 45sqm. This, and nothing else, is the perfect amount of parking.

    2. No probs, all good points.

      My worry about cheap flats is that developers want/need to get a return. Once the consents are got, if they can substitute cheap materials for good, cut out amenity etc they have, and will. They will call it fiduciary duty to their investors. I know it’s not a fait accompli, but a big worry.

      I do think that parking is important. As is transport, but I think that transport and urban design (which seems to be a major focus for this blog) is only a means to an end. Let’s not lose sight of the goal, a city that we all love to live in.

      I think intensity and state housing should be sprinkled through richer areas, so poorer kids have access to the better schools from which they are currently barred. Nothing stopping council getting in on the social housing game, and transitioning renters to owners.
      Also think that a Gini coefficient for akl should be derived, and progress should be measured against it.

      Promise not to bang on about housing too much.

      I see we are getting a tamaki train station with 7000 people living around it. Booyah.
      In the precinct plan, industry that relies on parking (whatever that is) will not be allowed. That will keep you guys happy.

      Reply

      1. “I think intensity and state housing should be sprinkled through richer areas, so poorer kids have access to the better schools from which they are currently barred”

        A simpler option would be to get rid of zoning.

        Regarding quality. I think the best hope for quality is, without adding costs beyond that which the market actually wants is to:

        Provide certainty around developability of a site. This will stop developers from either holding out for better conditions, or from banging something up quickly whilst they are allowed to.

        Liberalise broadly and all at once. This will massively increase available capacity and hence competition. So instead of being the only game in town in a sellers market, developers will have to compete. ergo quality will increase.

        I believe the unitary plan will achieve this, but can someone with more knowledge than me confirm whether all the density allowances will increase at once? i.e will all the town centres get their 6-8 storey limits on the same day? I only ask because in the Auckland Plan it appeared that development might be controlled and staged based on the timelines… (which would be a bad thing for quality and affordability)

        Reply

        1. Agree on the getting rid of zoning thing, but that with central govt unfortunately. Check on the non-contiguous zone of schools like glendowie college, I.e. two separate islands with GI in the middle!

          The interesting thing with supply is that there will be a lot of it, all of a sudden. Not sure about phasing, but I count tamaki, pakuranga, slyvia, GI , and panmure all within a small area and all being zoned for intensity. Note that pakuranga has become a sub regional centre all of a sudden, up there with Albany etc.

        2. I was in Pakuranga a couple of weeks ago I does that centre need an injection of vitality, but note Tamaki that the area within say Pakuranga zoned for more density is actually very small… just the existing dreary and traffic blighted town centre. Again this is no radical change.

  9. The world champion (highest taxed) for Tertiary education minimum car parking requirements
    Hamilton – 1 per staff + 1 per 3 Students
    Palmerston North – 0.7 per staff + 1 per 3 Students
    Auckland – 0.5 per staff + 1 per 4 Students
    Houston –1 per 6 Students
    Tauranga – 1 per staff + 1 per 5 Students
    Napier – 0.3 per staff + 1 per 5 Students
    UK recommended max – 0.5 per Staff + 1 per 15 Students

    Sorry Auckland only gets a bronze

    Reply

  10. Sorry Houston got mixed up with Napier
    Houston – 0.3 per staff + 1 per 5 Students
    http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level4/COOR_CH26PA_ARTVIIIOREPALO_DIV2REPASP.html

    Napier – Tertiary Education 1 park per 6 equivalent full time students and staff
    http://www.napier.govt.nz/docs_dms/ch61.pdf

    Napier the world champion (highest taxed) for Fast food restaurant incorporating a sit down restaurant minimum car parking requirements at1 park per 8m2 GFA
    Interestingly there are no bowling alleys in Napier, but they do have MPR for bowling alleys, 3 per alley

    Reply

  11. One of my frustrations is the existing underutilised carparks. Banks or businesses in Ponsonby, for example, that are closed and you drive around on Sunday or in the evening looking for a park, but can’t use the empty business parks. Sometimes we just need to better utilise the parking we have. Businesses should make their parks available to others when their company is closed. Their should be a web app, so business can meet their parking requirements, by matching up with another business that has different peak times.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *