Monday, August 18, 2008

TA now whining about off-street parking

PARKING RULE PUTS CITY ECO EFFORT IN REVERSE
By GINGER ADAMS OTIS, NY Post

New York is undercutting its own plan for a greener, cleaner city with a policy that requires residential developments to build off-street parking for occupants, a new report charges.

About 170,000 more cars will be clogging the city by 2030, based on projected vehicle ownership for new housing developments, according to the report, "Suburbanizing the City," being released today by Transportation Alternatives and a coalition of environmental advocates.

The projection was calculated by taking the 265,000 dwelling units forecasted by the city's PlaNYC and multiplying the units by city-mandated parking requirements.

Adding that many cars to already-congested streets means another billion miles will be tacked on to the city's annual mileage count by 2030, said Wiley Norvell, spokesman for Transportation Alternatives.

The emissions produced by the additional cars would more than wipe out the estimated 351,000 tons of greenhouse gases Mayor Bloomberg wants to eradicate through his "green" taxi initiative, Transportation Alternatives said.

"All this unnecessary parking could completely erase the city's positive efforts to reduce congestion," Norvell said.


So, with this, I finally figured out why people think TA is a developers' mouthpiece. One regulation that developers always seem to want to get around is the off-street parking rule. Remove the parking requirement and you have more space to build crap. The rule is on the books to prevent more parking along our already congested streets. It's especially important in neighborhoods with inadequate transportation where existing housing does not provide off-street parking. Not to worry, Wiley - the way it works most of the time is that the developer builds whatever he wants anyway, the City looks the other way, and the neighborhood wins the trifecta of more people, more cars and less transit. And eventually, this:

15 comments:

Miles Mullin said...

Everyone has a feeling those guys (TA) are tools for developers: perhaps we need to take a close look at funding.

Now anyone will tell you one of the reasons that Elmhurst is such a dump is the overdevelopment there (1930s/40s) from the subway line created apartments that were obsolete within a decade: poor wiring, no air conditioning, and most importantly, no parking.

Immigrants filled those spaces.

Since everything believes the development in western Queens is marketed for hot overseas money as investors, and immigrant/student barracks as residents, our friend Wiley's opinion (which he was told perhaps to say by someone in league with developers) makes perfect sense.

Mr. Angry said...

I'd expect no less stupidity from TA than this. They are so anti-car it is disturbing. If they had their way we'd all be riding bikes to work, even in winter.

They don't seem to get that if new buildings were required to have parking, there would be less cars parked on the street and more space for everyone.

Those TA guys really oughta grow up.

Cap'n Transit said...

And before I read this post I actually gave you credit for making the connection between off-street parking and crap. Silly me; won't make that mistake again.

Anonymous said...

The paved over front yards are usually in the houses that don't have garages or driveways. Hello....Cap'n Transit, don't you get it?

Tony Avella is Angry! said...

You Queens Qomplainers are deeply confused and irrational. Do you want people turning their front yards and ground floor's into driveways and garages or do you not?

Every time I turn to this web site you are complaining (rightfully) about yet another developer turning his front yard into crapola parking lot.

This coalition of groups (not just TA, btw) is essentially arguing the same point though their focus is on bigger developments in transit-oriented Manhattan.

Get on board. Make sure that whatever new City Planning regs come out of this campaign include smaller developments in Queens. Unlike you guys, who just complain on a blog, these are advocacy groups that get things done and make change in the city. Learn from them.

Anonymous said...

You don't think that what gets addressed on this blog gets attention? This blog is visited by just about every city agency on a daily basis. I know because I work at one. I can't tell you how many things have been resolved by appearing on this forum.

As for your argument, I fail to understand. There is no parking as it is in many Queens nabes. Taking away parking requirements means more people moving in and even less parking. We don't have subways every few blocks like in Manhattan.

Anonymous said...

"Taking away parking requirements means more people moving in and even less parking."

No it doesn't. Developers can still build parking, they just aren't required to do so.

This blog is constantly complaining that developers are building too much off-street parking in Queens neighborhoods -- creating too many curb cuts, ruining too many front yards, etc. etc. on and on.

So, which is it? Are you guys complaining about too much off-street parking or not enough of it? Do you actually want to have the density required to bring in mass transit or do you want Queens to stay a crapped out, third rate, auto-oriented suburb minus most of the benefits of an actual suburb?

Queens Crapper said...

No, this blog complains about the paving over of yards for parking spaces. This is different than including parking spaces in new developments. New developments in Queens are now required to have parking AND green space. The problem is enforcement.

Anonymous said...

"do you want Queens to stay a crapped out, third rate, auto-oriented suburb minus most of the benefits of an actual suburb?"

we used to have the benefits of the suburbs. then the tweeding began.

Anonymous said...

"Developers can still build parking, they just aren't required to do so."

Like they will if they don't have to. You can stuff more families in a piece of Queens crap if you don't have parking.

Anonymous said...

Did a developer pave over the front lawn of the house pictured? No. An existing homeowner did because there is not enough parking on the street. Now both the old houses and the new houses are eyesores.

Anonymous said...

"Do you actually want to have the density required to bring in mass transit"

WHOA...mass transit was first brought into Queens when there were open fields and farms here. So what the hell are you talking about? You are supposed to build the mass transit BEFORE the people come, not the other way around. We have been playing catchup for decades already.

Anonymous said...

"do you want Queens to stay a crapped out, third rate, auto-oriented suburb minus most of the benefits of an actual suburb?"

Hey idiot, which Queens communities are nicer...the ones with subways running through them or the car-oriented? Corona, Flushing, Jamaica...no thanks - you can have them!

Anonymous said...

"do you want Queens to stay a crapped out, third rate, auto-oriented suburb minus most of the benefits of an actual suburb?"

Typical insulting, condescending attitude of a Streetsblogger. We don't know what's best for our own neighborhoods and quality of life. We need them to tell us.

Anonymous said...

"Everyone has a feeling those guys (TA) are tools for developers:"

No, only the folks at Queens Crap seem to feel this way, and they continue to make this unfounded assumption all the time.

"perhaps we need to take a close look at funding."

what, and do some modicum of research before you open you mouths? that'll be the day.