Rowhouses and No Parking Requirements: Coming to Seattle!

Great news! I’d love to hear from some architects about whether the details of the regulations are written well (the devil is really in the details with these things), but I see a lot of nice features. I’d love to end up with a building code that allows for San Francisco or Boston style row houses rather than the Seattle 6-pack.

Oh, and you were a bit vague on this bullet point: “The law also includes new design standards to improve the appearance of new low-rise buildings and make them fit better into neighborhoods”. I’m envisioning a required fascade that looks like a single family house?

Single family zones have a height limit of 30 feet. Now lowrise zones will have a height limit of 30 feet. Oh, woe is me, Chris!

Nice, but not enough. There should be no height limits within the vicinity of downtown nor parking requirements.

Ugly,crowded housing tailored-made for sleazy developers coming your way! (See U District near I-5)

Add 10 years and Erica’s got a retirement home.

Hi Fred. How’s it hanging?

To have no parking requirements is ridiculous! They are banking on people taking more transit to get around. The fact is that our transit system is inadequate, we are not NYC! People here drive. First build the transit infrastructure then lift the parking requirements. The way they are going about this is backwards. Build a rapid transit system that actually serves all areas of the city then we can consider this kind of development.

Meh.
If you ask me, we need building codes that require developers to build exactly as was done between 1900-1920. That’s when all the coolest buildings went up in Seattle.

Mister X: To have no parking requirements is ridiculous! … People here drive. First build the transit infrastructure then lift the parking requirements. The way they are going about this is backwards.

Mr. X, let’s accept your premise that they’re going about this backwards. So what? I fail to see the disaster here. I imagine most of the areas where this development would take place are already well-served by transit. A smattering of rowhouses as the market allows (how many are we really even talking about?) will only stimulate more pedestrian-friendly development and services. And you don’t need a ready-built rapid transit system for that.

For us to continue to rely on the same auto-centric zoning we’ve been relying on up until the point where we can do a clean handoff to a city full of rapid transit lines–well, that’s kinda like the Israelis going on building settlements in the West Bank right up until the time when there’s a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Whaddaya know, kinda hard to have that clean handoff when the facts on the ground have already preempted it.

But Mr. X, I’m sure you already know that. But hey, nice to see you suddenly start passing yourself off as a rapid transit supporter, if only for argument’s sake.

FYI, Mister X is not the same as Mr.X.

I’ve fallen for that myself, and I apologize to Mr. X for my confusion.

I would never think about buying or even renting a townhouse without dedicated parking. I walk most places, or take the bus. But I don’t want to have to deal with zone parking or other parking restrictions that come with street parking. If these units do not come with parking, then the owners will simply tie up all the street parking. Very bad idea.

I’d buy a home like this… if it sold for really cheap. Given there’s no parking, realtors don’t have a ton of leverage to ask more than $200K for a place like this unless there’s a batch of wealthy owners-to-be about to come in, people who can afford to park their car at a nearby off-site lot (as Downtowners in no-parking condos do: Don’t kid yourselves into thinking the people who own these homes will all just take our increasingly pricey and decreasingly reliable bus transit system to get around).

Ever heard of Zip Car?

Yes, they are banking on people taking more transit. That is what has been happening in Seattle, according to the census. Seattle is getting denser, and we are adding new transit options. Consider that over the next 15 years we will add grade-separated high capacity rail service from downtown to Capitol Hill, U-District, Roosevelt, and Northgate, and perhaps beyond; Seattle Street Car connecting ID/Chinatown, First Hill and Capitol Hill; new Rapid Ride lines to Ballard and other places.

We’ll never be New York, but we won’t get any closer to its level of transit service if we continue to favor and mandate personal automotive transportation.

And by the way, one can already get around most of Seattle pretty decently with METRO and Link. I don’t own a car, and I am far from alone. Not EVERYONE needs a car, so let’s stop MANDATING that every unit include a parking spot.

Chris may be a gadfly but he’s also a staunch defender of Eastlake, which happens to be lowrise and also happens to have been forced to house a number of those crappy 2000-2010 condos. Do I think the new rules will help? Nope. More cheap, ugly housing, blocking what little views we have left and the every-four-hour rotation of junky cars on the street. I can attest that neighborhood residents have not given up their cars (pssst, including the ones who bike to work) even as we have jammed ever closer together. This plan might look good on paper but it stinks where reality hits our neighborhood.

Less on property parking required really means only one thing more cars parking on the street. Come on Seattle have a good look at yourselves cars are everywhere, your city is up to it’s collective chins in cars and that isn’t changing. It isn’t density it’s congestion – enjoy it…

Actually the lowrise zones are mostly in places that already have pretty good transit, like the U-District, Capitol Hill, and Queen Anne, and are already close to jobs and shopping so in many cases you don’t even need a bus. The other good thing about these areas is there are a lot of zipcars–you can join and drive when you need to, without needing to own or maintain a car. If you really wanted to spend thousands of dollars a year on a car, there are garages for rent in the U-District.

The car-oriented townhouses built in lowrise zones the past decade are what’s ridiculous–in some cases like on 11th Ave NE right next to express bus stops and a short walk to the future light rail station! I’ll also throw in that car-oriented townhouses kill street life because of the loss of ground-level space to a garage. I’d prefer the old housing stay in place but if there’s development in transit-rich lowrise zones it better not be car-oriented.

Yeah, stuffwhitepeoplelike.com!

“one can already get around most of Seattle pretty decently with METRO”

that’s a joke right? You can get from Ballard To Cap Hill in 15-20 minutes on a Sunday morning by bus the way I can by car?

Yes, I have Zipcar. It gets fairly expensive if you use it more than occasionally (as in more than once a month or two), to where you may as well own a car if you use it more often.

One other thing about Zipcar, if you’re going to cite it as an argument for these homes, is that many of the neighborhoods that will see these homes probably don’t have a lot of Zipcars available, if any at all, within easy walking distance. Once you get past 1/2 mile walking distance between home and Zipcar it becomes a pain to utilize the service… on top of the cost ($7-10 an hour).

At least in the U-District, most of the new townhouses are rentals and I’d expect the same to be true of rowhouses or whatever. Some renters work at UW or downtown, or others are groups of students. I know this is confusing to people but in an urban center it’s entirely possible for investors to spend a million dollars on the expensive land and rent to people who cannot afford to buy. I assume they count on the investment paying off over the long term. It’s a little version of the $100m 200-unit apartment developments. They don’t build those for the fun of it either.

Not quite that fast, but you CAN get there (and not spend time looking for parking either). Anyway, you picked one of the WORST served set of endpoints in the metro system. A lot of other trips are as fast or faster comparing transit and cars.

But they won’t be cheap…..this is stuffwhitepeoplelike.com (and, of course, T Chen). Only upper middle class professionals invited; baristas and Kinkos workers be prepared for the commute from beautiful Tukwilla.

Ballard is badly served by transit? there’s what, 10 lines running through here? Even taking express buses downtown (#15), by car during rush hour is faster, especially since most mornings the #15 gets stuck behind some moron cyclist in the bus lane.

Which routes are faster by bus? I’ve tried them all from my part of Seattle and cars are always a minimum of 30% faster and are about 75% less hassle.

Sunday morning Ballard to Cap Hill? Down 15th, over on Denny, bang you’re there in 15 minutes. Done it many times. Bus? 45 minutes minimum….IF the bus shows up on time.

Dude, quit using my handle. Seriously!

Can we get some moderation on this sock puppet nonsense, please?

That said, it’s sure nice to know that every promise the City made during neighborhood planning to get people to accept more density is being broken.

The disaster (and that is a little bit of a strong word) is that people who own cars, and often more that one per unit, will not be deterred from buying units w/o dedicated parking if they can save money. This creates parking nightmares on the streets surrounding the development.

Density does not mean sleazy development. Vancouver BC is more than twice as dense as Seattle, and constantly figures as the most livable city in the world. Seattle doesn’t even figure.

This type of fear mongering has never turned out to be true.

We’re just copying what other cities did to get great transportation systems. You do both things in tandem.

Thats fine, but the city shouldn’t require dedicated parking. If the market asks for it, then that’s fine.

You’re probably not comparing apples to apples. How long does it take you to park downtown? It takes me a minimum of 10 minutes just to get out of a parking lot at 5, waiting for people to pay. But then there’s time spent walking to the lot.

It’s a bit faster to drive than to take the bus on my commute from Queen Anne. But not so much faster that it keeps me in a car.

I think you have a valid point about time savings in a car. But that’s just one factor. Add cost and convenience into the mix and there’s a reason many live here without owning a car.

Why are you trying to force people to have garages?

Lots of things are “entirely possible”. That doesn’t mean they shake down the way you’d anticipate or prefer, especially when someone else far beyond your reach is making those decisions from a profit-based standpoint. You can assume whatever you want but if your assumption is based upon a faith-based idealism as many urbanist presuppositions are, what’s actually going to happen is probably nothing close to what you envision.

The market isn’t stopping realtors from trying to sell real estate at a relative premium in a slumping economy. Some do rent their unsold homes out, sure, and some do buy a home with intention to rent that home or another home out. Most, however, still put a bloated tag on homes and hope for naive buyers with money to come calling. And enough may do so to justify that approach.

But nothing that can’t be handled with parking zones. Many (most?)
of these areas already have either parking time limits or paid street parking. I know the single family homes generally come with a few “free” parking spots in front of your house, but that’s not the case in our higher density areas.

I live half a block from one of these zones, and have about 5 zipcars within a 10 minute walk.

No cost factor for me, especially when I think about the time saved. My family’s car expenses every year barely run more than 5% of our income.

Now, if you want all the lower classes to take buses and get out of their cars, I have no problem with that.

Parking downtown? At work, it’s free and reserved.

When I’m shopping downtown? I use lots. Saturday and Sunday $6 lots are cheaper than the bus. Weekdays, 3-3 hours, marginally more expensive than the bus when my time is not factored in. Drive straight in, plus I have the added bonus of not having to deal with the bus stops at Crackhead and Pine with my kids.

You’ll be like New York soon enough. Our politicians here are busy bankrupting our transit systems while subsidizing parking lots and lower-ridership options like ferries. And of course we have extremely high parking requirements considering how much transit we have – ensuring that this transit is being used less and less.

What Matt said, and also, I guarantee you that if a significant quantity of new apartments or rowhouses are built in an area without many Zip Cars, more cars will be added quickly as demand rises.

When you factor in insurance, gas, parking, repairs, monthly payments/depreciation, car washes, etc. you can use it more than once or twice a month and still come out far ahead of car ownership. Also, you get greater flexibility: On a sunny day you can drive a convertible, when you’re headed off to home depot you can rent a pickup truck, when you’re headed skiing you can grab a Subaru. Plus, if you take a trip to Portland or Vancouver, BC, you can just take a bus or train there, and use a Zip Car when you need it there.

We are talking about minimum parking requirements not maximum parking requirements. Developers will build parking if they feel it’s needed to sell or rent, but the city will not require it in certain locations. In this case the city is getting out of the way and letting the market rule. Having maximum parking limits would be great but in that case you really do need good transit options.

Accepted.

Accepted.

We’re talking costs now? AAA estimates each car costs the average person $8,500 a year. But I’m guessing the average person isn’t paying for a parking place in a reserved spot in a downtown garage (sorry, it’s “free” – I forgot).

Actually Van BC is ranked 4th and we’re ranked 50th, just a few spots behind cities like Paris, London, Tokyo and New York. Which tells you something about the credibility of the Mercer survey. Although to Mercer’s credit, the point spread between the top 50 is quite small (108.6-99.8). By comparison, Baghdad scored 14.7.

Vancouver BC is a fine medium-sized city (like Auckland, Seattle and Portland, OR), a nice demonstration of how density in North America need not be threatening, but I can’t figure out how the gap between Vancouver BC and Seattle could be so large, or how it could outpoint cities like Paris, New York or Tokyo. It’s supposed to be a ranking for affluent expatriots on overseas assignments for corporate or government service. As such, one would think that the incomparable cultural opportunities of cities like New York or Paris would blow away comparatively provincial cities like Auckland, Wellington or Vancouver, BC. Furthermore, how does Toronto fall behind Vancouver? Toronto has lower crime, more economic options, more restaurants, sports and entertainment and cultural options, and lacks anything as desperate as you’ll find along Hastings St.

To conclude, I agree with you about density. It can lead to a lot of livability. But I would take Mercer with a grain of salt. Note also that even if you subscribe to Mercer’s credibility, it also lists comparatively low density cities like Wellington and Auckland high in “livability.” And Seattle and New York are virtual ties in Mercer’s scoring, despite New York having more than four times the density (Manhattan has 10X).

I don’t see that it’s a problem if no one gives up their cars. If they’re willing to put up with paying for it or circling the block endlessly, that’s their problem.

The Mercer list can be found here:

http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2010#Americas

And one more thing: How does Chicago outpoint New York? Seriously!? Chicago is a great city with fantastic modern architecture, but so does New York, and Chicago has significantly higher crime, fewer cultural and entertainment options, worse schools, worse transit options, is less cosmopolitan than New York, etc.

Exactly, I hope all the GenX acolytes who promote these scams end up destitute and living in these fireboxes when they start to get arthritis and gray hair (seems like that happens at age 45 for Seattle hipsters).

Your social security check should cover the 3 squares a day of ALPO while you lumber up and down the 4 flights of stairs carrying your reusable hemp tote bag. Of course, you’ll have to beg for rides from your grandchildren who don’t want to go to Grandma’s Creepy Neighborhood because there’s not parking like in a normal place.

So if one of these welfare queens has a car, where are they going to park it? Exactly…they are going to take a space away from the single family homes down the street.

Folks this is what is called “block busting”. Sleezey developers move a lot of Section 8′s into a middle class area, and degrade it so they can buy up the property at bargain rates.

You don’t own a car?

Are you a head of household or do you have children?

Do you work or are you a student?

Where are you required to be each day? How far do you travel?

It’s great to be a trust fund baby sitting in a condo paid for by daddum and mummie, and only have to wake up at 5pm to prep for the disco, but let’s hear from some serious adults.

No, it’s NOT ridiculous… The change is not to eliminate parking, it’s to remove the requirement for parking. If developers still want to put parking in, there’s nothing stopping them. This change simply provides opportunities to let the market determine which of us is right about the need for parking.

For me, personally, I’d like to see a range of living options in “traditional” 4-/6-pack spaces that provide a larger 3-,4-, or 5-bedroom with perhaps two parking spaces balanced out by a 1-bedroom or single room cottage that could be used by a retired senior or college student with no parking spaces necessary.

“Worse set of endpoints in the metro system”

Yes, but going to a parents house for Sunday dinner, or to church, or to a park or other event is a fairly standard transportation requirement!

So yet again, we see the Trans-Fascists requiring that everyone totally remake their lives to satisfy the “optimal bus system”!

Sorry you can’t afford a car and a better place to live buddy! Keep trying you’ll make it to your dream home in Shoreline some day…

You mean like in NYC or San Francisco, both of which require parking?

“That’s their problem” is a great way to gain support and get people on board with your ideology.

Oh wait, no it isn’t.

People who insist that the entire city be organized around access and use by cars are not to be won over. They are to be overcome.

Free use of on-street parking is a public subsidy of existing homeowners. They’re requiring new properties to fulfill requirements not filled by their own property, i.e. to support all the cars of their residents.

Meanwhile, in the real world, when parking becomes harder more people give up their cars.

Except they don’t.

Or you could grow up, buy a nice single family home home north of the ship canal, and get paid enough that a car becomes a minor expense.

But keep your dreams low T Chen. you set a fine example for all under-achievers….”yes, you too, can depend on the bus”.

Yeah, use a zip car…

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/08/01/1280724227-39200_1477040400672_1073588173_1415126_4204009_n.jpg

Convertible? hell, why not this one:

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/08/01/1280724227-39200_1477040400672_1073588173_1415126_4204009_n.jpg

Oh, wait, no car available for you? No worries, you’re a 2-something with no kids and a part time BS job, you have time to wait or just do the errand tomorrow.

“20-something “

New York does

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tWqVEsfzEcYJ:furmancenter.org/files/publications/Parking_Requirements_Submitted_TRB_resubmit_withref-1.pdf+new+york+does+new+construction+require+parking&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgxX-m-q5Ji2KyKleNUQd_TaANnDXIDFCyIaT4Y6PJc1cDjwQjpnwh9dm970xKqIt7mBSXGtI8geONBLUTOPw35HqFiz5l5oR2B6XLkj8N3FnMJ2rc1WJSqAwa9sEBJexRS206v&sig=AHIEtbSLaDZU73LBRdi0z15TxisyI6wvXA

You are right about SF though, they just instituted a parking maximum (my comment was based on previous regs)

Huh, in my original response, I started out quoting “Mister X” and then just proceeded to abbreviate it as “Mr. X,” having no idea there was a distinction.

My apologies to Mr. X. Replace all above references to “Mr. X” with “Mister X.”

P.S. Now I’m asking myself, “Julius Erving. Dr. J or Doctor J?”

Isn’t that the great thing about America though, that we can aspire to different dreams? For some, the American dream means living in Shoreline and having two cars for the 10 hours spent commuting each week. For others, it means not having to rely on cars because one can walk, bike or take a quick bus trip (and in the future a hop on a Link subway station) to grocery stores, hardware stores, coffee shops, libraries, book stores and the region’s top sports and entertainment venues.

ECB: some factual errors

“basically, from three to a potential four stories” – four stories are not allowed in these zones

“[FAR]…more flexibility in building size” – FAR limits the building size (volume) but gives flexibility in how that volume is laid out over its footprint

“Row houses would not be subject to the same density limits as auto-oriented townhouses, allowing them to cover more of a lot” – rowhouses get added FAR, so they can be slightly larger (developers make money on selling what they build so the idea is letting them build more may make them prefer a rowhouse). they can cover more of the lot because they have looser setback rules. a rowhouse can be built to the property line, which will come as a surprise to some that will live next door.

One thing this new code does is blurs the lines between low density multifmaily zones and higher density zones. the number of units will also increase because unit sizes will now be smaller. instead of requiring apartment buildings in the higher zones, townhouses could still be built.

also, an example of the shock factor:
a formerly zoned L1 lot (5000 sq ft) in an urban village is now zoned LR2. before, the infill expected was 3 townhouses with their own parking. now, a 12 unit apartment building, with no parking could be built.

this may get some density advocates excited, but the house next door may not be…

Ahh, so you’re worried about free loaders causing negative externalities that affect responsible citizens. So I suppose you were an enthusiastic supporter of Health Care Reform’s individual mandate, right? And financial reform, too…?

Ahh, so you’re worried about free loaders causing negative externalities that affect responsible citizens. So I suppose you were an enthusiastic supporter of Health Care Reform’s individual mandate, right? And financial reform, too…?

That’s the thing about walkable urban neighborhoods: Seniors can still have an independent life without the Buick LeSabre or Toyota Avalon. They can stroll to a library, coffee shop, grocery store, restaurant or park even when they have become unsafe drivers.

That’s the thing about walkable urban neighborhoods: Seniors can still have an independent life without the Buick LeSabre or Toyota Avalon. They can stroll to a library, coffee shop, grocery store, restaurant or park even when they have become unsafe drivers.

That’s the thing about walkable urban neighborhoods: Seniors can still have an independent life without the Buick LeSabre or Toyota Avalon. They can stroll to a library, coffee shop, grocery store, restaurant or park even when they have become unsafe drivers.

Oh so well said! Bravo!! T_Chen is a broken record…. If I had a dollar for every little Capitol Hill punk I’ve heard give this line and then seen grow up and head on out to the burbs to raise their family I’d live in Medina…

Oh so well said! Bravo!! T_Chen is a broken record…. If I had a dollar for every little Capitol Hill punk I’ve heard give this line and then seen grow up and head on out to the burbs to raise their family I’d live in Medina…

Oh so well said! Bravo!! T_Chen is a broken record…. If I had a dollar for every little Capitol Hill punk I’ve heard give this line and then seen grow up and head on out to the burbs to raise their family I’d live in Medina…

Head of household? I think my wife and I share those responsibilities. No children yet.

Together my wife and I work three jobs. Our jobs are within 1-2 miles of our apartment north of downtown. Sometimes we walk, sometimes we ride the bus. My employer offers a subsidized ORCA pass or free parking. I choose the ORCA pass and save a lot on transportation compared to my car owning co-workers even with free parking.

Your (apparent) genuine shock that someone could live a productive and fulfilling life without a car in Seattle is fascinating and speaks volumes about the mindsets of many in this country.

[Billg] Name one. I myself am raising a family in the city, and I highly recommend it.

Yeah, it may not be for everyone. Why do you seem so hostile to the idea that not everyone wants to live in a big suburban McMansion with 2-3 cars in the garage?

No. It’s about a trade-off. You will pay more per square foot to live in Seattle’s urban neighborhoods, but you will be able to live without a car or with fewer cars than if you choose to live in Tukwila or Issaquah. The deal is, your apartment is smaller, and maybe you don’t have a yard, but you’ll be able to walk to parks and other attractions from your apartment.

There are plenty of baristas and Kinkos workers living in Seattle, but they may have to have a studio apartment instead of a larger one, or share a house with three other roommates to do so.

The Census Bureau’s statistics show that more Seattle residents today are commuting by public transit and bicycles than 10 years ago. This trend will continue as density increases, and car ownership becomes increasingly expensive.

Do these regulations rezone as well? Are all L1 lots in urban villages now LR2, or only some?

all LDT is now LR1. all L1 in urban villages is now LR2.

no parking is required in urban villages except a couple places (well connected or over-parked i do not know)

also, if ‘built green’, a Master Builders self-designation, unity density is re increased or can be unlimited in some cases. so in affect, all zones will get more units, just a little smaller.

this IS an up zone for all…

@Billg “Oh so well said! Bravo!! T_Chen is a broken record…. If I had a dollar for every little Capitol Hill punk I’ve heard give this line and then seen grow up and head on out to the burbs to raise their family I’d live in Medina…”

And maybe they’ll move into a luxury condo downtown after their kids grow up and leave…

But so what if some people choose a different place to live at a different time in their life?

Since there are so many different needs in life for different households, why should the city mandate a one-size-fits-all parking requirement? You’ll never hear me argue that NO ONE should own a car or that EVERYONE should live in a dense urban center in an apartment or condo. Why are you anti-density people so threatened by public policy that would offer OPTIONS besides life in a car-dependent suburb?

NYC does not require parking.

“Chicago has significantly higher crime, fewer cultural and entertainment options, worse schools, worse transit options, is less cosmopolitan than New York, etc. ”

Less cosmopolitan? Worse transit? Have you EVER been to Chicago?

You live a mile away from work and have no children. Your genuine shock that other people actually have (gasp!) lifestyles that require greater time commitments speaks volumes about your mindset as well.

Really!? You think Chicago is as cosmopolitan as NYC? Home to the UN? Home to countless immigrants? Packed with tourists from Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America?

And you think the “L” is better than NY’s subway? Just for comparison, NYC’s subway ridership per weekday is 7.5 million, nearly equaling its population of 8.4 million. Chicago’s is 638,000, far below its population of around 3 million. NYC’s subway has 24 lines and 468 stations. Chicago’s L has 8 lines and 144 stations.

I enjoyed my visit to Chicago, and it is a big and exciting city, but it suffers from the big urban American maladies of crime and corruption to a degree worse than NYC, with less of the panache, culture, and cosmopolitan excitement of the Big Apple.

Why do you bother typing out a long response to John Bailo? He’ll either ignore it completely, or ignore the content just start talking about tax rapists and trans-fascists, etc.

If you feel the need, just tell him to shut up and stop trolling.

Okay, that’s one! Can you speak for the rest as well? Or are we going to be morons and consider the one zone you live near a definitive example?

Ah, but I never have expressed shock that someone else might own a car. This debate is about parking REQUIREMENTS.

You can make this point on a thread called “No Parking Allowed: Coming to Seattle!” when I post comments approvingly.

You will struggle in vain to quote anything I’ve said where I insist that my lifestyle would work for everyone. I’m just asking that you don’t force me or everyone else to pay extra for a parking spot if I want to buy a condo or rowhouse.

Ah, but I never have expressed shock that someone else might own a car. This debate is about parking REQUIREMENTS.

You can make this point on a thread called “No Parking Allowed: Coming to Seattle!” when I post comments approvingly.

You will struggle in vain to quote anything I’ve said where I insist that my lifestyle would work for everyone. I’m just asking that you don’t force me or everyone else to pay extra for a parking spot if I want to buy a condo or rowhouse.

Ah, but I never have expressed shock that someone else might own a car. This debate is about parking REQUIREMENTS.

You can make this point on a thread called “No Parking Allowed: Coming to Seattle!” when I post comments approvingly.

You will struggle in vain to quote anything I’ve said where I insist that my lifestyle would work for everyone. I’m just asking that you don’t force me or everyone else to pay extra for a parking spot if I want to buy a condo or rowhouse.

Coercion through malicious negligence will not win your movement followers.

Urbists lose again!

Smarter people live in sparsely populated small towns!

Density Myths Dispelled !!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B04O520101201

(Reuters Life!) – Forget New York, Chicago and even Los Angeles, brain power in the United States is concentrated in smaller cities with Boulder, Colorado and Ann Arbor, Michigan at the top of the list.

[...]

“We often associate larger cities as the centers of education and culture, and therefore epicenters for the country’s smartest people,” said J. Jennings Moss, editor of Portfolio.com.

“However this study shows that smaller cities can attract some significant brain power. Out of the top 10 smartest places, six of them have populations of less than one million people.”

Is that who Tony Tea is? I guess I respond for the benefit of others who might be persuaded by Bailo, because Bailo does have a pathological resistance to facts. E.g., repeatedly posting bizarre claims such as “Seattle is depopulating.”

Are you replying to yourself?

You have your dreams, I have mine. One of mine is to be able to afford to live in a place where I don’t have to have a car. Unfortunately b/c of restrictive zoning laws this is harder to do than it should be. I SHOULD have enough saved up after this next deployment to be able to come back to Seattle and get a little place on Beacon Hill, but we’ll see.

Why are so opposed to the free market?

It won’t be long until we annex Kent and FORCE you to give up your cars.

Sure it will. The people stuck in the old way of doing things will eventually die or move away. The people that move into the new reality will think it’s the most natural thing in the world, just as they do in Capitol Hill and other places where there’s less than one space per unit.

Or, we could wait forever for 100% consensus and raise a new generation to think free parking is the norm.

I love all the “NEW YORKERS NEED CARS!” chatter some of these morons use. I bet they’ve never set foot in Manhattan.

Stop replying to John. You’re just encouraging him.

You realize that one of the reasons it is so expensive to be able to afford to live in the city are the restrictive zoning laws which you are championing here, right?

Ever heard of supply and demand? Artificially constrict supply (by telling people what they can and can’t build on their own land) and prices go up.

And I reject the idea that failing to provide unlimited free parking is not “coercion”. Is the City “coercing” people by not building a huge free parking garage downtown for everyone who might conceivably want to drive there?

Hmmm… what do places like Boulder and Ann Arbor have in common? Oh, and other cities on the list included Madison, WI, and Boston…

I give up! I can’t think of any connection there. I bet it’s just a product of being relatively small and not having a lot of highrises.

Just get rid of parking requirements and use a Boston-style parking zone system.

mangled the syntax, but you know what I mean.

Why don’t you stop posting under various names?

I didn’t claim it was a definitive example. It was a single datapoint counterdicting your irresponsible claim that urban villages probably don’t have access to Zipcars. I live near one, and can walk to 5 Zipcars. The fact is there are hundreds of zipcars in Seattle.

I’m not quite following you. I’m not talking about the future, I’m referring to what I observed happening when I lived in the U-District from 2003-2009, talking with neighbors who actually lived in (rented) the townhouses. I have not talked to any of the investors, I have no idea how their business works, though there is the empirical evidence of real estate transactions and rental listings. I did overestimate the land value; looks like assessments for SF5000 lots in U-District Lowrise zones are more like $400,000.

This has more to do with income levels and universities than city size. Note: Seattle is on the list. Kent is not.

This just in!!! 10 out of 10 of the lowest brainpower cities have less than 1 million people. And 5 out of 10 are in California. And one is Yakima*.

* 30% dropped out before finishing high school? Can we get decent education funding in this state yet?

Scratch that. They considered metro areas in with cities. I wonder what the numbers would look like if we were able to exclude places like Kent.

I don’t think John B is aware of schools that aren’t hawked by Sally Struthers on late late night TV…

Niiicccceeee.

“All outstanding City of Boston parking tickets must be paid before applying for or renewing a resident parking permit.”

How many millions are owed to the city in parking tickets?

Two birds, one stone.

YEP. All it takes is people willing to think around the box, not even outside of it, and willing to tell any political forces that raise a stink to bugger off.

Martin, you don’t even have to grow up in the environment to realize it is possible.

I grew up in a small farming town in S. Alabama, where the only public transportation was the school bus, but all it took was living in Germany for a bit for me to realize that a car IS NOT required for daily life. And at least in my opinion life was considerably better without one (although it wasn’t just the lack of car, but entire built environment that goes along with non-autocentric lifestyles).

Please provide a source that contradicts the detailed study I linked to.

…and San Francisco had been building out their transit system for close to 40 years before reducing parking requirements (and businesses do still have to provide parking to get use permits, btw).

I just pointed out that NYC does indeed require parking – I certainly never said that Manhattan residents need cars…

I don’t know, but if we exclude Kent we’d lose some of these timeless classics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkeAJl2aLGM

And I assume New York has been building up for hundreds of years without parking requirements (perhaps they had some in since the ’50′s or so, but that’s not when the city was really built up).

I only think in the same corner of the box that I pee in.

Not true. Parking zones don’t reduce the number of resident-owned vehicles parked on the streets. There are residential parking zones in Seattle with more permits distributed than parking spots, so some people obviously can not find parking near their homes, even if they have a permit.

The fewer off-street parking spots there are, the worse the onstreet parking is, parking zone, or not.

Everyone can find a single exception amidst a large sample. I clearly didn’t say that ALL the zones had insufficient Zipcar access. You’ll need to point out more.

Again, faith-based idealism. Unless you can document it.

Again, faith-based idealism. Unless you can document it.

If you can assure that the economy and market will continue in 2011 and beyond exactly as it did during 2003-2009, which saw the tail end of an artificial economic boom cycle, then you’re on point. Until then….

How could I document something in the future?

Faith-based idealism? It’s not like we’re talking about building grade separated rail or something. We’re not talking about middle east peace here.

All Zip Car does is make a deal for a couple of parking spots with someone who owns a parking lot or parking garage in an area. They are constantly monitoring demand and would jump at the chance to add new customers in densifying areas.

All this will be shaken out when developers start building condos/apartments without enough parking spaces. Until then, it’s all just contentious pilpul. But I’m betting that when the census of child-less and over-40 Seattleites is fully housed, the excess condos and apartments without parking spaces will remain empty.

Controlling parking supply is not rocket science. Too many permits issued? Issue fewer permits. Or put in parking meters.

Despite the feeling in some SF neighborhoods, there is no constitutional right to free parking in front of your house. This is especially true in front of higher density housing.

“Parking zones don’t reduce the number of resident-owned vehicles parked on the streets.” Care to cite a reference for that? Common sense points us in the other direction.

Around here it’s not just the legislators who don’t read the document.
If one has to be an Eastlake gadfly to know the difference between LR1 and LR2 with a 30′ height limit (plus 5′ pitched roof) and “LR3-inside” (all urban villages, e.g. Eastlake) with a 40′ height limit plus 10′ pitched roof—so be it.

I am curious that the readying for adoption comes with a photo of one of the few townhouse communities that features legal access easements (strangely distorted to look like the best of the illegal ones). Message from Council puppeteer(s) to switch from bad to good or P-cola just not know the difference. I miss real reporters.

I also pointed out there are hundreds of Zipcars in Seattle. Let’s start by you pointing to one Seattle urban village without a Zipcar within a 10 minute walk.

I also pointed out there are hundreds of Zipcars in Seattle. Let’s start by you pointing to one Seattle urban village without a Zipcar within a 10 minute walk.

That’s not how the market works. Supply and demand meet at a price point. Any empty housing is owned by speculators hoping for a change in the market.

Clearly.

Sigh. The source you link to does not actually summarize the rules.
I lived in NYC, all over manhattan and brooklyn, saw lots of new construction, and no you don’t need parking. I lived in a 39 story tower in manhattan, you were not required to have a parking space in the building. there are tons and tons of rowhouse areas and no, when they build a new one or do a substantial capital upgrade, NO, you are not required to have parking. And, stores exist without parking, in fact, most people exist without parking, and what does this prove?

No, you don’t need parking.

I then looked at the study you linked to. Like about half the people who link to things, it doesn’t prove what you say. Here’s what part of it says:

parking requirements. In addition, new construction in most of
Manhattan (the City’s densest borough) requires no off-street parking at all because of air
quality concerns going back to the early 1980s (New York Times, 1981). In fact, new
off-street parking in this zone is generally prohibited. Lower density districts, in contrast,
have higher per-unit parking requirements, topping out at 2 spaces per new unit in parts
of Staten Island and, to a lesser extent, some parts of The Bronx. These regulations are
designed to accommodate higher auto ownership and limit future development to match
perceived neighborhood capacity constraints (DCP, 2006). In certain zoning districts,
reductions or waivers are offered for small or narrow lots, developments that would result
in only a small number of required parking spaces, and affordable and elderly housing
developments (DCP, 2009).
_____________
Thus: no parking is required in manhattan, what most of us mean when we say “NYC.”
PArking is required in Staten Island. Um, 99% of the people on this website have never been there, don’t know what it is like, and don’t think of it as part of NYC.
For the rest there are substantial rules meaning you certainly don’t require one parking space per unit, because in the places where some parking is required it’s only 50% then the exceptions for small lots also mean many lots are exempt.

(BTW we have so many small lots in Seattle, many of ours would be exempt too).

Bottom line: substantially misleading linkage took place. “NYC does indeed require parking” is substantially not true, and is misleading. Please rescind your comments to read: “In Manhattan parking is not required, in the other boroughs in the densie parts there is only minimal parking required sometimes just 50% of the units, meaning parking is not required for half the units, and then there are so many other exceptiosn for small lots and such that the overall impact is that in most of NYC in the densest boroughts, PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED AS A GENERAL RULE, and it’s only in the suburban like, low population staten island that is like the rest of america or seattle in requiring parking.”

Thank you.

I can get from Ballard/West Woodland to Capitol Hill in well under 45 minutes on a Sunday morning by taking the 44, then transferring to the 43 or 49, whichever comes first. The 44, 43 and 49 are some of the most frequent routes in the entire Metro system.

I’m not convinced Tony Tea is John.

I know he did a few spot on Bailo posts about London, but the rest isn’t Bailo’s writing style. I’d rather John would chime in and clear that up.

Unless it is John, of course. But we have a troll far worse among us.
One that makes John look like a cuddly teddy bear.

So all that empty housing in Detroit and Camden is owned by speculators? I beg to differ.

Zipcar no longer serves North Beacon Hill, which is an urban village and the location of a Link station as well. The nearest zipcar is in Columbia City, which is a hike and also down a steep hill — though, admittedly, one could take Link to get there.

I actually agree with you in general in this conversation. However, I have less faith in Zipcar than you do. They took away the Beacon Hill Zipcar a few months before the light rail opened, which certainly seemed short-sighted.

Houses without yards= condo owners demanding parks
Houses without parking= 6-pack owners demanding on-street parking

I am just not seeing a meaningful amount of unused parking in areas with this kind of density, this will not make it better.

As long as we insist on segregating work places from living places we will have strange demands for expediting the distance, and mitigating the trade-offs, usually with tax money.

We are going to need to loosen up the restrictions on where commercial parking can go, or bar people that buy these cardboard boxes from burdening the city by also owning a car.

Well, I think whoever the guy is, he seems to be getting more and more followers, so it just seems like different names but its really more people with the same idea that density makes cities worse.

Seems like the smart people like low desnity and smal cities.

Why are you afriad of sparsity?

People in urban settings don’t walk that much because everything is so close together, they barely budge from their apartmnts.

And remember, buses and trains are highly subsidized, so fares only account for something like 6 percent of actual cost.

Those who own cars are paying the cost of people who exclusively ride transit.

Did you notice that in that nationwide sweep of underage prostitutes two or three weeks ago by the FBI and local law enforcement that of the 69 girls picked up across the country 8 were in little old Kent, WA. That is 12% of the national total. You might have thought that the capitol of juvenile prostitution might be some major city with a population of many millions, but no perv central is Kent, WA.

@Sparsecus

Let me back off & say that maybe you are John.
But it’s true, my “like” percentage has gone way down and yours is skyrocketing. Guess the “fuck the homeless” crowd is winning the day.

Can anyone get from Ballard to anywhere in less than an hour? The only reason that neighborhood has the lively business district it has is because you’re pretty much stuck there.

…and speaking of crappy developments. Everything south of Market is a future tenement. I’d rather invest in Rainier Beach or Skyway.

@Sparsecus

“so it just seems like different names but its really more people”

This I disagree with. It’s just you x50 names.
But congrats on your effort. It’s working.

These are not single family, these are low rise apartments.

They require some parking in some places, much less than Seattle.

I think Capisce? makes an interesting argument, but there is indeed more to New York City than Manhattan (just as there is more to Seattle than Downtown and Capitol Hill).

Removing all parking requirements in lowrise zones in Seattle affects a lot more neighborhoods than urban centers such as Capitol Hill or the University District (the latter of which accepted that designation and increased density during thorough neighborhood and station planning processes conditioned on the retention of parking, open space and setback requirements, which the City has since systematically gone about gutting), and it is indeed relevant that there are parking requirements that apply in the largest boroughs of NYC, and that those places have still manage to have plenty of transit users despite those EVIL parking requirements.

Are you kidding me?

There are other livability surveys besides Mercer. The Economist and Monocle for instance, both do one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities

The Vancouver thing is really a conundrum. It ranks very highly in two livability surveys, and isn’t even in the top 10 in the 3rd.

But you make a great point, these surveys (while very useful) are almost always aimed at wealthy types. What does Vancouver have that makes it rank higher than say, Vienna? I don’t get it.

..and when they breed? Off to Tukwilla!

Come one T-Chen, I support urbanism despite my rantings here. Why? Because it drives out the poor, raises property values and makes nice, mainly white, hip neighborhoods.

THat would make NYC the cheapest place on earth…..

This is long overdue. The parking requirement is responsible for some of our ugliest developments. Want to know why “density” is a bad word in many parts of the city? The parking requirement. In the 1980s, developers mowed down house after house in Ballard, replacing them with ugly duplexes and quads. The concrete surrounding the duplex (for parking) was especially ugly. If you walked around the neighborhood, it was striking. Interesting house after interesting house (with interesting and varied landscaping) being replaced by ugly duplex, concrete and maybe a rhody or two.

The parking requirement was (and is) stupid. Why stop there? Why not require a certain amount of storage? Or require a big lawn? Seriously, there are lots of different things that people might want in a home, but why should we require the developer to deliver it? Shouldn’t the market decide? If enough people want places with parking, then more developers will make them. But a lot of people would rather just have a cheaper place. Some of those people will use other forms of transportation, some will park on the street, and some will pay to park in a garage.

It took 148 posts for someone to sum it up. Thanks rossb.

All these developments are going to be within a mile of the city center, in neihgborhoods that already have heavy development? None in Crown Hill, or Rainier Valley, Wedgwood or Lake City, West Seattle or Columbia City? You do realize the Zipcar pickings get thin once you get as little far north as Wallingford, or anywhere in the south end.

All these developments are going to be within a mile of the city center, in neighborhoods that already have heavy development? None in Crown Hill, or Rainier Valley, Wedgwood or Lake City, West Seattle or Columbia City? You do realize the Zipcar pickings get thin once you get as little far north as Wallingford, or anywhere in the south end.

Documenting evidence that your beliefs are based in fact isn’t hard. Has anyone at Zipcar been quoted or documented in concrete unambiguous terms that they absolutely will expand to these underserved areas if these developments arise? Have any developers been quoted as willing to expand operations around these areas in any way? These things don’t happen by themselves in the short or even medium term. If they have no plans to do so, they probably aren’t happening barring miraculous growth that forces their hand.

How could they? You can get a permit for every car you own, in Seattle. Plus a guest permit for every resident, if you want it. There are the same number of resident-owned cars in a residential parking zone after the zone goes in as before it goes in. They all just have parking permits, if they don’t have off-street parking spots.

Parking zones decrease the number of non-resident-owned cars parked on the streets during certain hours. But, if there is no off-street parking for residents, then all residents are going to park on the streets, whether there is a parking zone, or not. If there aren’t any off-street parking spots, where else are residents going to park, except on the street?

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that you can’t live without a car. Hell, I’ve never owned a car since moving here and I do fine, so I agree you can certainly live without one in the right circumstances.

However, people are not going to give up their cars just because you try to make their lives miserable. They’ll just park a few blocks down the street or live somewhere else. But you’re not going to win anyone over and the driving force that pushes back the pro-transit urban movement will simply grow stronger. Negativity does not breed positive results, ever.

Grover is incorrect – the City has sharply limited the number of permits that households can obtain (and as someone who signed one of the original petitions establishing an RPZ on the block I used to live on based on the promise that I would be able to get a guest permit for my second car without charge I am appalled. Not surprised anymore, mind you, but appalled nonetheless).

Indeed. The urban design cult can’t offer more convenient transit, so they want to punish everyone who relies on their car (and will for the foreseeable future) instead.

“Interesting house after interesting house (with interesting and varied landscaping) being replaced by ugly duplex, concrete and maybe a rhody or two.”

Well, now it’ll be a solid wall for the width of the lot and hardscape to the lot line, so hardly an aesthetic improvement. “Green” buildings taking out all trees except street saplings that’ll never amount to much.

Supply AND DEMAND ya moron!

Not to mention that there a couple of other factors other than zoning laws that constrict supply.

Mr X and Gomez, it isn’t about punishing car ownership for the sake of spite, but about not putting it on a pedestal, and declaring the status quo to be the left limit for any discussion. For example, taking GP lanes to give to transit to speed up service and reliability. That IS offering more convenient transit, but even suggest it and all of a sudden it’s a WAR ON CARS!!!11!!

hey tony tea, Fuck You You Worthless Fuck. I lived in Seattle on $8.50 an hour; I lived in Capitol Hill and worked in Redmond. Obviously I did not have, or could afford a car.

I grew up in Ballard, w/ just a mom. She worked full time downtown, later, she always was a fully time student. We never had a car. I played little league, got decent grades, had friends etc. It works just fine.

[Grover] I’m afraid you are a victim of what some call “car head”. It’s easy to fall into this trap, of thinking everyone must have a car and thinking only in terms of a driver. But let’s go back to your point:

“If there aren’t any off-street parking spots, where else are residents going to park, except on the street?”

Assuming the number of on-street spots are limited, and the number of off-street spots go down… I don’t know. They must start driving their cars into their apartments. Or maybe some that buy garageless units won’t own cars, or will sell them. No, that can’t be it.

[John], my question is why you’re so much in love with it. I’ve found very few supporters of sprawl. Don’t get me wrong, those that love their cars are in the majority. But their arguments are generally aimed at selfishly keeping the status quo so that their lives won’t change. There are very few that think through the effects of sprawl and come out with the conclusion that it’s a good thing. Despite the vast waste of resources, energy, human life (in the form of driving time or car accidents), green space, and increase in all forms of pollution, you’ve come to the conclusion that sprawl is just dandy.

Why? What do you think we’re missing? Part of me thinks you just love being contrarian. But it’s tough to believe you’d spend so much time at this if that were your only motivation, and it’s more likely you honestly believe sprawl is the way to a better world.. If there’s real logic behind your position, please share it.

It’s a little more complicated when there is no demand. But Seattle is very far from this point, as you can see from the housing price difference between Seattle and the suburbs/exurbs.

Though I’d say even in those cases there’s still demand. You’re telling me that if banks offered these houses for $100 nobody would move to Detroit to take that deal?

It’s a little more complicated when there is no demand. But Seattle is very far from this point, as you can see from the housing price difference between Seattle and the suburbs/exurbs.

Though I’d say even in those cases there’s still demand. You’re telling me that if banks offered these houses for $100 nobody would move to Detroit to take that deal?

Yes, why look at Greenwich Village in NYC, or Brooklyn Heights, or Friendship in DC, they look so awful and the row houses are only going for $600K-$3 million each! And for very ugly architecture of that hardscape to the lot line, my god have you seen no. 10 Downing street in Londontown? what kind of slummy gangsta can bear to live there?

No, let’s keep our parking requirements they have produced all those byooootiful 1970s and 1980s buildings in Ballard with the open air parking and the stilts holding up the flats, and our byooootifal current “townpacks” with their cedar fences facing the street right at 11th and 50th and their byootiful entrances (drive into interior mini courtyard, wedge car into garage, then go up stairs) it’s so great how half of them don’t even face the street, those streetscapes we’re getting today are sooo nice. Solid fence. And anyone who’s been to boston or DC knows if you have rowhouses you can’t have a front yard or a setback or a porch or a veranda, no, they must all go right up to the lot line, it’s inherent in the rowhouse formula. No, Seattle must adjure what all other cities do, because look at how great our architecture is doing our own thing. If you doubt this just go visit the lowrises a few blocks from downtown Ballard that were built in the 70s and 80s, they are true gems!

We should not require so much in a dwelling unit. For some a 9 by 9 room with a bunk bed up high, a desk or love seat underneath, a single sink, a microwave and a minifridge and a bath down the hall is all we need. Maybe we eat out a lot or travel to whidbey every weekend or just don’t need anything more. But this is illegal. The housing code sets a defined product, this reduces choice and is anti free market.

You wouldn’t want a dress code amking you wear leather shoes and a coat and tie, why do we have to have a housing code mandating you have a full stove and a four burner oven — as if we’re still all baking bread every day, or cooking for a family of 4?

There is no one who lives in the suburbs who talks about “sprawl”. They are merely happy to have a car and a backyard.

“Sprawl” is a myth, made up by the professors, scammers, politicians and urbists seeking to con people out of their property and taxes.

So you’re really one of the short-sighted I love my car and backyard types? Then why do you care so much about what we do over here in the city?

This might be the least intelligent thing I’ve ever read on Publicola.

yes, and most transit systems aren’t generally built around those requirements. Outside of dense neighborhoods, Seattle’s certainly isn’t. You can’t begin to justify the expense based on the ridership. It’s not a “Fascist” issue, it’s an operational efficiency issue.

Of course, as Brendan points out, it’s entirely possible to get from Ballard to Cap Hill using the 44 to 43/49 transfer, and on a Sunday morning I would expect that to be a less than 45 minute trip.

Matt, there are people buying houses now in Detroit for less than $5K/apiece. The real gamble there is whether or not they’ll be part of the areas the City of Detroit decides it’s not going to take care of anymore, so you have to be careful about what you go after.

Clearly, however, your point is accurate that Detroit’s problem is an incredibly high lack of demand.

Anc, I’m sure that’s what most want but Martin’s tone and stated intent is clearly one of spite and hatred, and if he’s on the same page you claim, he’d be wise to show some more empathy and understanding for people who don’t live the way he wants them to, because that’s the key to winning people over. You’re not going to shift a cultural paradigm with malicious, hatefully motivated measures.

Bullshit. Fayetteville NC is ONLY suburbs, and I freakin hate it. My wife and I both.

As someone who grew up in a rural area (Atmore AL if you’d like to check it out) and worked on the farm growing up, sprawl is the worst of all possible worlds. You have the work, the distance from everything, the constant driving of living in a rural area, without any of the benefits. Can’t have a bonfire in your back yard, can’t have a friends band set up in the skinning shed (power there), throw a couple kegs in gut buckets and party all night long b/c you are in the middle of freaking no where, and you can’t jump in an old CJ and see how nasty you have to go to get it stuck….

I have no problem with rural areas, I plan to eventually buy a little piece of land outside Seattle and build me a camphouse like we got at my farm (even gonna call it Cowpen Creek), but I want to live in a city. And no way in hell will I even live in a sprawlopolis again.

Ahhhhhh, urbanism = more college educated white people driving up real estate values, even row houses.

So please built trains, trams, bike lanes, pocket parks and row houses, watch them fill up with white upper middle class professionals who want ‘green’, ‘walkability’ and ‘farmers markets’. then sit around and scratch your heads when you wonder why you can’t afford to live in Seattle.

Being the owner of a single family home with a garden and parking, I fully support this. After a few years stuffed in a condo or row house, these folks will need somewhere to move with some space in Seattle. Have you seen the price of a single family home with garden in San Fran?

You have no idea what you’re talking about Chen. I lived in both cities for five years … quoting numbers of subway stations to prove your point? please pal. You’re flailing here. Badly.

Row houses (elsewhere) have private rear yards. To see them you need an invitation (magazines sometimes weasel one). So why does Seattle’s proposed legislation allow zero rear setbacks for row houses? Rookies, or special interests at work?

Sorry, I forgot about Google Earth. Go look for your self!

So your answer to keep prices low is to build LESS housing?

How’s that work?

oh please wrote:

“You have no idea what you’re talking about Chen. I lived in both cities for five years … quoting numbers of subway stations to prove your point? please pal. You’re flailing here. Badly.”

I’ve produced more to back up my assertions than you have. What’s your case for why Chicago is a more cosmopolitan city with better transit than NYC?

You think NYC is a Milton Friedman-approved free market zone? Have you heard of rent control and zoning laws? Review boards? NYC’s market is more regulated than most cities. And as Anc points out, if there is a lot of DEMAND, and limited supply (i.e. land in Manhattan), there will be a high price.

We should not build parks, bike infrastructure and other things that make cities pleasant and its citizens healthy and happy so we can keep property cheap! In fact, make sure you through garbage on the streets and dump your old television in an abandoned property just to keep property values low!

We should not build parks, bike infrastructure and other things that make cities pleasant and its citizens healthy and happy so we can keep property cheap! In fact, make sure you through garbage on the streets and dump your old television in an abandoned property just to keep property values low!