Search results

This chapter estimates how minimum parking requirements increase the cost of constructing housing, office buildings, and shopping centers. It also explains proposed legislation to limit how much parking cities can require in transit-rich districts.

I assembled data on the cost of constructing office buildings, shopping centers, and parking spaces in eight American cities, and data on the minimum parking requirements in these cities. I then combined the parking construction costs with the number of required parking spaces for each land use to estimate how the minimum parking requirements increase development costs for office buildings and shopping centers.

Minimum parking requirements increase the cost of constructing a shopping center by up to 67 percent if the parking is in an aboveground structure and by up to 93 percent if the parking is underground.

In suburban Seattle, parking requirements force developers to spend between $10,000 and $14,000 per dwelling to provide unused parking spaces.

On a typical construction site in Los Angeles, parking requirements reduce the number of units in an apartment building by 13 percent.

To mitigate the high costs imposed by minimum parking requirements, California is considering legislation to set an upper limit on how much parking cities can require in transit-rich districts: no more than one space per dwelling unit or two spaces per 1,000 square feet (93 square meters) of commercial space. This legislation would limit parking requirements, but it would not limit the parking supply because developers can always provide more than the required number of spaces if they think demand justifies the added cost.

This chapter measures how minimum parking requirements increase the cost of housing, office buildings, and shopping centers in order to subsidize parking. Urban historians often say that cars have changed the city, but urban planning has also changed the city to favor cars.

Parking policy in the United States is dominated by zoning codes with minimum parking requirements stipulated for a variety of uses. Some cities have realized that this approach has not yielded the desired policy outcomes; instead, it may be causing unintended consequences including added auto-travel, dispersed development, congestion, and air pollution that cities now wish to mitigate.

This paper identifies historic and contemporary trends in United States’ parking policy as cities gain additional insight and embrace new priorities.

Three emerging trends in the U.S. context are identified: Rethinking zoning codes that require parking with development; introducing pricing to better manage curb resources thereby cutting down curb-space competition; and looking for urban design solutions to parking access, location and on-site placement which can lead to more efficient mode use decisions.

The chapter provides an analysis of cases showing how cities are now seeking alternative approaches.

After many years of policy intervention focused on the alleviation of parking shortages by requiring additional off-street parking, cities are now seeking alternative approaches.

Cities can learn from each other’s experiences. New paradigms in parking policy will lead to different social outcomes: they could increase the cost of auto use (disadvantaging the poor) but decrease auto dependence (favoring the poor).

The originality of this chapter is in the juxtaposition and analysis of trends that have, heretofore, had little exposure.

Purpose – This chapter will examine the role of Central Park in setting in motion certain practices related to park development as well as revolutionizing park financing in the mid-nineteenth century and again in modern times. It will examine the shift from public financing of parks to the development of public–private partnerships to design, build, fund, and administer urban parks.

Design/methodology/approach – The author takes an historical approach to put contemporary park debates vis-à-vis funding and administration in context. Archival materials are used to examine park financing models all over the country.

Findings – Central Park still continues to revolutionize urban park financing. Cities are cutting back on funding for public parks; as a result, there is a greater reliance on private financing options. Not all parks are in a position to rely heavily on private financing, and this raises questions about access to open space in cities.

Originality/value – The chapter raises questions about equity in the shift toward the private financing of urban parks. It extends the environmental justice discourse to examine open space issues. It examines long-term historical trends in helping the reader understand the contemporary state of urban park financing.

This study aimed to explore the spatial accessibility dynamics of urban parks and their driving forces from 1901 to 2010 in terms of the dynamic relationships between spatial morphology and road networks, taking Nanjing City as an example.

This study mapped and examined the spatiotemporal distribution of urban parks and road networks in four time points at Nanjing: the 1910s, 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, using the analysis methodology of spatial design network analysis, kernel density estimation and buffer analysis. Two approaches of spatial overlaying and data analysis were adopted to investigate the accessibility dynamics. The spatial overlaying compared the parks' layout and the road networks' core, subcore and noncore accessible areas; the data analysis clarified the average data on the city-wide and local scales of the road networks within the park buffer zone.

The analysis of the changing relationships between urban parks and the spatial morphology of road networks showed that the accessibility of urban parks has generally improved. This was influenced by six main factors: planning implementation, political policies, natural resources, historical heritage and cultural and economic levels.

The results provide a reference for achieving spatial equity, improving urban park accessibility and supporting sustainable urban park planning.

An increasing number of studies have explored the spatial accessibility of urban parks through the relationships between their spatial distribution and road networks. However, few studies have investigated the dynamic changes in accessibility over time. Discussing parks' accessibility over relatively long-time scales has practical, innovative and theoretical values; because it can reveal correlational laws and internal influences not apparent in short term and provide reference and implications for parks' spatial equity.

Drawing primarily on examples from the United States, this chapter explains how cities often misprice street parking, and the consequences that flow from that mispricing. The chapter then discusses progress toward charging market prices for street parking. In particular I examine equity- and fairness-based objections to market prices and find that most of these objections do not withstand scrutiny

I present street parking as an example of price controls, and use a sample of American cities to show that many street parking regimes exhibit the four hallmark consequences of price ceilings: shortages, misallocation, search costs, and shadow markets.

Most parking in American cities is free or underpriced (relative to nearby off-street parking), which creates the conditions for cruising and the justification for minimum parking requirements. Contrary to perceptions, off-street parking in US downtowns is usually available – most garages have at least 20 percent vacancy. Lastly, on-street parking charges are often lower than round-trip transit fares, even though drivers are on average more affluent than transit riders.

The chapter demonstrates the logical inconsistency of keeping street parking free, as well as the practical problems that arise by doing so. It also addresses the common concerns that dense areas have insufficient parking, and that accurately priced street parking would burden low-income people.

By using the price control framework, the chapter provides a novel way to think about parking pricing, one that emphasizes the distortions created by governments’ refusal to price their valuable street space. The chapter also provides new evidence about the relative prices of on- and off-street parking, and the burdens of parking charges relative to charges for transit.

In Guangzhou, the largest city in southern China, car ownership is increasing beyond the capacity of the road system. This leaves streets gridlocked and parking facilities inaccessible, thus under-utilized. At the same time, Guangzhou's zoning code calls for additional off-site parking which is likely to encumber development. This chapter documents and discusses policies in Guangzhou that affect and are affected by parking and how they relate to City goals.

The chapter explores the relationship between three interrelated topics: (1) today’s parking policies in Guangzhou, regulated by a variety of municipal agencies, (2) case studies of two large developments and their respective parking supplies and demands, and (3) city goals and objectives.

There is opportunity for Guangzhou to implement strategies to manage its parking supply relative to its roadway capacity, plus integrate its parking policies to the overall transportation system.

Emerging cities can learn from other’s experiences. Parking supply affects the decisions people make about how they will travel and this in turn affects congestion, air quality and quality of life. Using smart parking regulations means an end to inadvertently fostering dependency on the car and the start of creating sustainable communities.

The value of the chapter comes from the way it builds from existing evidence to further understand the challenges of an emerging, fast-growing city.

This chapter explains how and why local parking policies are developed, the sometimes conflicting relationship between parking, revenue raising and economic development and the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to use parking policy as a demand management tool.

This chapter offers a review of prior research and literature on the topic parking management and further explores the impacts and difficulties of parking management. Moreover, empirical data in this chapter comes from the authors’ own survey study of southern, eastern and southeastern European cities about their parking problems and policies.

The findings of this chapter show that there is a need to consider what parking solutions cities may choose and what solutions might work for them. It is difficult to say that very different solutions will suit cities of different sizes, but rather that the level of implementation of the solutions must be related to the scale of the problem in each city, and its citizens’ demands. In addition, each city must work within its particular legislative context, which is why certain solutions might not work in some cities.

Parking policy and parking management are key to urban mobility and to managing its negative effects. It is possible to develop a car parking policy that will manage the negative impacts of urban car use whilst also supporting business and the economy; but this is a balancing act, which is why it is important to learn from the experience of other places, as we have shown in this chapter. Parking demand and the response of different cities to it are very important when considering the rise of car use in Europe and other parts of the world. Future solutions for parking problems are detailed at the end of this chapter.

This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of prior research in parking management and connects this overview to findings of the authors own survey in south, eastern and southeastern European cities. Very few studies have made similar connections and provided in-depth insights into parking management in European cities. Moreover, the research provides useful information for planners and professionals dealing with parking issues and what solutions might work in their city.

This chapter explains the primary factors influencing the growth in parking supply, what the impacts have been in urban areas throughout the United States, efforts that are underway to better manage urban parking supply, and how these findings relate to international cities.

This chapter offers a review of prior research and literature, and further explores the impacts of parking using historical data from six cities and by focusing on two specific case studies. It also includes a discussion of global implications.

Parking supply has increased by anywhere from 70% to 160% in urban areas throughout the United States, thereby contributing to considerable land consumption and increases in local automobile use. These increases were driven in large part by minimum parking requirements and perceived market demand. Since 1980, parking growth has slowed considerably in cities that have implemented parking limits and parking management strategies.

Parking is typically viewed as a valuable amenity that should be provided indiscriminately. This work outlines the consequences associated with this view and highlights isolated cases in which policies have been successfully implemented to address the negative outcomes of conventional policy approaches.

This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of prior research in parking policy and ties the findings to specific outcomes in urban areas throughout the United States. No other study to date has tracked long-term changes in urban parking supply or its impacts. This work provides a valuable perspective on the magnitude of those impacts and the potential to mitigate those impacts thorough policy reform.

During Gezi Protests of June 2013, hundred thousands of people from different and even opposite groups were together on the streets of Turkey against government for a month. The abruptness, severity, diversity and creativity of Gezi Movement make it unique among urban movements in Turkey. Protesters not only challenged the police violence and authoritarian policies but also defended public spaces of their city. My analysis of Gezi Movement is based on the comparison of Lefebvre, Harvey, and Bookchin who all integrated the critique of capitalism and revolutionary vision into urban movements. However, they are different in terms of what revolution, city, class, citizen, and urban social movements are. Gezi Movement is discussed through the similarities and differences of three approaches.

Gezi Movement is a good example of New Social Movements which lacks an organization, hierarchy and a leader. As an urban movement it provided a glimpse of heterotopia of Lefebvre where many different groups and identities challenge the abstract space of neoliberal capitalism. The protesters, as the producers and the consumers of urban commons claimed Gezi Park and Taksim Square as Harvey stated. The transformation of protests into neighborhood forums despite losing power and participation shows the civic potential of urban movement that may develop direct democracy of citizens as a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. The spatial analysis of Gezi Movement provided insight to the revolutionary potential of urban movements in neoliberal age.