devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Another issue re parking is induced demand. The more parking is made available in buildings or in lots, the more people may believe that car ownership is viable in JC, the more likely they are to own or keep a car, and voila the excess capacity generated by adding parking is soaked up very quickly.

I concur with some of the posters above that the better solution is to improve other transport options, ranging from public transport to car sharing to better bicycle infrastructure -- some of which is already happening, with projects such as the HBLR and Citibike.

This sounds like a logical reasoning, but the facts show otherwise. Most parking decks downtown are only half full! Most surface lots do fill up with people who work here, but if you take a walk through the decks in most of the high rises in DTJC, you will soon find that most of them are mostly empty, or maybe half full. That's why all of them have to resort to ridiculously low rates for those commuting here. While I do think it is prudent to include parking in some developments, the requirement of 1:1 parking to unit ratio (as in the past) is completely unnecessary. Even 1:2 may be too much. For example, among the 10 units in my floor, only three of us keep cars, while the rest do without them. It seems to be a very similar ratio on other floors based on conversations I have had with other neighbors.

Except that if we did away with 1:1 parking, prices would increase dramatically. I would keep 1:1 parking requirements and let the garages entice people to park with low rates. If they're cheap enough then you'll have residents without their own garages that have the ability to acquire permits park in hi-rise garages because it is cheap enough to do so. This is exactly what I do. On the other hand, if we only built enough garage spaces to suit the number absolutely required by immediate residents, prices would start to become similar to NYC, or at the very least Hoboken.

With respect to the prior proposal to "do away with cars", that is nonsensical. Many of us will not live without a car. I had a car when I lived in Manhattan as well. I can't and won't live without a car for a number of reasons - job related commuting, the fact that I have a few large dogs that wouldn't be allowed on public transport, and so on. I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that some people have that if you want a car you should be evicted to the suburbs. Sensible policies to require adequate garage spacing in new construction and appropriate metering of certain spots to allow for day parking addresses much of the issue.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Another issue re parking is induced demand. The more parking is made available in buildings or in lots, the more people may believe that car ownership is viable in JC, the more likely they are to own or keep a car, and voila the excess capacity generated by adding parking is soaked up very quickly.

I concur with some of the posters above that the better solution is to improve other transport options, ranging from public transport to car sharing to better bicycle infrastructure -- some of which is already happening, with projects such as the HBLR and Citibike.

This sounds like a logical reasoning, but the facts show otherwise. Most parking decks downtown are only half full! Most surface lots do fill up with people who work here, but if you take a walk through the decks in most of the high rises in DTJC, you will soon find that most of them are mostly empty, or maybe half full. That's why all of them have to resort to ridiculously low rates for those commuting here. While I do think it is prudent to include parking in some developments, the requirement of 1:1 parking to unit ratio (as in the past) is completely unnecessary. Even 1:2 may be too much. For example, among the 10 units in my floor, only three of us keep cars, while the rest do without them. It seems to be a very similar ratio on other floors based on conversations I have had with other neighbors.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

Why on earth the council sided with and validated that despicable fat slob, who knows. They should know by now her and her parking cabal spout nothing but made up facts and nonsense.

Dolomiti wrote:
Another issue re parking is induced demand. The more parking is made available in buildings or in lots, the more people may believe that car ownership is viable in JC, the more likely they are to own or keep a car, and voila the excess capacity generated by adding parking is soaked up very quickly.

I concur with some of the posters above that the better solution is to improve other transport options, ranging from public transport to car sharing to better bicycle infrastructure -- some of which is already happening, with projects such as the HBLR and Citibike.

Sutherland wrote:
If the existing housing supply doesn't accommodate every new potential resident, that does not necessarily mean there has to be more development in JC. It could also mean that those potential new residents could look elsewhere to stake their claim. Newark, could be a great place to create new opportunities. The people who are most interested in more development are usually realtors and real estate sales associates.

Fomite wrote:
]
WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Your logic is confusing. Yvonne blocked the permit hours extension because she said it would make it harder for people who don't live downtown to park downtown. So now more, not less, cars can come in after permit hours end at 5, not less. That doesn't lessen car ownership at all. In fact, its exactly the opposite effect.

Why on earth the council sided with and validated that despicable fat slob, who knows. They should know by now her and her parking cabal spout nothing but made up facts and nonsense.

Your logic is confusing. Yvonne blocked the permit hours extension because she said it would make it harder for people who don't live downtown to park downtown. So now more, not less, cars can come in after permit hours end at 5, not less. That doesn't lessen car ownership at all. In fact, its exactly the opposite effect.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

PRA71 wrote:
When I was at the Parking Authority picking up some visitor passes a few months back, the woman behind the desk said that there was a measure in front of the city council to extend the parking stickers until 11PM - so the enforcement would be 8AM to 11PM. That should help if it does pass.

That got shot down at Council by Yvonne Balcer & Co several months ago, sadly. They claimed it would violate their rights to attend public government meetings at City Hall since parking around there would be affect. Nevermind that the City allows the public to use the lot adjacent to the back of City Hall for meeting parking for free...

Fact is, cars are not going away, and development is going to keep growing and building even more density. Both the extreme views of "its a city, deal with it/ditch your car" and "I deserve free street parking" are wrong and poor city planning. There does need to be a strategy created/overhauled to improve the parking crunch city-wide, INCREASE PUBLIC TRANSIT OPTIONS/IMPROVE FUNCTIONALITY in order to make car-free living more attractive and feasible (especially for families with kids), increase car sharing options, and force those car owners willfully moving into developments with parking to use that and not the street. Frankly, if you can afford to both own a car and pay the premiums to live in these new multi unit buildings with rental parking, you should be pushed to use it or forego your car, period.

Yay!! First time I'm thankful to Yvonne for an unintended consequence. I sold my car after it became too much of a headache to own in JC. It's great between the cost savings and stressfree lifestyle. The more folks that give up their cars due to the hassles of having one in JC, the stonger the pedestrian\transit\bike\uber lobby will become.

What's needed is better transit to further encourage residents to ditch the car.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

PRA71 wrote:
When I was at the Parking Authority picking up some visitor passes a few months back, the woman behind the desk said that there was a measure in front of the city council to extend the parking stickers until 11PM - so the enforcement would be 8AM to 11PM. That should help if it does pass.

That got shot down at Council by Yvonne Balcer & Co several months ago, sadly. They claimed it would violate their rights to attend public government meetings at City Hall since parking around there would be affect. Nevermind that the City allows the public to use the lot adjacent to the back of City Hall for meeting parking for free...

Fact is, cars are not going away, and development is going to keep growing and building even more density. Both the extreme views of "its a city, deal with it/ditch your car" and "I deserve free street parking" are wrong and poor city planning. There does need to be a strategy created/overhauled to improve the parking crunch city-wide, INCREASE PUBLIC TRANSIT OPTIONS/IMPROVE FUNCTIONALITY in order to make car-free living more attractive and feasible (especially for families with kids), increase car sharing options, and force those car owners willfully moving into developments with parking to use that and not the street. Frankly, if you can afford to both own a car and pay the premiums to live in these new multi unit buildings with rental parking, you should be pushed to use it or forego your car, period.

Fomite wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

I pay real estate tax. I don't have a car to park. Do I get a refund?

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

PRA71 wrote:
When I was at the Parking Authority picking up some visitor passes a few months back, the woman behind the desk said that there was a measure in front of the city council to extend the parking stickers until 11PM - so the enforcement would be 8AM to 11PM. That should help if it does pass.

Sutherland wrote:
mmm, I don't agree with you on that. I think paying real estate taxes guarantees me use of services and facilities that one should expect when one owns a home, including the ability to find parking on the street. Quote:

sullyx wrote:
That guarantees you a spot on YOUR property, not on the public streets.

Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

Sutherland wrote:
I don't know when you moved to the area, but I have to disagree with you. I bought my brownstone in 2000, so I was incorrect when I said 20 years, it was 16 years ago. The neighborhood was already very nice. There were just fewer families with bratty moms and their intolerable children. However, there was plenty of parking. The neighborhood starting changing slowly in the 80s when those new constituents starting making a real impact. However, when I moved here there was plenty of parking. The parking issue in the Hamilton Park area has changed detrimentally in the last 3 years. Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
[

Parking issues are concomitant in a successful city (measured primarily by real estate demand). That's factual. There are books and studies on it. The only reason that JC had abundant parking 15-20 years ago was because it was still recovering from what happened to it 30-40 years ago.

If you want a city with ample parking, I hear Detroit is lovely this time of year.

If you think that tight parking represents bad planning, that's merely you valuing your car above what others would consider more important measures of livability.

Sutherland wrote:
Staying static and becoming dense to the point of not having adequate parking are not the same thing. With regard to your comparison to Columbus and Marin, I think it can't go unnoticed that he housing stock there is very different. The Hamilton Park Neighborhood has always been mostly brownstones. The recent addition of multi unit housing was never part of the original fabric of the neighborhood. While, I am not totally opposed to some development, the development should be more appropriate to the area and should not depreciate the quality of life in the neighborhood. If we were to carry your argument further, it would stand to reason that you may support the idea that Hamilton Park should be converted into more multi unit buildings or a parking deck. Which I think would be a disaster Quote:

bill wrote:
So you just assumed a nice neighborhood close to Manhattan would stay static? If there was plenty of parking, by the second law of thermodynamics, that parking will be equalized with the rest of the city. Do you think people who live on Columbus & Marin have street parking?

sullyx wrote:
That guarantees you a spot on YOUR property, not on the public streets.

Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

bill wrote:
So you just assumed a nice neighborhood close to Manhattan would stay static? If there was plenty of parking, by the second law of thermodynamics, that parking will be equalized with the rest of the city. Do you think people who live on Columbus & Marin have street parking?

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

Sutherland wrote:
... The parking issue in the Hamilton Park area has changed detrimentally in the last 3 years.

jc_dweller wrote:
[

Parking issues are concomitant in a successful city (measured primarily by real estate demand). That's factual. There are books and studies on it. The only reason that JC had abundant parking 15-20 years ago was because it was still recovering from what happened to it 30-40 years ago.

If you want a city with ample parking, I hear Detroit is lovely this time of year.

If you think that tight parking represents bad planning, that's merely you valuing your car above what others would consider more important measures of livability.

elsquid wrote:
[quote]


No, it wasn't a city as it is now. It was a city in highly unusual circumstances, namely, it was just starting to recover from a major cratering of its population. The highest population of JC was in like the 30s or 40s; it's just getting back to its former level now, albeit with larger housing spaces than the tenements of yore.

In the meantime, as with many US cities in the midst of the Great White Flight to suburbia, it was relatively easy to get around by car in JC. The streetcar and bus system was gutted, further investments in transit weren't made, but it didn't really matter.

Now those chickens are coming home to roost. The US is realizing that city living is far more efficient and economically and socially dynamic than endless suburban sprawl, and our population is returning to its former levels and will soon surpass them.

What's missing is, as others have said, major reinvestments in transit, alternative transportation such as biking and walking, and other techniques that modern cities around the world have been and are continuing to adopt. That's what's needed here, not some magic parking bullet.

Yes, parking (and driving) privately owned passenger cars in a modern city is inherently flawed, and it was always an accident that it worked here as long as it did. All that is over.

Sutherland wrote:
However, I always found the argument that parking issues are concomitant to urban life to be absolutely ridiculous and lacking in any sort of thought.