A good little video from Streetfilms and the non profit Institute for Transportation Development Policy on the issues of parking, particularly parking minimums.
Streetfilms is proud to partner with ITDP to bring you this fun animation that’s sort of a cross between those catchy Schoolhouse Rock shorts and a 1960s-style, Saul Bass film credits sequence.
For too long cities sought to make parking a core feature of the urban fabric, only to discover that yielding to parking demand caused that fabric to tear apart. Parking requirements for new buildings have quietly been changing the landscape of how people live. Chipping away at walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods has been a slow process that finally turned cities across the U.S. into parking craters and a few in Europe into parking swamps.
Many cities around the world are now changing course by eliminating the requirements while also investing in compact walking, cycling and public transit oriented neighborhoods. Soon cities in the developing world will follow, providing many new lessons of their own.
At Streetfilms, we realize that while parking is a difficult topic for most to comprehend, it is at the core of the transportation problems of most cities. We all hope this film helps change some minds and enlighten others
Perhaps this is something the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board need to watch after they had the Council submit this on the Unitary Plan.
Processing...
Looks like a sensible submission. Better than parking maximums on residential- who the hell thought that was smart? Surely you want people to leave their cars at home.
Funny. For a short while. Personally I left the second car on the dealers yard.
Except that once you have clogged a town centre with parking it is harder to intensify, making the provision of higher frequency PT options harder to justify
Then go to a dynamic frequency public transport. PRT. Personal Rapid Transit is dynamic. It increases density as demand increases. And it’s cheaper than roads to build, cheaper than buses to run, and all electric.
See http://www.skytran.us/intro/ for an example of a PRT company.
“Looks like a sensible submission. Better than parking maximums on residential- who the hell thought that was smart? Surely you want people to leave their cars at home.”
Not if that residential development is in the town centre. If you want extra car parks in a brand-new development, rent some from someone else, or build your house in the sticks – but don’t force everyone else to build extra car parks via some obsessive retention of parking minima, one of the worst “thou shalt live like *I* want you to” rules that has existed in urban planning.
Yes except anyone who has a case for not providing the parking gets a dispensation. The rule is just the starting point not the end point.
Good to see a local board arguing that constituents should pay more than they might want to for their homes. Way to go.
Why is the proposed parking regime for all of Auckland being changed to absolve the views of the Hibiscus Local Board??