The most striking number we came up with was 44. That is the percentage of the 1/8 mile radius around the station dedicated to parking. 44%. The rest of the break down is 17% to buildings, 19% to roads, and 20% to landscaping. Parking uses more than twice as much land as actual structures.
It is an interesting paradigm. There are plenty of reasons for this pattern. Planners and developers design parking lots for the day before Christmas, really. The rest of the year most parking lots are woefully under utilized, leaving expansive of unattractive pavement [not just aesthetically, but functionally unattractive].
It could be argued that development patterns necessitate such copious amounts of parking, but that argument is fairly weak. In most urban areas the Christmas factor dictates far more parking than actually needed. If parking is truly needed [and it often is, not every development can be located near high quality transit], the amount can be reduced, and the shape it takes can be altered as well. Structured parking is much more expensive than surface parking, but the floor to area ratios gained by structures will help recoup expenses in a timely manner.
An even more effective solution is on street parking. Outside city centers on street parking is treated with a disdain usually reserved for leprosy. I'm not sure why, as it provides parking at little to no cost. On street parking also acts as a traffic calming device, which only helps the pedestrian experience.
With urban areas edging into agricultural and other sensitive lands it seems to follow logic that cities would look at the redevelopment and infill potential of our parking lots. Especially as transit services more and more of the urban fabric.
1 comment:
come explain to the planners in boston that taking away as much street parking as they possibly can is a dumb idea?
sometimes i get jealous of big parking lots. i'm sorry. but looking for a spot in this city makes me cry sometimes.
Post a Comment