The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => PlaniTulsa & Urban Planning => Topic started by: PonderInc on June 03, 2009, 09:45:09 am



Title: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 03, 2009, 09:45:09 am
I've been looking at Tulsa's zoning code as it relates to parking requirements.  (Yes, I'm THAT nerdy.)  This all started when I was surprised to learn that the CVS going in at 41st and Harvard would have 68 parking spaces. (10 more than required by our already excessive zoning code.)

Even if every shopper drove separately, I doubt there will ever be 68 people in that store at one time.

I was thinking about other parking lots in town, and it occurs to me that tying parking to SF of building space is a pretty arbitrary formula.

Example:
I shop at Reesors on a regular basis.  The huge parking lot at 41st and Harvard is never 1/2 full.  Then I noticed that the much-smaller parking lot at 15th and Lewis is typically more crowded...since it's about 1/2 the size of the other lot...but you can always find a space.

The 15th and Lewis store is smaller than the 41st and Harvard Yale store (so the zoning code requires fewer spaces).  But it got me thinking.  The size of the building doesn't dictate the number of shoppers.  Both stores are in fairly good neighborhoods.   Both generally offer everything you need to fulfill your grocery needs.  The area around 15th and Lewis probably has more homes per acre of land (b/c they're smaller homes on smaller lots).  So, perhaps even more households shop there?

So what?

Tulsa has parking MINIMUMS, based on an arbitrary formula.  The CVS at 41st and Harvard is "only" required to provide 58 spaces.  Instead, they have chosen to include 68.  (Well over 41,000 SF of concrete to support a 12,900 SF building).  There's nothing to prevent them from paving all that extra space, and de-valuing that land.  (Think reduced tax dollars.)

It's time to re-evaluate our parking requirements.  We need to cut the requirements by approx 1/2, and then make that the CAP, not the minimum.  (Developers could always get additional spaces with a variance... if they could prove a hardship.  Doubtful.)



Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 03, 2009, 09:50:22 am
I cannot agree more.  I imagine it is our image as lazy Oklahomans that causes businesses to over react.  Only encouraged by our stupid oridnances.   Boatloads of wasted space for heat generating parking lots.  If a business wants to do it, I don't think we should legally stop them.  But why encourage it?

My wife and I commented yesterday that the University of Tulsa has many surface lots on campus.  But they are spread out and the newer ones all have planters, curbs, and curves in them such that they don't look like sprawling wastelands.   Didn't Tulsa pass some kind of ordinance on this some time ago?  Why are all parking lots in Tulsa just baron wasted space?  Even if allow by law, you'd think SOME places would want to make their business more attractive.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 03, 2009, 10:04:39 am
Here are some pictures for reference.  These were taken at approx 5:30 PM on a weekday (probably peak useage for pharmacies).  These are all located at 31st and Harvard.

I counted 23 cars at Walgreens (2 are parked around the corner that aren't in the photos), and about 11 at the Drug Warehouse (a few employees' cars are out of the frame).

What does CVS have that these stores don't which will draw over 40 more vehicles to their store?

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2433/3591943795_d19e3381d6.jpg?v=0)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/3591944363_bd2fd1100b.jpg?v=0)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3413/3592752796_0dc2e6fb7f.jpg?v=0)


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Conan71 on June 03, 2009, 10:10:01 am
Two differences between the 41st St. and 15th St. Reesors (actually that's 41st & Yale)

First, the 41st & Yale store is on the site of the former Southroads Mall.  FAIK, parking areas front and back are pretty much as they were in the original development with the addition of stand-alone stores in the parking area to the east of Reesors.  It also presently shares center space with a movie theater, sporting goods store, hobby store, a book store, etc.  IOW, the lot was originally laid out to accomodate many shoppers for multiple stores, much like Woodland Hills.

The Reesors at 15th & Lewis was built as a singular development as a grocery store (Albertsons) with alloted space for a convenience store and Jiffy Lube (Jiffy Lube might have been there before Albertsons).  Braum's already existed when that was still a small residential area and the Jiffy Lube and convenience store, I believe, took the footprint of Impressions restaurant which also existed when there was a small clutch of houses there.

There's also a whole lot of wasted lot space at the Reesor's at 18th & Yale that they share with Target, Gordman's and the other assorted "frontage center" businesses.  


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 03, 2009, 10:29:10 am
So one problem with those sites was that they planned for "pad sites" that never materialized (or they are now out of business)?

This raises the issue of "shared parking" which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.  Instead of requiring each individual building to have an independent allotment of parking spaces, we need to allow for shared parking between sites in the same development.  Restaurants, taverns, and grocery stores aren't busy at the same time.  It works great when they share space.

Although I'm sure that the lawyers who represent Blockbuster at 36th and Peoria are annoyed, I love using Blockbuster's under-utilized parking lot when I'm eating on Brookside on a Friday night. (Now that I have to drive there, rather than walk from the neighborhood.) 

If Tulsa had more "Brooksides" spread throughout different neighborhoods, we wouldn't have to drive at all.  Too bad we tore down so many of our older commercial buildings (that used to line our arterial streets)...to build surface parking lots!  Hmmmm...


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: patric on June 03, 2009, 12:59:23 pm

The Reesors at 15th & Lewis was built as a singular development as a grocery store (Albertsons) with alloted space for a convenience store and Jiffy Lube (Jiffy Lube might have been there before Albertsons).  Braum's already existed when that was still a small residential area and the Jiffy Lube and convenience store, I believe, took the footprint of Impressions restaurant which also existed when there was a small clutch of houses there.

The Jiffy Lube and Braums were already there, Impressions Restaurant and all the houses were bulldozed.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: nathanm on June 03, 2009, 05:02:10 pm
I counted 23 cars at Walgreens (2 are parked around the corner that aren't in the photos), and about 11 at the Drug Warehouse (a few employees' cars are out of the frame).
Walgreen's lots are sized for the one day a year they are most busy. Christmas Eve. There's plenty of parking at the Walgreen's at 91st and Sheridan, yet on Christmas Eve, there was literally one space open when I went there to pick up some photos I had printed there.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Wilbur on June 04, 2009, 05:09:45 am
You also have to consider not everyone shows up and leaves at once.  You may only have 10-15 people in the store, but more are in the parking lot leaving and more are in the parking lot arriving.  Not to mention space for delivery trucks and so forth.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Gaspar on June 04, 2009, 08:26:49 am
Just to play Devil's advocate (I am no fan of excessive parking requirements), what happens if we cut the size of the Walgreen's parking lot in half? 

I have visited the Walgreen's on Lewis and 71st when the lot was almost completely full.  Walgreen's lots can be tight when traffic is moving two ways and people are slow to find a parking spot.

On such a day with a tight parking situation, how does a fire engine, ambulance maneuver in an emergency?

I actually think Walgreen's does a great job of placing a large capacity facility on a relatively small building/parking footprint while exceeding the highest level of ADA compliance.  They may be a poor example.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 04, 2009, 09:16:40 am
I was actually using the Walgreens example to illustrate the fact that CVS is crazy to think they need 68 spaces, with double or triple the setback of Walgreens.  (Compared to the CVS plan, Walgreens' parking design is actually pretty good.) 

Unless CVS is going to be giving away free Viagra, they won't need all that parking.

On another point: Yes.  On Christmas eve, the parking can be tight.

But do you want to set parking requirements based on one day a year?  (While the other 364 days, the spots will be vacant.)  This would be the equivalent of staffing a company year-round for the Christmas rush, and letting the employees sit around idle the rest of the year.  Makes no sense. 

In the case of CVS, they tore down 4 residential houses for this PUD (which will eventually--supposedly--include a total of 4 commercial buildings).  Personally, I think there was plenty of room for 4 commercial buildings with shared parking in the existing commercially-zoned corner.  But our excessive parking requirements (and the developer's desire to ADD MORE parking) means that those 4 homes were destroyed FOR PARKING.  (Definition of a PUD: a way to ignore the comprehensive plan and the existing zoning code to turn residential areas into commercial parking lots.)

So, which generates more tax dollars for our city?  4 residences, with families who work and shop in Tulsa and pay property taxes.  Or a bunch of empty parking spaces that will be used once a year, if we're lucky?

As far as encouraging alternative forms of transit, big parking lots basically REQUIRE driving.  (And, thus, the need for more big parking lots!)  If you bring the buildings to the sidewalk, and put the shared parking in the back, you'll make it a lot easier for people to walk or bike to a store.  (And you'll reduce the need for bigger parking lots.)


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Gaspar on June 04, 2009, 09:29:21 am
I was actually using the Walgreens example to illustrate the fact that CVS is crazy to think they need 68 spaces, with double or triple the setback of Walgreens.  (Compared to the CVS plan, Walgreens' parking design is actually pretty good.) 

Unless CVS is going to be giving away free Viagra, they won't need all that parking.

On another point: Yes.  On Christmas eve, the parking can be tight.

But do you want to set parking requirements based on one day a year?  (While the other 364 days, the spots will be vacant.)  This would be the equivalent of staffing a company year-round for the Christmas rush, and letting the employees sit around idle the rest of the year.  Makes no sense. 

In the case of CVS, they tore down 4 residential houses for this PUD (which will eventually--supposedly--include a total of 4 commercial buildings).  Personally, I think there was plenty of room for 4 commercial buildings with shared parking in the existing commercially-zoned corner.  But our excessive parking requirements (and the developer's desire to ADD MORE parking) means that those 4 homes were destroyed FOR PARKING.  (Definition of a PUD: a way to ignore the comprehensive plan and the existing zoning code to turn residential areas into commercial parking lots.)

So, which generates more tax dollars for our city?  4 residences, with families who work and shop in Tulsa and pay property taxes.  Or a bunch of empty parking spaces that will be used once a year, if we're lucky?

As far as encouraging alternative forms of transit, big parking lots basically REQUIRE driving.  (And, thus, the need for more big parking lots!)  If you bring the buildings to the sidewalk, and put the shared parking in the back, you'll make it a lot easier for people to walk or bike to a store.  (And you'll reduce the need for bigger parking lots.)


Very true. 
Unfortunately we are fat and lazy, and that likely won't happen.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: nathanm on June 04, 2009, 12:47:32 pm
But do you want to set parking requirements based on one day a year? 
No, but I think we should allow on street parking in more places. That would be even less popular amongst the park-next-to-the-door crowd.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: SXSW on June 04, 2009, 01:42:45 pm
No, but I think we should allow on street parking in more places. That would be even less popular amongst the park-next-to-the-door crowd.

Screw 'em.  We shouldn't be catering to the fat and lazy.  I say if you're obese you should have to park the furthest away from a building as possible.  One of my favorite quotes, and so true:

Anyplace worth its salt has a "parking problem." -James Castle, public policy consultant


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Cats Cats Cats on June 04, 2009, 02:11:46 pm
They are catering to customers, they should be doing what they believe to be the optimal amount of money spent on parking to keep their customers happy (and coming back).

We can just make it illegal to park on the street downtown.  Charge $50 an hour to park in any city owned parking garages.  Then Tulsa and downtown especially will be the pinnacle of greatness.  What the hell did we spend all that money on an Arena when all we had to do was restrict parking...


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: ILUVTulsa on June 05, 2009, 09:28:29 am
Review Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago: Planners Press, 2005.

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/dr-shoup-parking-guru/


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: FOTD on June 05, 2009, 09:46:47 am
Parking allotments have been a developers nightmare for years.

COT requirements are often flexible depending on where it matters. Look at the new ballpark for how weird the city rules.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: OurTulsa on June 05, 2009, 12:28:53 pm
Inside the IDL is the only place in Tulsa where there are no parking requirements...no parking maximums either.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 05, 2009, 01:12:22 pm
One of my favorite arguments is that "national chains have specific requirements for parking, and they have to have it, or they'll just go somewhere else."

Two responses:

1. OK.  Bye.
2. BS. 

I've seen all sorts of national chains located in different types of developments throughout the nation. 

The difference is this: in cities that care about protecting their assets and unique identities, the chains comply with the city's requirements.  In cities that lack the self-confidence to stand up for who they are, the chains blanket them with the bland nothingness that defines modern America.  You get "Generica, Land-o-Parking and corporatecture." (It's like architecture created by rubber stamp...without the architect.)


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: OurTulsa on June 23, 2009, 10:38:48 pm
I got word the TMAPC is going to discuss parking maximums in PUDs at Wednesdays (6.24) worksession.

Quick fix: turn our parking minimums into parking maximums.  That solves the need to tear down buildings in the urban sections of town to meet parking requirements.  It frees up development opportunities for existing buildings/properties held hostage by the inability to add parking.  It enables dense infill which makes absolute fiscal sense for a municipality to encourage.

Smaller parking lots (or atleast limiting more excessive parking lots) mitigates some storm water run-off carrying pollutants into our streams/river; mitigates our heat island effect (kinda - although if a new building replaces a space that would have otherwise been asphalt I'm not sure if there is a net-benefit...maybe in reducing the regional footprint which brings benefit).  I also think limiting parking lot size could do alot for our City's general aesthetic...to the degree that we have buildings in place of empty parking lots.


I think the biggest impact of parking maximums would be incremental density enabled. 

Ponder's right in that buildings sure do represent a much higher return on investment than parking lots in Tulsa.  The City's got to provide basic services (maintain streets, utilities...provide emergency services/police patrols).  All that gets more costly as the City spreads without increasing the tax base.  Parking lots don't increase the tax base.  They occupy otherwise contributing property.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on June 24, 2009, 04:36:50 pm
I went to the TMAPC work session, and was simultaneously encouraged, and reminded of how far some folks have to go before they will understand what's at stake.

Old ways of thinking are pretty entrenched for some on the TMAPC.  Nice job to Ms. Cantrell for raising this issue, and grasping the "high cost of free parking."

The discussion was about setting parking caps on PUDS (with allowances for variances, if truly a hardship).  That's it.  Not reducing the parking requirements (which will ultimately be necessary for Tulsa to have a chance at economic survival and long-term, sustainable growth).  But even this tiny, baby step of a change prompted some "well, I don't know..." head scratching among certain commissioners.

Those on the TMAPC who don't get it are going to have a huge learning curve ahead of them, when it's time to implement PLANiTULSA recommendations.  (We're going to need some pretty significant changes to the zoning code, to allow the types of development that people want.)  Let's hope they have the ability to listen and learn in the coming months. 

I would encourage anyone who cares about the implementation of PLANiTULSA to pay attention and participate in any public hearings that occur in the future.  The TMAPC and others are going to need to hear from a variety of people other than just old-school, large-lot, commercial developers, if we're going to have a chance to breathe fresh life into Tulsa.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: OurTulsa on June 24, 2009, 09:44:20 pm
I don't understand why the TMAPC doesn't have the ability to reduce or cap the parking requirement through the PUD.  The PUD provides flexibility on many standards - why not parking?  

If the TMAPC is considering establishing a parking max. or requiring additional landscaping for parking over a certain number or whatever.  Why would they limit those standards to developments in the PUD?  What about large parking lots that are established under existing zoning?


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on November 09, 2009, 04:10:00 pm
Nice to see that solving the parking issue is finally gaining traction.

Here's a nice little article from the Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091101_16_A19_Thecon977923 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091101_16_A19_Thecon977923)

Some tidbits...

"The current parking standards are really classic 1960s..."

Such a one-size-fits-all approach won't work, Fregonese said.

"You can't use the same square peg for the whole city," he said. "You have to have pegs for different parts of the city (and) different situations."

Fregonese said parking requirements have a direct impact on how a city develops — especially in a place such as Tulsa, where infill development is seen as key to growth.

With 75 percent of commercial property typically set aside for parking, developers are left with just 25 percent of the property from which to generate revenue, Fregonese said.

It's a formula that does not work with infill development, where the land is prized and priced accordingly.

"So when you reduce parking you can fill more of the lot with building and with rent-producing abilities," Fregonese said.

Eventually, he added, "infill becomes more feasible, the buildings are closer together and you can build more of a pedestrian district."  


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: FOTD on November 09, 2009, 04:39:34 pm
Recalibrate the ratios, but don't over due it and allow for special situations. 15th, Cherry, is already under parked. Brookside is too. If Blockbuster or BOK weren't flexible, over all business would be adversely affected by the lack of spaces.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: PonderInc on November 09, 2009, 04:59:40 pm
Strategically placed shared parking facilities (the Blockbuster lot in Brookside is an unofficial example of how this works) are part of the solution.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: SXSW on November 09, 2009, 05:24:08 pm
Strategically placed shared parking facilities (the Blockbuster lot in Brookside is an unofficial example of how this works) are part of the solution.

Also street parking in surrounding neighborhoods.  I never mess with finding a space in a lot in Brookside or Cherry Street I just find the nearest side street and park there. 


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: OurTulsa on November 09, 2009, 11:45:01 pm
Also street parking in surrounding neighborhoods.  I never mess with finding a space in a lot in Brookside or Cherry Street I just find the nearest side street and park there. 

My strategy most of the time as well.

I don't think Cherry St. and Brookside are under-parked.  According to what standard?  And what standard should we be aiming for, or expecting in these urban corridors? 

At 8am it's difficult to find a parking space on the east side of Panera but not so on the south side or west side or on the street 1/2 a block to the west.  At lunch time I've been forced to park as far away as 16th and St. Louis and walk a block to Full Moon - no problem until I have to cross the street on an ignored crosswalk.

I remember one time having a very difficult time parking around Brookside.  I actually had to park north of Crow Creek and walk several blocks to my destination.  Of course, the car show displayed on a shut down S. Peoria made for an engaging walk.  Outside of that I as well often am able to either park on S. Peoria near my destination or park less than a block into the neighborhood.

The only negative I have regarding parking in the neighborhood or not very near my destination in either district is that both have fairly poor walking environments (although not relative to Tulsa).

I am a big fan of doing away with our parking requirements altogether in both of those districts as well as others around the core of our city.  That said, with eliminating the parking requirement per property I would provide some sort of cap on development intensity: building heights limited to three/four stories.  Or something like that.

Of course, that move would have to be part of a program that includes maximizing on-street parking availability, better transit, better walking environment, encouraging mixed uses and supportive transitional residential densities, reserve a lot for a public parking structure...

Additionally, I'm so glad to hear two of our Mayoral candidates acknowlege the impediment our parking requirements are to infill development.  I wish Dewey at least gave the appearance of giving two craps about PlaniTulsa and related issues.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: nathanm on November 10, 2009, 07:19:10 am
I am a big fan of doing away with our parking requirements altogether in both of those districts as well as others around the core of our city.  That said, with eliminating the parking requirement per property I would provide some sort of cap on development intensity: building heights limited to three/four stories.  Or something like that.
I'm not sure I like the idea of scrapping parking requirements entirely. I think still requiring some amount of parking, albeit significantly reduced, but allowing those requirements to be fulfilled by pay and on street parking or pooled lots. (behind the buildings, please!)


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on November 10, 2009, 08:13:04 am
I'm not sure I like the idea of scrapping parking requirements entirely. I think still requiring some amount of parking, albeit significantly reduced, but allowing those requirements to be fulfilled by pay and on street parking or pooled lots. (behind the buildings, please!)

Lets not forget in this discussion that we may sometime in the future wish to have a better mass transit system. Trolleys "real and or fake lol" in these areas and downtown could become part of the fabric and habits of these types of areas. Having less parking and more density can "encourage" more use of the trolleys. More habitual use of the trolleys will encourage the development of more density since people will already, primarily, be in the areas on foot, and so on. When you put mass transit into the equation, the parking doesnt have to be right IN the area, it can easily be the church and school parking in downtown for instance.

I would really like Tulsa to go in this direction, versus what I see some other places doing in which they try, too much imo, to accommodate cars at the detriment of; building authentic density and pedestrian friendliness, and real mass transit usage.  I would rather us evolve towards a more true, European type transit/urban model, versus a, not quite there, "Dallas/KC/OKC, etc" lets squash in parking garages everywhere, and or have a sea of parking behind a strip, model. Its so tempting to want and think in ways that our lifetime of habits and current mental concepts give us, pulling only from the set of ideas we are really familiar with, even when trying to do something new,, and simply forget to consider the  models and solutions we may not be familiar with.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: nathanm on November 10, 2009, 08:18:07 am
Lets not forget in this discussion that we may sometime in the future wish to have a better mass transit system. Trolleys "real and or fake lol" in these areas and downtown could become part of the fabric and habits of these types of areas. Having less parking and more density can "encourage" more use of the trolleys. More habitual use of the trolleys will encourage the development of more density since people will be in the areas on foot, and so on. When you put mass transit into the equation, the parking doesnt have to be right IN the area, it can easily be the church and school parking in downtown for instance.

I would really like Tulsa to go in this direction, versus what I see some other places doing in which they try, too much imo, to accommodate cars at the detriment of; building true density and pedestrian friendliness, and real mass transit usage.  I would rather us evolve towards a more true, European/transit urban model, versus a, not quite there, "Dallas/KC/OKC, etc" lets squash in parking garages everywhere, or have a sea of parking behind a strip, model. Its so tempting to want and think in ways that our lifetime of habits and current mental concepts, the only ideas we are really familiar with,,, and simply forget to even consider that there are other models and solutions.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want a sea of parking anywhere. However, I think a small amount of parking is both useful and helpful. The problem is when you have too much parking. The way it's done on cherry street is a good example. Very walkable, but there is still room for cars, like behind Tom's. Seas of asphalt suck. A few parking spaces that let me stop quickly on monthly errand day are a good thing.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on November 10, 2009, 08:26:50 am
Don't get me wrong. I don't want a sea of parking anywhere. However, I think a small amount of parking is both useful and helpful. The problem is when you have too much parking. The way it's done on cherry street is a good example. Very walkable, but there is still room for cars, like behind Tom's. Seas of asphalt suck. A few parking spaces that let me stop quickly on monthly errand day are a good thing.

Just how much parking does one need for a vespa or bycycle?  ;)

I do get your point. We cant instantly go from one form to the next. (suburban car oriented, to urban transit oriented). However, along the way we will be making choices both big and small. And it seems whenever I hear and see discussions on the topic of trying to find parking solutions for these areas, the topic centers on how, where, and how much parking, parking garages, etc.....  and nary a peep about mass transit as part of the parking solution.  We habitually keep forgetting to consider transit, and how our descisions on parking can effect any desire for transit as well. Its as if we put transit and parking into two different mental boxes, or discussions, that dont mix, when they should be in the same box and discussion.  


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: OurTulsa on November 10, 2009, 10:02:29 am
Here is a timely and related story.  The sad thing is this writer could be talking about almost any American city including our own.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/69419357.html

A void paved over with concrete

Posted: Nov. 7, 2009

My wife and I own an apartment in the European city where her parents came from. Almería's population is over 200,000, and it's been around for hundreds of years.

As a pedestrian, one is in constant negotiation with cars and scooters because the streets are jagged in shape, cramped, sometimes lacking in sidewalks - and teeming with life. Shop storefronts display dresses and shoes that would star at the Oscars. The window of a hardware store accommodates three centuries of door latches, from the rustic to the ultra-high tech. Every step has my head craning in one direction or another, even if it is to wave a car right through a stop sign as I slip around behind - faster and friendlier for both of us.

Arriving home from Spain, we drove through Milwaukee from Mitchell International Airport, and the eerie calm of sealing ourselves behind car windows settled over us; the "carness" of our life here spread out like a gray pall all around us.

Instead of people, conversation, shopping, eating and attending to business on the hoof, we were surrounded by access roads, parking lots, highways and bridges until we eventually passed under the shadow of the hulking three-story garage whose gloomy, and empty, cavern overshadows our magnificent art museum.

We Americans are all infrastructure - and no people.

Friends here are surprised that we don't own a car in Almería. There's no need, even though life there is pretty regular and not some outlandish eco-haven like Carmel, Calif., with its boutique clothing shops and celebrity clubs.

Everything we bought for our apartment in Almería we bought on foot. Plumbers, furniture stores, computer equipment and appliances are only a few minutes away. When we bought our washing machine, the owner's brother was waiting for us at our door, our washer on a handcart, even though we lingered for only moments on the walk home.

What's the cost for living our American way? It's not just the thousands of dollars for the second car, insurance and gas. We also have to support a lake of concrete around us - and gas, electric and sewer lines to stretch out past the near-vacant belts beyond the older suburbs. Property taxes in Almería on our condo are one-twelfth our taxes in Milwaukee, even though the value of the two homes is roughly the same.

One-twelfth. Oh, and they throw in free health insurance.

That's a lot of concrete, wire and pipes to keep up - and patrol. Milwaukee's close suburbs have residential streets that have room for two lanes of traffic going each way, plus both parking and turning lanes. Six lanes of concrete.

I was driving on a street like that recently - it's residential, so I was the only car in sight, although several white lines directed me around like I had a ring in my nose on the rare chance that a second car may venture into sight. Not so long ago, people's eyes grew large when a news announcer glowed about "six-lane super-highways" in Los Angeles. Now we have them to serve blocks where only a few houses stand.

Where are the people? Nobody is coming; nobody is going.

If we gained something for our money, I'd happily pay it. But I look south out the window of my downtown office and see streets and highways, of course. Plus parking garages, ramps, driveways, surface lots and street parking - not to mention the gas stations, auto-part stores and car washes.

Our cities (and Milwaukee still remains one of the most attractive) are dead zones with small pods of life barricaded between the elements that support the passage, storage and care of cars. In our most densely trafficked sidewalks, it is a hundred feet between businesses whose windows have a chance of being interesting to look in at while walking past. Throw in a bank or two and one has to take a taxi to get between shops where people congregate over a cup of coffee or buy a shirt.

No wonder we all drive.

Almería is modern enough to need cars. For the most part, cars brought into the city are routed to underground parking. As expensive as that might sound, what otherwise would be dead space at street level goes instead to businesses with apartments above, as well as an interesting collection of squares, parks and kiosks that are a part of every day's stroll.

Read this again: one-twelfth our property taxes.

Still, it's not about the money. It's about life. We stood on the street one night in one of America's few cities that are dense and walkable: New York City. A local television station was hosting a karaoke event. Tough-looking teenagers in floppy pants were singing along with suited Japanese businessmen, middle-aged housewives in sensible shoes, Orthodox Jews in yarmulkes, students in backpacks and a couple of tourists from Milwaukee. An older businessman waited at a crosswalk with me the next day, giving directions to a pair of young guys who would raise hair at the back of my neck if I ran into them on a lonely stretch. They thanked the older man and headed off. The businessman explained, "When you're on the street, everyone knows you have to deal with people. We're all in this together."

A more ominous view about our expansively concreted lives came from a Bulgarian programmer who has just moved here. Commenting about our infrastructure, America's glory and disaster, he said, "People who are separate are easier to control."

Malls are about the only public place in America where people aren't separate. Look around a mall, though - teenagers hang with their high-school friends, parents keep toddlers in the firm grip of their hands, bums sag alone on a bench, while walkers stride by in the world of their headphones. We're as sealed off from each other as first-class is from economy on a long and monotonous flight.

In non-American cities, you see grandparents sitting with teenagers or elegantly dressed women mixing it up in a café with workmen taking a lunchtime coffee or beer. I've often seen fathers reading to their young children. Right out in public - an act that would rank as deprivation here, when the tykes could be mesmerized instead by a video in the back seat of their Escalade or Tundra.

Almería is seven hours ahead of Milwaukee, and my wife happened to call me at what was 3 in the morning her time. She'd just gotten in from dinner and a concert (whole families are out at midnight; nothing about their crazy schedule surprises me anymore). She had walked home alone, though of course she was not actually alone on the street. I was just leaving for a friend's who lived some blocks away, past several alleys, garages and shuttered stores flanked by asphalt pads.

I drove.

Richard L. Birch of Milwaukee is a business writer. Richard L. Birch of Milwaukee is a business writer.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 10, 2009, 12:03:51 pm
+1

Quote
Our cities (and Milwaukee still remains one of the most attractive) are dead zones with small pods of life barricaded between the elements that support the passage, storage and care of cars. In our most densely trafficked sidewalks, it is a hundred feet between businesses whose windows have a chance of being interesting to look in at while walking past. Throw in a bank or two and one has to take a taxi to get between shops where people congregate over a cup of coffee or buy a shirt.

No wonder we all drive.

Great read and painfully on point.  I'm envious of that small Spanish city.  The area he described, urban, dense and livable - with plentiful amenities within walking distance; are the areas in KC, Dallas, Austin, etc. that people are willing to pay the most to live in.  Show me an area like the one he described in Tulsa, and I'd pay nearly any price to live there. 

In Tulsa we are even alone in our neighborhoods.  Most of my friends hardly know their neighbors, in my area only a small group of neighbors talk ever.  And I feel lucky to have neighbors who actually hang out and talk at all.  It's seems so strange, we're friendly . . . but have no interest in mingling. 


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: FOTD on November 10, 2009, 04:59:07 pm
+1

Great read and painfully on point.  I'm envious of that small Spanish city.  The area he described, urban, dense and livable - with plentiful amenities within walking distance; are the areas in KC, Dallas, Austin, etc. that people are willing to pay the most to live in.  Show me an area like the one he described in Tulsa, and I'd pay nearly any price to live there. 

In Tulsa we are even alone in our neighborhoods.  Most of my friends hardly know their neighbors, in my area only a small group of neighbors talk ever.  And I feel lucky to have neighbors who actually hang out and talk at all.  It's seems so strange, we're friendly . . . but have no interest in mingling. 

My neighborhood had big cookouts 2-3 times a year 18 years ago....great times! Then Bush got elected, 9/11, and a few good one's moved out of town and left us with ingrates and selfish evil doers who built huge fences and started turning neighbor against neighbor. See the trend?


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on November 10, 2009, 06:07:40 pm
Great story, that describes the different models quite starkly. Thanks for sharing.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Red Arrow on November 10, 2009, 06:36:48 pm
My neighborhood had big cookouts 2-3 times a year 18 years ago....great times! Then Bush got elected, 9/11, and a few good one's moved out of town and left us with ingrates and selfish evil doers who built huge fences and started turning neighbor against neighbor. See the trend?

Bush's fault?


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: nathanm on November 10, 2009, 07:18:22 pm
Bush's fault?
I think Bush is/was more of a symptom than a cause.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Townsend on February 05, 2015, 12:34:02 pm
Board Wants Change in Zoning Code Parking Requirements

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/board-wants-change-zoning-code-parking-requirements (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/board-wants-change-zoning-code-parking-requirements)

Quote
Tulsa’s Transportation Advisory Board wants to change how the city approaches parking.

The board wants to eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements for businesses from the zoning code. Chairman Stephen Lassiter said that wouldn’t immediately change how much parking is available for drivers.

"But over time, developers, property owners will be able to say, 'You know what? This parking lot is way too big. I could build another building on this thing and lease it out and make some more money,'" Lassiter said. "So over time, you're going to get a better use of land."

The idea has some traction within the city planning department.

"I, for one, am fairly comfortable with dropping the minimums, eliminating the minimums in places near downtown where they really don't have options for parking," said City Planner Theron Warlick.

It's not a common step. far, Buffalo, N.Y., is the only U.S. city that’s done away with minimum parking requirements.

"They're proposing it as an economic development incentive, and it speaks to what [the board was] suggesting: Give people a chance to create more leasable space, more rentable space, more sales square footage, and don't require as much for off-street parking," Warlick said.

A new version of the zoning code is due out this month. While it will have the same parking requirements,  the city could begin a series of public meetings for input on changing them.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 05, 2015, 01:56:27 pm
GREAT IDEA!

Seems odd that Buffalo is the only city to do away with the minimum parking requirement (though, Buffalo is oddly in a renaissance per recent articles I read).

Do developments in the Plaza area of KC have minimum requirements? Manhattan? Chicago? Austin? Surely not.

Maybe just the only city to have adopted and realize the errors of their way was Buffalo?

Nonetheless, GREAT IDEA!



Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on February 05, 2015, 03:28:37 pm
Great!  It will also help many of those older buildings that have sat empty for so long get tenants.  We looked at a place on 11th in the Pearl District, signed a lease, made a deposit etc.  (we were originally "told" the person next door would share their lot, but turns out they would not do so) the parking requirements finally made us pull out and move elsewhere.  The space is still empty.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2015, 08:01:38 am
It seems like a no-brainer. Parking lots don't generate revenue or sales tax but active buildings do.

I went to High Gravity on Friday and took a real good look at that giant empty parking lot that people are using a street to bypass the traffic light at 71st and Memorial. I can't think of any reason that that shopping center needs so much parking, 85% of it is completely unused.

21st and Yale has a similar problem, I can't beleive there aren't regular accidents in the Target lot with people using it like a street.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Conan71 on February 09, 2015, 08:47:45 am
It seems like a no-brainer. Parking lots don't generate revenue or sales tax but active buildings do.

I went to High Gravity on Friday and took a real good look at that giant empty parking lot that people are using a street to bypass the traffic light at 71st and Memorial. I can't think of any reason that that shopping center needs so much parking, 85% of it is completely unused.

21st and Yale has a similar problem, I can't beleive there aren't regular accidents in the Target lot with people using it like a street.

Exactly.  Turns out Collins Liquor is moving into the renovated strip center to the north of all that madness and I believe the homophobic chicken place will be building on that pad site.  There’s room enough on the unused parking to put in at least one or two more pad sites in that parking lot.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2015, 08:57:05 am
Off topic, but I can't help but think that that move won't be good for Collins since it pretty much hides them back in the corner where they can't be seen from the street. I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Conan71 on February 09, 2015, 09:08:51 am
Off topic, but I can't help but think that that move won't be good for Collins since it pretty much hides them back in the corner where they can't be seen from the street. I could be wrong.

I hadn’t thought of them losing some drive-by/drop-in traffic due to loss of visibility. 


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Breadburner on February 09, 2015, 09:29:11 am
Great!  It will also help many of those older buildings that have sat empty for so long get tenants.  We looked at a place on 11th in the Pearl District, signed a lease, made a deposit etc.  (we were originally "told" the person next door would share their lot, but turns out they would not do so) the parking requirements finally made us pull out and move elsewhere.  The space is still empty.

Heh.."Pull Out"...Heh..heh....


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 09, 2015, 10:00:17 am
Heh.."Pull Out"...Heh..heh....


Yep...the real you...  But which one are you??  Beavis or...??




Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: dsjeffries on February 09, 2015, 11:32:42 am
GREAT IDEA!

Seems odd that Buffalo is the only city to do away with the minimum parking requirement (though, Buffalo is oddly in a renaissance per recent articles I read).

Do developments in the Plaza area of KC have minimum requirements? Manhattan? Chicago? Austin? Surely not.

Maybe just the only city to have adopted and realize the errors of their way was Buffalo?

Nonetheless, GREAT IDEA!

Though Pittsburgh hasn't eliminated parking minimums, it has levied huge taxes on parking (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/08/23/pittsburgh-vs-detroit-a-case-study-in-parking-contrasts/), which was one of the redevelopment tools our own city leaders learned about on their visit to Pittsburgh a couple years ago. If you make it more expensive to park or build parking lots, it will sway people to erect buildings instead. And it's helped the city's coffers, too. They collect somewhere around $45 million each year from parking taxes, which can then be used to improve streetscapes, bus service, etc.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto is in favor of a more progressive parking scheme: reducing parking minimums city-wide and relaxing it even more if there is transit nearby was a big part of his campaign to get elected. See his plan here (http://www.billpeduto.com/2013/02/16/95-creating-walkable-neighborhoods-eliminating-mandatory-parking-minimums/). I'd love to see our leaders make this a priority.

And while we're at it, a local Pittsburgh foundation has developed grants to help business owners make improvements to their buildings' facades and improve street life. Description below. Emphasis mine.

Quote
Paris to Pittsburgh
Funded by the Colcom Foundation, Paris to Pittsburgh offers two grants to help property and business owners make building façade improvements and establish outdoor cafés. The 50 percent matching grants are available to fund eligible projects that enliven the Golden Triangle streetscape using high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design elements.

Sidewalk Activation Grant
Inspired by the vibrant streets of Paris, the Paris to Pittsburgh Sidewalk Activation Grant encourages outdoor dining elements such as retractable awnings, tables and chairs, new lighting and landscaping. The project requires a 50 percent match and offers grants of up to $30,000.

Façade Grant
A 50 percent matching grant, the Façade Grant offers up to $30,000 to properties that are interested in façade improvements but are not adding an outdoor café or installing an operable storefront. Retail and service businesses are the ideal target candidates for this program.

...

Since the launch of Paris to Pittsburgh in early 2008, well over two million dollars has been invested to make buildings in the Golden Triangle more vibrant.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2015, 11:44:21 am
it's going to be very important to pair changes to downtown parking with a transit plan.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: sgrizzle on February 09, 2015, 12:16:15 pm
it's going to be very important to pair changes to downtown parking with a transit plan.

There are no downtown parking requirements in Tulsa.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: dsjeffries on February 09, 2015, 12:28:43 pm
There are no downtown parking requirements minimums in Tulsa.

That's why a special tax on parking or parking maximums should be considered.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2015, 01:00:55 pm
There are no downtown parking requirements in Tulsa.


I should have been less terse and more detailed.

One of the goals for downtown is to increase density and to encourage contruction in the blank spaces. Many of the blank spaces are paved surface parking lots that are either rarely used or are set aside for a single entity to use once or twice a week (like the downtown churches).

In order to make parking lots less attractive as a revenue source and make an actual building more attractive would be to regulate the parking lots by taxing them, creating zoning codes for appearance and safety or by providing alternate parking solutions that make them less attractive as a business.

Right now we have nothing.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: rdj on February 09, 2015, 02:30:06 pm
Off topic, but I can't help but think that that move won't be good for Collins since it pretty much hides them back in the corner where they can't be seen from the street. I could be wrong.

I think they'll be fine.  In visiting with them the store will be much nicer and bigger.  That center will also have much better traffic with the remodel.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on February 09, 2015, 05:29:24 pm
it's going to be very important to pair changes to downtown parking with a transit plan.

Absolutely.  There are so many unused parking spaces in downtown even on the busiest nights, but they often aren't "right next to" where people wan't to go.  Transit would help with that.  Also zoning to make certain streets that connect districts in downtown to each other to be more pedestrian friendly would help open up more of downtowns parking spaces.  (for example people might be more likely to use the parking garage over my shop to get to events or to say the Blue Dome or Brady Arts district if the pedestrian experience between the two were more amiable and transit was more frequent and regular).  

Also, by getting rid of minimum parking requirements in other parts of the city, transit cold become more practical as more areas become pedestrian friendly.

Think of it this way.  Couple square miles of a downtown (do what you want zoning) surrounded by hundreds of square miles of (illegal to do good pedestrian friendly development) auto oriented zoning.... tell me what will be the "default" position in that tiny downtown island in that ocean of auto centric zoning.  If a person can't figure it out I am sure they could ask the average 8 year old to explain it to them. The default position for downtown will pretty much be what everything around it is. Cars first, pedestrians and transit last.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Red Arrow on February 09, 2015, 06:20:08 pm
It seems like a no-brainer. Parking lots don't generate revenue or sales tax but active buildings do.

Not directly but they do enable the nearby businesses to generate sales tax.  Imagine the sales tax numbers if Woodland Hills had NO PARKING as an extreme example.  A good transit system would help negate that though.

Quote
I went to High Gravity on Friday and took a real good look at that giant empty parking lot that people are using a street to bypass the traffic light at 71st and Memorial. I can't think of any reason that that shopping center needs so much parking, 85% of it is completely unused.

That parking lot was probably always too big but it was better utilized originally when the furniture store was a Target store.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Breadburner on February 10, 2015, 01:27:50 pm

Yep...the real you...  But which one are you??  Beavis or...??




Well...We know who you are......


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: rdj on February 11, 2015, 09:14:08 am
For giggles this morning I was looking at the area around the Coliseum Apartment building.  I noticed PSO owns quite a bit of the surface parking around their HQ.  By my count PSO owns 172m sq ft or 3.8 acres of surface parking in the blocks surrounding their building.  The largest chunk being 90m sq ft (the whole block) just across from the entrance.

As a comparison I looked at the shopping center where Sundance Furniture & High Gravity are located.  Assuming the building square footage is correct on the assessor site and it is all single story there is about 685m sq ft or 15.2 acress of surface parking on that site.  By comparison the Wal*Mart at 81st & Lewis has about 360m sq ft.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Townsend on February 11, 2015, 12:38:47 pm
For giggles this morning I was looking at the area around the Coliseum Apartment building.  I noticed PSO owns quite a bit of the surface parking around their HQ.  By my count PSO owns 172m sq ft or 3.8 acres of surface parking in the blocks surrounding their building.  The largest chunk being 90m sq ft (the whole block) just across from the entrance.

As a comparison I looked at the shopping center where Sundance Furniture & High Gravity are located.  Assuming the building square footage is correct on the assessor site and it is all single story there is about 685m sq ft or 15.2 acress of surface parking on that site.  By comparison the Wal*Mart at 81st & Lewis has about 360m sq ft.

Any idea how much parking ORU and the medical center have?  You could set land speed records across those properties.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Hoss on February 11, 2015, 01:13:52 pm
Any idea how much parking ORU and the medical center have?  You could set land speed records across those properties.

Except during Union's graduation ceremony...


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2015, 02:04:29 pm
Well...We know who you are......


I knew it!!  Full 7th grade education and emotional maturity level...

"I know you are, but what am I...?"



Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: Townsend on February 18, 2015, 12:38:31 pm
First Meeting set for Residents to Review Tulsa Zoning Code

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/first-meeting-set-residents-review-tulsa-zoning-code (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/first-meeting-set-residents-review-tulsa-zoning-code)

(http://publicradiotulsa.org/sites/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201502/Zoning.gif)

Quote
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — The first meeting for the public to review and offer comment on Tulsa's updated zoning code is tonight.

The event is at the Greenwood Cultural Center.

The main elements of the zoning update will include strategies for mixed-use development, parking and transitions from commercial to residential corridors, with a focus on preserving unique or desirable neighborhood characteristics.

Over the next few months, the public will have several opportunities to review the draft, submit questions and ideas — both online and in group meetings.


Title: Re: Parking Requirements are a Joke
Post by: TheArtist on February 18, 2015, 07:25:12 pm
First Meeting set for Residents to Review Tulsa Zoning Code

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/first-meeting-set-residents-review-tulsa-zoning-code (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/first-meeting-set-residents-review-tulsa-zoning-code)

(http://publicradiotulsa.org/sites/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201502/Zoning.gif)


Really wanted to go, but am in Norman working on a project. Would like to take a look at the list of other times and places for the meetings so I can schedule some time to go.