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

Re: [carfree_cities] something to watch out for

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.