Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fattom23 t1_j9uzlyc wrote

The fact that this article talks about the building and doesn't even mention the parking once. Ignoring that aspect is a good step toward denormalizing the idea that every building must provide parking.

75

dandykaufman2 t1_j9w2d1k wrote

It’s funny how people in NY say every building should have affordable housing units and everyone here says they should all have parking

21

Fattom23 t1_j9w46gj wrote

I've got my days that I just can't wrap my brain around the strangeness of insisting that nothing can be built unless it offers a ton of places to store your private property when you're not using it. This is one of those days: I really can't understand why people demand free abundant storage space for their stuff and then insist homes can't be built because it will interfere with that.

9

espressocycle t1_j9wxhzg wrote

Because a lot of people need cars because commuting to anywhere but Center City by SEPTA is very difficult. They live in houses without parking in neighborhoods with no paid parking lots and know what an apartment without parking is going to result in a lot of new residents who also have cars. You could, of course, solve that problem with permit parking that residents of the apartments can never be eligible for. That's not something we do but we totally could. A less draconian idea would be to grandfather in current residents or even houses to the current ridiculously cheap permits and make any new ones or ones associated with new apartments significantly more expensive.

10

Fattom23 t1_j9z327b wrote

I follow all that (I commuted for four years to Blue Bell with no car). But the only way your parking can be guaranteed is if you park on your own property. My house didn't come with a parking space (which wasn't a surprise to me, because I have eyes), so I park on the street, same as everyone else. But it would be ludicrous for me to expect other people to not build homes because I need to be sure I can continue to park my car on the public street with no issue. Street parking belongs to no one (not even homeowners, long-time residents or those who own traffic cones).

I stand by my original point that our plans for where to house people should take no account whatsoever of where anyone is going to store their car when they're not using it. People will either find a place or make other arrangements.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z3h0s wrote

Exactly. Just bc you “reverse commute” or something doesn’t mean we have to design for that current use. Let’s density and then you can figure your shit out. Maybe you’ll have to move to the burbs if you wanna work there.

2

espressocycle t1_ja0lmp4 wrote

Sure, people live in a neighborhood all their lives then some yuppies discover it and they have to move? Why not just ban new apartment residents from parking? If density is so great and nobody needs a car then people will be lining up to live in apartment buildings that do not come with the option to park on the street. And no, reverse commuting is impossible in most cases because there's no transit near the office parks. Hell just getting between neighborhoods in Philly without going through Center City is a pain in the ass.

0

dandykaufman2 t1_ja0qw7q wrote

So on what time scale are neighborhoods supposed to change if the can’t in one persons lifespan??

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nj8n wrote

I just told you how to change them. If you want to build up density to create a car-free utopia then ban the residents of new buildings from parking on the street or make their parking permits reflect the actual value of parking. It's really that simple. I always see urbanists insisting apartment buildings don't need on-site parking because everybody will take the bus or ride their bikes. If that's really true, then why are they allowed to get parking permits?

1

espressocycle t1_ja0l0ub wrote

Yes but if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot. I'm all for increasing density, but out of fairness to the people who already live there, there has to be some way to make sure that new apartments without parking don't bring more cars to the area. I mean people always say "the location has great transit, it doesn't need parking" but if that's true, don't let people who move there have parking permits.

2

Fattom23 t1_ja0mfvs wrote

>if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot.

That's absolutely true, but the solution isn't to force new construction to provide parking; that gives an unfair subsidy to people who have lived in the neighborhood longer (and choose to own one or more cars). They've been able to store their stuff in the street for essentially free for decades, and everyone who lives in the neighborhood has an equal moral right to the free property storage (even if they just moved in yesterday).

Let builders build what they believe they can profit from, and manage the parking separately. Either increase the cost of a parking permit until you get the number of cars that street parking can sustain (the capitalist solution) or implement a lottery and tell people who lose that they just aren't allowed to park their car on the public street (my preferred solution, but politically untenable).

In terms of "fairness to the people who already live there", the sooner we lost this idea that their house came with guaranteed free and convenient parking the better.

2

espressocycle t1_ja6nw6h wrote

I didn't say force developers to build parking I said don't let the residents of new developments park on the street.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7fjtg wrote

So those who already own houses get preferential treatment over everyone else? It's like US housing policy in microcosm; it has a certain elegance to its unfairness.

1

espressocycle t1_ja7ial5 wrote

Why is that preferential treatment? It's just letting them keep the parking availability associated with the density of their neighborhoods before someone decided to build apartment buildings after 150 years of nothing but rowhouses. Besides, parking is always the issue that makes people fight development, so take that off the table and it will be way easier to turn rowhouse neignhoods into higher density. Again, if it's really true that apartments don't attract car owners this will be win win for everyone.

1

Fattom23 t1_ja7r3dj wrote

We're obviously not ever going to agree on this, but there are words for people who demand benefits from the public stock for themselves that they deny to others and they aren't very flattering.

1

dskatz2 t1_j9xtl2d wrote

NY has an incredible public transit system. Philly does not. Cars are far more of a necessity here than in NYC. This sentiment isn't surprising.

6

mustang__1 t1_j9z0lzq wrote

Maybe if our subways and the el weren't shit and piss piles, ran more frequently, and ran to further locations, we wouldn't need a fucking car as much in this city. If I took the train to work it'd have to be regional rail - despite still being in the city. I'd get about a mile and change from work - and easy bike ride..... But no sidewalks lna death defying road to bike on. So I live somewhere with parking and reverse commute every day.

3

dandykaufman2 t1_j9z2cil wrote

That does suck for you, for real. Just wonder if cities should be built for “reverse commuters”. Doesn’t seem like a good policy/design goal.

2

mustang__1 t1_j9z4sza wrote

I mean.... Trains need to get downtown from where I work....

1

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vegx5 wrote

As some one that lives very close to this, I have to say, it's a mixed bag. Here's the deal as far as I see it.

If you plan on moving into Fishtown from this point on, don't plan on owning/ bringing a car. If you don't then you're fine. However, the reality is, a lot of people own cars and they won't see this being an issue until they have moved in and realize they are driving around for 45 minutes every night looking for parking. I see this happen all of the time and it leads to people parking in dangerous or illegal spots, because there is no parking.

I get the whole "the city should be for city people" but is this really a tangible reality? The demographic that Fishtown attracts are upper middle to upper class young singles or couples. Driving is indeed a luxury and those that can afford luxuries will want to keep them. So how does it work out that the same people that are being attracted are supposed to willingly give up one of their greatest and most beneficial luxuries? I know a decent amount of people in this immediate area and I can't think of an instance where at least one household who doesn't own a car.

4

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9voaa9 wrote

This is a self-solving issue. People will bring cars, be upset by the hassle it is to have a car, and normal people will be like well what the fuck did you think was gonna happen, dipshit?

If they manage to build out this area without cars, with many small shops and restaurants, finish and connect the Rail Park, and build out better street car infra, increase service on the metro, and even in 5-10 years a new metro line that goes parallel to 95, that area would become a whole new “downtown” style of area by itself. There is so much space in Philly, this whole project could be really really great. I’m excited.

17

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9vrq2v wrote

Is there such a plan for a rail line that follows 95?

3

tkdnw t1_j9vv21g wrote

No Unless they mean restoring the 15 to Port Richmond after work on 95 is done (a decade out from now)

6

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9vxwgf wrote

No but there should be one. DC had had a lot of success building new metro rail that is just adjacent or parallel to their big highways.

2

Philitian t1_j9wdtkw wrote

It's absolutely tangible. Only 22% of households in Manhattan own a car, and it's one of the richest places in the country.

What's the solution? Further integrated cycling & transit networks, for one. If the MFL were even slightly cleaned up it would alleviate this significantly. If it didn't feel like a death trap biking through NoLibs down to Old City through the 95/676 interchange, way way more people would take up cycling.

It's an opportunity for car rental companies to market towards people that only desire occasional use of a car, and would rather sell their personal vehicle due to the hassle.

The long-term solution is to de-incentivize car commuting in NE Philly entirely by capping or reducing the capacity for 95, but we're a long ways away from that being a politically popular suggestion.

9

nowtayneicangetinto t1_j9x1e45 wrote

New York City proper is absolutely massive in comparison to Philly. It's like comparing the Earth to Jupiter. The amount of high paying jobs available to New Yorkers is far greater than Philadelphia. I tried to work in Center City but I couldn't find a job where I wasn't taking a pay cut, and the pay I found was much higher in the burbs. The truth of the situation is that a carless Philly isn't possible nor will it ever be in our lifetimes.

6

Philitian t1_j9x5lts wrote

It's always been a tax war with the suburbs & edge cities. They're still planning a rail extension to KOP. I'm not an economist, and I'm not going to argue whether the wage tax or the business taxes in Philly need to be cut to compete with the burbs, but I will say that the way these municipalities encourage businesses to locate their operations miles and miles from our population centers is appalling.

But one thing that I can speak with certainty of, is that the greater the professional labor pool there is within the city limits, the more employers will be incentivized to take advantage of it and seek more competitive candidates by relocating to the city. That can only come with continual investment in the city, regardless of the barriers.

I don't get why Philly people are so deprecating about this place. This city's seen such persistent development & job growth over the past decade, yet people still want to act like it's destined to stay in the gutter. It's weird.

7

mustang__1 t1_j9z15e0 wrote

I'd have to sell my home if 95 was kneecapped more. Or sell the business. I like living in south Philly, I don't want to live where our business has been for twenty years in ne. But hey.... Fuck me right?

1

Philitian t1_j9z3ndb wrote

It's not about giving the brunt to ordinary people like you. It's about actually implementing an equitable tax policy, where businesses aren't incentivized to center their operations way out on the edge of the metropolitan area. King of Prussia has a population of 22k yet it employs 60k jobs - mostly tech, media, and admin in the white collar sphere, nothing that couldn't be done in an ordinary hi-rise here in the city. It's insane that's even allowed.

Like I implied, we're a long ways from capping the highways. That's long-term, but the jobs need to move back here first, obviously.

1

mustang__1 t1_j9z4wur wrote

My business is still on the city, just ftr

1

Philitian t1_j9z60kt wrote

I don't get it, then. I've only ever worked in the city & I've always either biked or taken transit. If it's simply a matter of those types of infrastructure being improved, then it's a different discussion entirely. And yes - even if you need a vehicle for work, reducing the amount of traffic in the city will only benefit you.

0

mustang__1 t1_j9zaeu1 wrote

I don't get your point. I wasn't against expanding infra. I was against setting it up so you both can't use a car and can't commute to within city limits.

1

Philitian t1_j9ziw91 wrote

Urban highways primarily function to channel commuters to-and-from the city limits. If there were less of that exchange in commuting patterns, they would not be necessary. It's not about uprooting the car infrastructure entirely, but reducing traffic to the extent where it can flow effectively without these humongous blights diving our neighborhoods, spitting pollution onto its residents, and putting everyone at risk who needs to walk past their exits.

Highways ought to encircle a city's perimeter and terminate when they enter the city limits. The rest of the way, the traffic can move at speeds safe for pedestrians. Philly actually does this much better than most other cities in the US, but we should still make sure they don't expand further - otherwise, the only outcome is more displacement and urban blight.

2

respondstostupidity t1_j9wh3zh wrote

> Only 22% of households in Manhattan

We're. Not. Manhattan. I get that everyone new wants to turn us into New York, but it's not going to happen.

−4

Philitian t1_j9whya0 wrote

It's just a counterpoint to their suggestion that rich people will naturally want a car. I don't want Philly to be Manhattan either, trust me, that place is snooty, abrasive, and claustrophobic, but Philly can still be Philly with less of a car culture.

15

mustang__1 t1_j9z1c24 wrote

I mean if we had a solid and well connected subway that ran every 15min it'd be a different discussion....

3

respondstostupidity t1_j9wq9oo wrote

It's an inequivalent comparison because our needs are not the same.

−4

Philitian t1_j9wtjnb wrote

...we're both cities. Very similar ones, for that matter. We both need housing. We both need less cluttered streets and traffic jams.

6

respondstostupidity t1_j9wutss wrote

Vegans and non-vegans are both humans. Very similar ones, for that matter. We both need food.

Inequivalent.

−6

NotJoeyWheeler t1_j9wz751 wrote

funny example because vegans and non-vegans still have a ton of overlap with ingredients lol

6

respondstostupidity t1_j9x0zx5 wrote

Thank you for understanding that just because there are similarities, that doesn't make them the same thing.

I should know better than to try to have a discussion with someone who starts with a fallacious assertion by not recognizing that our cities have been influenced differently on a sociological and economical level.

−1

AugustusKhan t1_j9whjut wrote

I just tried visiting a friend Friday night for a big life event, we had to turn around n go home after stressfully driving for over a half hour.

There’s no parking, then there’s literally no parking hahah

1

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vcdxd wrote

I mean sure, but its literally stated in IBC 2018 that many new construction building types must provide parking

EDIT Philadelphia Code Section 14, not IBC

1

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vec3e wrote

What part of the code are you talking about? I'm not aware of anything in section 14 close to what you're implying

3

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vfub7 wrote

Philadelphia Zoning Section 14-800 Parking Requirements

3

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vin46 wrote

Ah okay found what you were talking about. Its a CMX 2.5 zoned lot which has a minimum parking requirement of 0 which is pretty typical for multifamily buildings of this size

11

XtremeStumbler t1_j9vjm0i wrote

Yea its completely dependent on the zoning of the lot and the occupancy type. My whole point to that person above was simply saying that unless you decide to file for rezoning, there are many instances where its not a choice at all on whether or not to provide parking

0

the_rest_were_taken t1_j9vks84 wrote

Its a minimum parking requirement. The builder absolutely could include parking in this design if they wanted to. Ironically, what you're talking about is what builders face when they don't want to shoehorn in excess parking required by parking minimums.

5