Parking Requirements are a Joke

[FOTD]

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.

[OurTulsa]

Inside the IDL is the only place in Tulsa where there are no parking requirements...no parking maximums either.

[PonderInc]

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.)

[OurTulsa]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[OurTulsa]

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?

[PonderInc]

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

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."

[FOTD]

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.

[PonderInc]

Strategically placed shared parking facilities (the Blockbuster lot in Brookside is an unofficial example of how this works) are part of the solution.

[SXSW]

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. 

[OurTulsa]

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.

[nathanm]

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!)

[TheArtist]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.