Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

something to watch out for

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&item
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED16%20Jan%202008%2011%3A44%3A12%3A177

      'No place for working class' in car-free new homes


      nlnews@...
      16 January 2008


      WORKING class people are being squeezed out of Tottenham by new car-free developments, which could turn the area into a "Little Islington".

      The accusation came from Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of Haringey Council's planning committee, who said you are "not allowed" to live in new "car-free" or "almost car-free" developments "unless you are nice and middle class, and carry a pen in your top pocket" in place of using a vehicle.

      The Labour councillor for Bruce Grove ward said car-free developments "are now being seen as a way to keep working class people out of housing" as many people's livelihoods depend on vehicles, from electricians and plumbers to taxi drivers and mobile mechanics.

      His outburst came as the committee debated an application for a five-storey block of 27 flats and houses in Tottenham High Road last week, which offered just five parking spaces - one of a steady stream of similar applications in the area.

      Residents objecting to the plan on the site, at the junction of High Road and Hampden Lane in the Spurs match day controlled parking zone (CPZ), said their lives would get even worse if parking pressures increased.

      One objector from the clogged, narrow Hampden Lane said she had a traffic cone thrown through her front window in December after taking a parking space that a neighbour believed to be "theirs".

      The application, for a former furniture salesroom, included four five-bedroom homes, one four-bedroom home, three three-bedroom homes, nine two-bedroom and 10 one-bedroom homes, plus commercial space on the ground floor.

      Councillor Dodds called for planning policy to be changed from a "very, very middle class concept" so it stops "excluding a large number of people".

      He added: "I understand why people think, 'Use a bus', but I defy you to be a plumber, electrician, or anything like that, and use public transport.

      "If you're excluded from having parking permits then you're saying, 'Right, no more working class people in Tottenham, let's move them all out, let's make it Little Islington', and I for one don't want to live in Little Islington."

      Joyce Rosser, of the conservation area advisory committee, added the "desperate overcrowding on the current buses" and the building's "unsatisfactory frontage" to concerns over parking and density.

      Another Hampden Lane resident called for a seven-day CPZ to regulate parking before any more flats were approved.

      After 45 minutes' debate, councillors threw out the application on the grounds of its bulk and mass, the lack of recreation space and parking spaces.



      ----- ### -----
      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
    • Richard Risemberg
      ... Whole article: http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue31/issue31page33.html Rick -- Richard Risemberg http://www.bicyclefixation.com http://www.newcolonist.com
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

        > WORKING class people are being squeezed out of Tottenham by new car-
        > free developments, which could turn the area into a "Little
        > Islington".
        >
        > The accusation came from Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of
        > Haringey Council's planning committee, who said you are "not
        > allowed" to live in new "car-free" or "almost car-free"
        > developments "unless you are nice and middle class, and carry a pen
        > in your top pocket" in place of using a vehicle.
        >
        > The Labour councillor for Bruce Grove ward said car-free
        > developments "are now being seen as a way to keep working class
        > people out of housing" as many people's livelihoods depend on
        > vehicles, from electricians and plumbers to taxi drivers and mobile
        > mechanics.


        Really? Here's a quote from an article on cycling in Denmark:

        > We recently employed an electrician to work on our house. Much to
        > my surprise, he turned up on a bike. When he needed assistance, a
        > second electrician turned up - also on his bike. The head teachers
        > of my children's schools cycle to school. The deputy head of my
        > younger daughter's primary school told me she's never bothered to
        > learn to drive as there's no point. She can do everything by bike.
        > As well as being deputy head, she's a mother of three. I've seen
        > the head on his bike a few times too, and the department head of my
        > older daughter's school is a keen cyclist too - as, it appears, is
        > his entire family. It goes without saying that virtually all the
        > kids cycle to school too.
        >

        Whole article:

        http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue31/issue31page33.html

        Rick
        --
        Richard Risemberg
        http://www.bicyclefixation.com
        http://www.newcolonist.com
        http://www.rickrise.com
      • Richard Risemberg
        PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article about Holland. I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use their bikes
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article
          about Holland.

          I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use
          their bikes for work.

          R

          On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

          > 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes

          --
          Richard Risemberg
          http://www.bicyclefixation.com
          http://www.newcolonist.com
          http://www.rickrise.com
        • Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
          Hi, I am curious about the make-up - in regards to jobs of residents - in other carfree developments. Does anyone have any concrete information? How do the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            I am curious about the make-up - in regards to jobs of residents - in
            other carfree developments. Does anyone have any concrete information?

            How do the various tradespeople described do their jobs in those places,
            both when they are based inside them or come from the outside?

            It seems like there are other problems with this place, such as
            inadequate public transport, so is the problem that this is a carfree
            building rather than a carfree urban development plan?

            In addition to answering these questions for ourselves, it would be
            great to provide answers to the media, and so on (maybe someone from the
            World Carfree Network Steering Committee who is based in England?)

            Thanks,
            T

            J.H. Crawford wrote:
            >
            >
            > http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED16%20Jan%202008%2011%3A44%3A12%3A177
            > <http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/tottenhamjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=TWGJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newstwgj&itemid=WeED16%20Jan%202008%2011%3A44%3A12%3A177>
            >
            > 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes
            >
            > nlnews@... <mailto:nlnews%40archant.co.uk>
            > 16 January 2008
            >
            > WORKING class people are being squeezed out of Tottenham by new
            > car-free developments, which could turn the area into a "Little
            > Islington".
            >
            > The accusation came from Councillor Ray Dodds, deputy chairman of
            > Haringey Council's planning committee, who said you are "not allowed"
            > to live in new "car-free" or "almost car-free" developments "unless
            > you are nice and middle class, and carry a pen in your top pocket" in
            > place of using a vehicle.
            >
            > The Labour councillor for Bruce Grove ward said car-free developments
            > "are now being seen as a way to keep working class people out of
            > housing" as many people's livelihoods depend on vehicles, from
            > electricians and plumbers to taxi drivers and mobile mechanics.
            >
            > His outburst came as the committee debated an application for a
            > five-storey block of 27 flats and houses in Tottenham High Road last
            > week, which offered just five parking spaces - one of a steady stream
            > of similar applications in the area.
            >
            > Residents objecting to the plan on the site, at the junction of High
            > Road and Hampden Lane in the Spurs match day controlled parking zone
            > (CPZ), said their lives would get even worse if parking pressures
            > increased.
            >
            > One objector from the clogged, narrow Hampden Lane said she had a
            > traffic cone thrown through her front window in December after taking
            > a parking space that a neighbour believed to be "theirs".
            >
            > The application, for a former furniture salesroom, included four
            > five-bedroom homes, one four-bedroom home, three three-bedroom homes,
            > nine two-bedroom and 10 one-bedroom homes, plus commercial space on
            > the ground floor.
            >
            > Councillor Dodds called for planning policy to be changed from a
            > "very, very middle class concept" so it stops "excluding a large
            > number of people".
            >
            > He added: "I understand why people think, 'Use a bus', but I defy you
            > to be a plumber, electrician, or anything like that, and use public
            > transport.
            >
            > "If you're excluded from having parking permits then you're saying,
            > 'Right, no more working class people in Tottenham, let's move them all
            > out, let's make it Little Islington', and I for one don't want to live
            > in Little Islington."
            >
            > Joyce Rosser, of the conservation area advisory committee, added the
            > "desperate overcrowding on the current buses" and the building's
            > "unsatisfactory frontage" to concerns over parking and density.
            >
            > Another Hampden Lane resident called for a seven-day CPZ to regulate
            > parking before any more flats were approved.
            >
            > After 45 minutes' debate, councillors threw out the application on the
            > grounds of its bulk and mass, the lack of recreation space and parking
            > spaces.
            >
            > ----- ### -----
            > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            > mailbox@... <mailto:mailbox%40carfree.com>
            > http://www.carfree.com <http://www.carfree.com>
            >
            >


            --
            --------------------------------------------

            Todd Edelman
            Director
            Green Idea Factory

            Korunni 72
            CZ-10100 Praha 10
            Czech Republic

            Skype: toddedelman
            ++420 605 915 970
            ++420 222 517 832

            edelman@...
            http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
            www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

            Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
            www.worldcarfree.net
          • Simon Baddeley
            I m so glad we are debating this! I would have known it of Joel. Simon (;)) Simon Baddeley Inlogov, School of Public Policy University of Birmingham,
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 16, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm so glad we are debating this! I would have known it of Joel.

              Simon (;))

              Simon Baddeley
              Inlogov, School of Public Policy
              University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
              http://www.inlogov.bham.ac.uk/staff/Baddeley.shtml



              > From: Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>
              > Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
              > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:34:04 -0800
              > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] something to watch out for
              >
              > PS: I wrote a comment to that paper referring them to the article
              > about Holland.
              >
              > I am personally acquainted with a number of craftspeople who use
              > their bikes for work.
              >
              > R
              >
              > On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:22 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:
              >
              >> 'No place for working class' in car-free new homes
              >
              > --
              > Richard Risemberg
              > http://www.bicyclefixation.com
              > http://www.newcolonist.com
              > http://www.rickrise.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • dubluth
              I ve seen such outbursts . Some people take the availability of places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the cost) very personally.
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 18, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I've seen such "outbursts". Some people take the availability of
                places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the
                cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid
                seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just
                wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.

                If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of
                say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive
                housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that
                highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply
                and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its
                value to those affected housing residents.

                Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value
                parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit
                opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided
                available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or
                too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design
                hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little
                parking.

                Bill
              • N Schneider
                In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday. First, no parking is free. Someone
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 19, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday.
                  First, no parking is free. Someone paid to build it, maintain it and other related expenses.
                  Parking requirements for most cities are based on the ITE parking guidelines which are based on outdated approaches to parking, suburban models, no transit and the belief that parking is an entitlement and that it is free and we have an endless supply.
                  A few cities are starting to take a new perspective with programs like shared parking (for instance a movie theatre and an office share spaces as the need for spaces are at different times of the day), unbundle parking (residential units come with no parking included and parking spaces must be bought separately or not at all), no parking minimums (required by ITE guidelines) and parking maximums.
                  In my opinion, anyone that owns more than one car should be taxed at an outrageous amount to subsidize the land requirements to house the vehicle, pollution generated, etc.
                  All this pavement we have created to park, and run vehicles has permanently damaged the earth's surface, caused water shortages, ground water pollution, heat island effects, disrupted wildlife, used natural resources, increased our dependance on foreign oil... the list goes on.



                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: dubluth <dubluth@...>
                  To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:36:19 PM
                  Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: something to watch out for

                  I've seen such "outbursts". Some people take the availability of
                  places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the
                  cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid
                  seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just
                  wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.

                  If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of
                  say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive
                  housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that
                  highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply
                  and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its
                  value to those affected housing residents.

                  Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value
                  parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit
                  opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided
                  available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or
                  too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design
                  hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little
                  parking.

                  Bill





                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dubluth
                  Over the past few years I ve provided input as a resident to city officials on parking policy in this moderately large US west coast city. I heard that even
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Over the past few years I've provided input as a resident to city
                    officials on parking policy in this moderately large US west coast
                    city. I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on parking
                    reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums. It shouldn't
                    surprise me to learn that rules have changed, since I haven't kept on
                    top of things. I'd like to know what's happening elsewhere regarding
                    this land use rule in order to make comparisons and know better how to
                    seek change.
                  • Jym Dyer
                    ... =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot for each new unit and any
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on
                      > parking reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums.

                      =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good
                      on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot
                      for each new unit and any attempt at variance from that sets
                      off a tirade of whining and hysteria. (Projects that succeed
                      at this to any extent get some publicity, but are very rare.)
                      Voters recently brushed back an attempt (funded by Gap CEO
                      Donald Fisher's slave-labor riches) to make it *impossible*
                      to get any such variance.

                      =v= The city sanctions off-street parking so much that every
                      garage project gets a green light, even if it destroys street
                      trees, historic buildings and gardens, and compromises the
                      seismic safety of ground floors. It tacitly sanctions a great
                      amount of illegal parking: They do nothing about cars parked
                      in bus stops, on crosswalks, and on sidewalks unless a citizen
                      calls in a complaint (and usually not even then); and look the
                      other way when people illegally pave their entire front yards
                      to park yet more cars.

                      =v= Of course this follows the classic pattern: accommodate
                      more cars, get more cars, and make parking (and traffic) even
                      *worse*. This result is that San Francisco is #2 in the nation
                      for cars per square mile, which is a completely insane state of
                      affairs for the densest city on the West Coast.

                      =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                      out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                      to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                      that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                      carfree communities are more desirable.
                      <_Jym_>
                    • Simon Baddeley
                      There have always been ways to guide markets without falling into the trap of government corporatism. Carmageddon is not a product of free markets - as we
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 20, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There have always been ways to guide markets without falling into the trap
                        of government corporatism. Carmageddon is not a product of free markets - as
                        we should be well aware by now. Interventions can be via regulators giving
                        rapid transit proposals an even playing field to compete with the auto-based
                        solutions promoted by automobile manufacturers through buying up patents,
                        buying up tram systems (as they did in the early 20th century) and intensive
                        anti-rapid transit advertising. It can be done by loading goods-mile charges
                        onto the retailer by taxing energy and collateral costs such as insurance,
                        noise and air pollution, thus evening up the market so that local retailers
                        can compete with the added advantage of being energy cheaper. It can be done
                        by reversing the zoning laws that helped create suburban sprawl, encouraging
                        far more mixed use development. Many landlords resist this as lowering their
                        discretion in buying and selling property. Offset their concerns with tax
                        breaks as used to attract industry to specific areas. Assemble affordable
                        and co-operative housing deals. This is done in UK by saying that 10% or
                        more of new private building should include affordable homes. It is not a
                        question of regulation versus no regulation. There's always been regulation.
                        It's a matter of the vote and the wider circumstances - energy costs - that
                        would allow government to favour carfree local economies.

                        Simon


                        > =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                        > out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                        > to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                        > that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                        > carfree communities are more desirable.
                        > <_Jym_>
                        >
                      • bruun@seas.upenn.edu
                        Jym In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the two. So there has been
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jym

                          In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                          central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                          two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                          trying to change the laws?

                          Eric

                          Quoting Jym Dyer <jym@...>:

                          >> I heard that even San Francisco, which was far ahead on
                          >> parking reforms, couldn't unbundle or set parking maximums.
                          >
                          > =v= Where did you get the impression that San Francisco is good
                          > on parking reforms? The policy is one off-street parking spot
                          > for each new unit and any attempt at variance from that sets
                          > off a tirade of whining and hysteria. (Projects that succeed
                          > at this to any extent get some publicity, but are very rare.)
                          > Voters recently brushed back an attempt (funded by Gap CEO
                          > Donald Fisher's slave-labor riches) to make it *impossible*
                          > to get any such variance.
                          >
                          > =v= The city sanctions off-street parking so much that every
                          > garage project gets a green light, even if it destroys street
                          > trees, historic buildings and gardens, and compromises the
                          > seismic safety of ground floors. It tacitly sanctions a great
                          > amount of illegal parking: They do nothing about cars parked
                          > in bus stops, on crosswalks, and on sidewalks unless a citizen
                          > calls in a complaint (and usually not even then); and look the
                          > other way when people illegally pave their entire front yards
                          > to park yet more cars.
                          >
                          > =v= Of course this follows the classic pattern: accommodate
                          > more cars, get more cars, and make parking (and traffic) even
                          > *worse*. This result is that San Francisco is #2 in the nation
                          > for cars per square mile, which is a completely insane state of
                          > affairs for the densest city on the West Coast.
                          >
                          > =v= As for the Subject: line, this is indeed something to watch
                          > out for. I'm not sure how valid the criticism is, as it seems
                          > to be based on anecdotes rather than data. It's generally true
                          > that more desirable communities cost more to live in, and that
                          > carfree communities are more desirable.
                          > <_Jym_>
                          >
                          >
                        • Doug Salzmann
                          Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age and topography, comparisons like this aren t very meaningful. As for the Gap CEO, he
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age
                            and topography, comparisons like this aren't very meaningful.

                            As for the Gap CEO, he wants to do all sorts of strange and destructive
                            stuff, like building an ugly modernist box in the middle of our Presidio
                            (an urban National Park).


                            -Doug


                            bruun@... wrote:
                            >
                            > Jym
                            >
                            > In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                            > central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                            > two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                            > trying to change the laws?
                            >
                            > Eric


                            --

                            ========================
                            Doug Salzmann
                            Post Office Box 378
                            Tiburon, California 94920
                            USA

                            <doug@...>
                          • bruun@seas.upenn.edu
                            Doug I have to disagree. I have studied the difference in density. There is a reason that downtown SF is much more popular with tourists that downtown LA. LA
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 21, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Doug

                              I have to disagree. I have studied the difference in density. There is
                              a reason
                              that downtown SF is much more popular with tourists that downtown LA.
                              LA is one half parking lots, combined with wide one-way roads to
                              accommodate this mass of cars.

                              Eric Bruun

                              Quoting Doug Salzmann <doug@...>:

                              >
                              > Given the vast differences between the two cities, including size, age
                              > and topography, comparisons like this aren't very meaningful.
                              >
                              > As for the Gap CEO, he wants to do all sorts of strange and destructive
                              > stuff, like building an ugly modernist box in the middle of our Presidio
                              > (an urban National Park).
                              >
                              >
                              > -Doug
                              >
                              >
                              > bruun@... wrote:
                              >>
                              >> Jym
                              >>
                              >> In the central area of SF, there is far less parking than in the
                              >> central area of LA. Compare the number of parking buildings in the
                              >> two. So there has been some control. Why else would the GAP CEO be
                              >> trying to change the laws?
                              >>
                              >> Eric
                              >
                              >
                              > --
                              >
                              > ========================
                              > Doug Salzmann
                              > Post Office Box 378
                              > Tiburon, California 94920
                              > USA
                              >
                              > <doug@...>
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.