(with apologies to Trent Carlson)

How people live in cities is changing, faster in some places than others.  In general, people are driving less.  But car ownership is still quite prevalent and it remains a key means for people to get themselves, their families, and their stuff from A to B and C and D around the city.  Even though urban travel by bike, transit and foot is on the rise, cars are not likely to disappear.  They are too handy in certain circumstances.

So what to do with cars when we’re not using them?  That is a key challenge for cities these days.  Here’s what I mean.

First, lets talk about surface parking lots and above-grade parking structures.  These are ugly and suck the life out of the streetscape.  Nothing interesting (or at least good and interesting) is ever going on there (drug deals and break ins are interesting, but not in a good way).  So, the answers are either street parking or underground parking, or typically both.  But….

Starting with underground parkades, these are expensive to build.  They therefore can make it uneconomical to build many apartment, office and retail structures unless the highest rents (or condo sale prices) can be achieved.  Some cities are experimenting with reducing parking requirements for apartments in core areas where most residents will walk or take transit, in part to keep the costs down so new rental can be built.  But this isn’t practical in most neighbourhoods, even walkable ones, as a typical couple or family will have a car.  This is an unresolved dilemma in cities–adding residents to average communities still requires room to park a car.

Next, street parking. This works well if there is enough room on the streets for residents and visitors to a neighbourhood.  In detached, single-family neighbourhoods this is the case.  But in slightly more dense areas, there isn’t always enough.  Especially if a prominent shopping street is nearby.

In a trendy walkable neighbourhood, many people will drive to the area, park, and shop. The retailers rely on these non-neighbour customers, so need there to be parking.  But if the number of people living in the area increases, without more parking places, suddenly none are available for retailers unless we either add underground parking (too expensive), surface parking (too ugly), go to parking meters to keep people moving.

Parking meters.  It seems that some city halls have figured out a science of parking meters.  Charge enough so that there is usually an empty spot every couple of blocks, and then people don’t circle around looking for parking.  I was shocked to read New York City still has lots of free parking.  We’re also starting to see variable rate meters that adjust the costs with the time of day and congestion.  I like this approach.  I’d rather pay more and have a spot available when I need one, than have to drive all over looking for free parking (I put a value on my time, and it’s more than $2 for 15 minutes!)

But parking meters work at destinations, not at home.  So we’re back to the challenge of urban development right now: the delicate art of balancing enough room for cars while also improving the livability and walkability of communities, and keeping costs of new housing down so that homes can be built for the non-super-rich.

************************

How is the parking dilemma affecting your community?

What examples are you seeing of the delicate art of balancing parking needs with other urban requirements and challenges?

This weekend I attended Gordon Price’s “Jane’s Walk” through Vancouver’s West End — a densely populated neighbourhood situated between downtown, English Bay beach, and Stanley Park.  Price told the neighbourhood’s story, connecting it to more universal ideas including those of Jane Jacobs about how city’s work, and mixing in wisdom from his years on city council contributing to many of the zoning and decisions that have made Vancouver the successful city it is today.

One lesson from Vancouver’s West End: much of its livability comes from the balance of transportation modes in the area.  Neighbourhood roads that serve the 1960s and 1970s era mid rise apartment blocks are quiet.  People walk, cycle and roller blade along them joined only by the occasional motor vehicle, most likely local traffic.  Driver’s are generally patient and accept their equal status on these roads with human-propelled options.  Every residence is within 4 blocks of a busier street with an electric trolley-bus transit route (the modern day street car) as well as a variety of shops, cafes, restaurants and other businesses.

Price used these observations on the walking tour to point out that a vibrant, livable community needs to support four types of transportation:

1. Walking
2. Cycling
3. Transit
4. Motor Vehicles

Numerous people who want to promote livability in cities think of the car as the enemy.  Price argued that the car has a place in our lives and in a well designed city.  The problem with cars comes from designing space that only accommodates private automobiles, crowding out walking, cycling and transit.  Sprawl tends to do this, for example, separating people from each other as well as the amenities they need such as grocery stores, shops, restaurants, schools, recreation centres, etc.  Jane Jacobs recognized this long ago.

Closing down commercial streets to cars, making them pedestrian malls, tends to fail, Price reminded the group.  Both transit and cars bring customers into the area, and keep “eyes on the street”(A Jacobs-ism).  This access combined with walkability and cycle access allows that many more people to support the businesses that provide what residents need and appreciate.