jklm wrote:
Example of a high rise holding out spaces for commercial use for retail/businesses in building. Garage Parking is handed over to an outside company, i.e., LAZ.

110 First Street - 20 spaces for Car Rental company, 6+ spaces for building employees, 6+ spaces for WADLO child/school employees, EV charging station, 20+ reserved spaces, allows daily commuter parking, monthly parking for residents and non-residents.

Un-reserved parking spaces FULL from floor 1-6, 7th floor spotty and half of 8th floor has car rental and employee parking with a few un-reserved parking spaces occupied.

Parking on First Street and Warren Street is mostly people from 110 First and Modera, parking with no permits either because of lack of enforcement of Zone 4 permit parking during the day and they can park legally from M-F 4p-10a overnight and all weekend. So if they drive to work during the day - they can park for free at night and weekends.

No one from this building can claim there are no spaces available, but the parking garage is definitely not empty like everyone seems to say on JCList.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?

Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?

Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.

The parking permit regulations are quite clear: if your building has parking available, you are not eligible for a permit. They are fierce about enforcing that rule. The only possible out from that is the building parking is completely full and spots are not available to sell or rent, then you have to get a letter from the building management stating as much, and you can bring that along with the other requisite materials.

If there is a parking problem of residents parking on the streets when their building has parking available, complain to the Parking Authority and asked for stepped up enforcement of permit parking. But, don't conflate one matter with the other (not directed at you, Brewster!) as that only helps to confuse the matter at hand.

In the end, the real problem is that a bunch of NA old timers are always complaining about parking, and they are almost exclusively focused on that. It's a shame that so many other matters that should be handled with more urgency are getting short shrift because of the usual "OMG... parking! We are losing parking to newcomers".

brewster wrote:

Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?

Is this only an issue where there is no zoned parking? I thought residents of these new developments were ineligible to get parking stickers. The Cast Iron area is a clusterfuck, there is very little parking control at all, apparently they don't sweep the streets in that zone! The parking on 13th between Monmouth and Coles creates a hazard with the unnecessary 2 way traffic and the street dangerously narrowed.

More broadly, we should just let the market provide parking, and what it cost is what it costs. No one has a right to park their car in Manhattan and it seems to be doing alright. Hoboken is far harder to park than anywhere DT and it's doing alright too.

But if it's true those decks are underused, they should be forced to lower their prices till they're at 90% occupancy, and then let the occupancy rate dictate the price. Holding spots off the market is just stupid.

MDM wrote:
A factory conversion to lofts by me has many of the new tenants parking in the street. I talked to a few of the tenants was the parking fees are too high.

Used to have good street parking around here. Not anymore. JCPD has been upping the ticketing frequency due to neighbors complaining about illegal parking (too close to the intersections, etc.).

I also noticed it appears many of the residents of Cast Iron Lofts are using the road below Christ Hospital for parking as well. Cast Iron Lofts has an extensive parking deck. Parking fees too high as well?

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
They are half empty because they charge an arm and a leg to rent the spaces. They are not half empty at St. John's apt and Brunswich Towers. St. John's charges very little and it is FREE for Brunswich residents. The fees and or rents are high enough, people are not willing to pay more. If the city ordinance required those spaces to be free for its residents, they would not be half empty.

What on earth are you talking about, if they're half empty, that means the units they're attached to and the rents that include them simply mean people aren't bringing them.

As long as the Yvonne and the corrupt neighborhood associations have so much influence on policy, such a thing would never see the light of day, even in an area where it would make sense like Downtown.

Yvonne wrote:
They are half empty because they charge an arm and a leg to rent the spaces. They are not half empty at St. John's apt and Brunswich Towers. St. John's charges very little and it is FREE for Brunswich residents. The fees and or rents are high enough, people are not willing to pay more. If the city ordinance required those spaces to be free for its residents, they would not be half empty.

dtjcview wrote:

But I'd bet every developer in JC would prefer to build more units and less parking - since most of it goes to waste.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?

Hmm, I'd have thought the opposite more likely true. An apartment with a parking space is worth more, it's assessment is more, and consequently it has higher property taxes. A car space uses no city services so on that basis I'd say the owner of the apartment with the car space is subsidizing those without car spaces.

dtjcview wrote:

By setting parking minimums for new development, the city is effectively subsidizing that parking out of my tax dollars. Without the parking requirement, the developers could build more units and supply greater tax revenue. How is that any different to your constant complaint about tax abatements?

Yvonne wrote:
All new construction should have parking that is given and not charged. Then the residents would use those private parking spots and not use the streets. The fact that new development downtown charge exorbitant fees for parking is the reason parking is a problem downtown.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like cars? Don't get a car. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

So JC revolves around your likes and dislikes? Where is the tolerance to other people's needs. I know people who drive to work because that is the only way to get there. This is not NYC with subways and buses.

Monroe wrote:
Don't like cars? Don't get a car. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

This week, Mexico City took a big step towards making housing more affordable and transit more efficient. Did it pass a new budget that funded new apartments, or propose a new expansion of the public transportation system? Nope, it simply eliminated parking minimums, the city regulations that impel builders to add a required amount of parking spots for every new unit of housing they create.

?It?s a 180-degree change in the approach toward parking,? Andr?s Sa?udo, a local planning consultant, told Streetsblog.

The biggest city in North America decided to limit the number of parking spaces allowed in new developments, and push policies that help convert existing spaces to different uses. The connection between affordability, transportation, and small patches of asphalt may not immediately seem apparent. But extensive studies by planners and researchers show quite the opposite. Cities?and renters?pay a big price for parking.


Mexico City just eliminated parking minimums, which may help North America?s largest urban area reshape itself into a more affordable, transit-friendly city. Shutterstock
Parking?s true price
Mandating parking not only wastes tons of valuable city real estate but it also bundles housing and parking together, making it impossible to pay for one without the other. This functions as a powerful force that not only shapes how cities look and function, but increases rent and housing costs.


One study of U.S. rental data found that forcing developers to add parking spots for new buildings contributes to 16 percent of the cost of an apartment, a cost passed down to renters. Writing in the journal Housing Policy Debate, researchers Gregory Pierce and C.J. Gabbe found that it?s not just a cost issue, it?s an equity issue. Urban dwellers who don?t own or use cars are in effect forced to subsidize parking spots for others, without any choice in the matter. The average cost of parking per renter was $142 a month, Pierce and Gabbe found, a price that is mostly paid by the urban poor.

Imagine how much easier it would be to make your rent payment if you could shave 16 percent off of your housing costs for an amenity that you don?t use. Nationwide, the researchers discovered, renters without cars end up subsidizing parking by an incredible $440 million a year. ?While many households might have chosen to pay for on-site parking in a free market, this proportion is surely lower than what has been mandated,? write Gabbe and Pierce.
....