The Eclipse

[5th Ave Guy]

Part of it too is that people are coming into the move with their two cars -- it's not like they are purchasing two cars after they move in. A lot of people feel attached to their vehicle and may not necessarily sell it just because they move someplace where cars aren't as necessary. Wherever they go, the cars go with them.

In a lot of big cities parking spaces are treated more like property than they are treated like amenities. When my folks lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago they had to purchase the rights to the two parking spaces they required for both of their cars, and I want to say that the cost to own the rights to those spaces was like $20K per space! I mean at what point does car ownership become so expensive and such a hassle that it's no longer worth it to have two cars, or even one?

Nailed it! If there is no up-front cost to these people, they will just take the car/cars they have and drive them right in without thinking about it. There are some great points being made that this has less to do with "the market" than it does about the direction of this city. These cars will be driving in and out of this building and adding MORE cars to streets in this city is NOT the answer. If this site "has to" have this high of a parking ratio then the floodgates will open.

In what condo world do the parking spaces not have a value or cost money? I added on my second space as an additional cost when I purchased my condo and I could turn around tomorrow and sell it for 20K. I also pay taxes and dues on them. The notion that people just get these spaces as a gift when they buy a condo is ridiculous.

And no, it's not simple or easy or desirable to live downtown with no personal transportation. There are so many great parts of this city that are not easy to get to via public transportation. The people spending money in this type of building are not going to wait at a bus stop when the wind chill is -30 outside.

[Didier]

I couldn't really follow all of Chauncey's post, but I was going to say that my condo building does not allow for general storage in the parking stalls. You can hang a bike on the wall or rent an extra storage locker but no baby carriage where your car is supposed to go.

[RailBaronYarr]

Why should storing a car be any different than a kayak or unused gear? If all that needs to be done is some boards or cyclone fencing to keep it from spilling over into someone else's car parking spot, why is that not viable? As fotoapparatic points out, we do this all the time with personal garages of homes. In fact, I know plenty of suburban folk who park a car in the driveway (to the horror of onlookers, what an eyesore!) because their garage is at least half full of stored junk they can't fit inside the home. Why should condo owners be denied this privilege?

[talindsay]

Why should storing a car be any different than a kayak or unused gear? If all that needs to be done is some boards or cyclone fencing to keep it from spilling over into someone else's car parking spot, why is that not viable? As fotoapparatic points out, we do this all the time with personal garages of homes. In fact, I know plenty of suburban folk who park a car in the driveway (to the horror of onlookers, what an eyesore!) because their garage is at least half full of stored junk they can't fit inside the home. Why should condo owners be denied this privilege?

Perhaps because it's a fire and safety hazard, and since they're living in an association with other people they can't unilaterally increase everybody's risks. Remember, these are communal associations, not detached single-family houses.

[Nathan]

Why should storing a car be any different than a kayak or unused gear? If all that needs to be done is some boards or cyclone fencing to keep it from spilling over into someone else's car parking spot, why is that not viable? As fotoapparatic points out, we do this all the time with personal garages of homes. In fact, I know plenty of suburban folk who park a car in the driveway (to the horror of onlookers, what an eyesore!) because their garage is at least half full of stored junk they can't fit inside the home. Why should condo owners be denied this privilege?

Perhaps because it's a fire and safety hazard, and since they're living in an association with other people they can't unilaterally increase everybody's risks. Remember, these are communal associations, not detached single-family houses.

because there's no such thing as a single family home owners association? every neighborhood is communal, and each person affects the other, a house that starts on fire could destroy the neighbouring house too, they just pay property taxes and have personal responsibility instead of hoa dues...

* way off topic, sorry I'm done

[5th Ave Guy]

There's no storage of personal property in our parking levels either. They frequently (twice a year?) have everyone clear out their cars on a given day to clean the entire level, which could be a problem with personal property all over.

[woofner]

And no, it's not simple or easy or desirable to live downtown with no personal transportation. There are so many great parts of this city that are not easy to get to via public transportation. The people spending money in this type of building are not going to wait at a bus stop when the wind chill is -30 outside.

Just because you can't figure out the bus or handle cold weather doesn't mean that other people can't.

[mnmike]

I don't believe he said he couldn't? The key word is want. I think he is correct, most people living in this are going to want a car, even if by chance they don't use it a lot. Not going to be a bunch of hipsters moving into these condos.

[Nick]

Man, this thread, right?

[mnmike]

Yeah, what is the huge deal here? Another dead horse. I am all for reducing parking when viable...but the developer is hardly asking for a huge difference, and the parking is totally hidden. I don't even know why I respond.

Carry on.

[talindsay]

Why should storing a car be any different than a kayak or unused gear? If all that needs to be done is some boards or cyclone fencing to keep it from spilling over into someone else's car parking spot, why is that not viable? As fotoapparatic points out, we do this all the time with personal garages of homes. In fact, I know plenty of suburban folk who park a car in the driveway (to the horror of onlookers, what an eyesore!) because their garage is at least half full of stored junk they can't fit inside the home. Why should condo owners be denied this privilege?

Perhaps because it's a fire and safety hazard, and since they're living in an association with other people they can't unilaterally increase everybody's risks. Remember, these are communal associations, not detached single-family houses.

because there's no such thing as a single family home owners association? every neighborhood is communal, and each person affects the other, a house that starts on fire could destroy the neighbouring house too, they just pay property taxes and have personal responsibility instead of hoa dues...

* way off topic, sorry I'm done

I wasn't arguing in some random, philosophical way; a condo association has in its explicit power the right to ban things like this for safety and fire reasons, and to view and enforce said ban; whereas most neighborhoods do not possess this right. Hence it is common behavior in single-family residences but not in most condos.

[John]

^^^In a multi-residential building, the ban on storage in a parking stall is part of the city's fire code. It's not up to the condo association to make that rule.

[5th Ave Guy]

And no, it's not simple or easy or desirable to live downtown with no personal transportation. There are so many great parts of this city that are not easy to get to via public transportation. The people spending money in this type of building are not going to wait at a bus stop when the wind chill is -30 outside.

Just because you can't figure out the bus or handle cold weather doesn't mean that other people can't.

Ha, you serious with this reply? Don't get mad just because I'm a realist.

Minneapolis is a different animal than Amsterdam and pretty much every other pedestrian friendly city in the country. Sometimes it sucks outside here. People that can afford to, will avoid that. Maybe not everyone, but most will.

[woofner]

So the thousands of people who live downtown without a car are doing so because they're forced to? What do you think their rich uncle left them a fortune but only if they live in a haunted apartment in Loring Park? Are they just renting that 1500 River Towers unit because they haven't yet saved up a down payment for a snout house in Ham Lake?

[RailBaronYarr]

Ok, this is obviously all only marginally on-topic. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said:

More parking is probably bad for this area (an extremely important location for the city), but at the same time letting the market decide is something most here espouse and will (likely, probably over time) reduce total parking supply per sqft of commercial/retail/housing space. At the same time, Stanton is probably off on his assessment of the market given previous his hyperbole, and spaces may sit empty and/or induce more people to own cars if they lower parking costs. I was being only slightly facetious about the "storage" thing, but I think it does go to show how thoroughly separately we treat cars from other goods that fire code states they can't co-locate. I have a hard time understanding why a couple who both work in a suburb or area not served by transit would want to pay a premium to live downtown, and also why a couple/family not fitting that bill would thus *need* 2 cars (as car-sharing options and transit service both improve), but what do I know.

Let's go back to talking about how dark or hulking this thing is.

[Nathan]

So the thousands of people who live downtown without a car are doing so because they're forced to? What do you think their rich uncle left them a fortune but only if they live in a haunted apartment in Loring Park? Are they just renting that 1500 River Towers unit because they haven't yet saved up a down payment for a snout house in Ham Lake?

Right, so if we want to maintain the current population of the metro area who are already cool being carless, and not grow Minneapolis any, your statement is totally relevant. This thread tangent is totally the result of a small number of people who live carless and love it and talk to each other about how they love being carless all the time, and are out of touch with 90 some percent of the state. And also lack actual creative means of educating/acting on influencing the masses on the benefits of urban life, other than villainizing the people they need to influence to move to the city, and ranting about developers who enable parking in the city within the means of the city's own system.

Who cares how many cars are stored in there if we're growing the city right. Those cars might go from leaving the garage 5 times a day to 5 times a week. That would be a successful city, influencing it's residents lifestyles. We can't change their life by forcing them to not have parking, because they won't come live here in the first place.

[min-chi-cbus]

Part of it too is that people are coming into the move with their two cars -- it's not like they are purchasing two cars after they move in. A lot of people feel attached to their vehicle and may not necessarily sell it just because they move someplace where cars aren't as necessary. Wherever they go, the cars go with them.

In a lot of big cities parking spaces are treated more like property than they are treated like amenities. When my folks lived in Lincoln Park in Chicago they had to purchase the rights to the two parking spaces they required for both of their cars, and I want to say that the cost to own the rights to those spaces was like $20K per space! I mean at what point does car ownership become so expensive and such a hassle that it's no longer worth it to have two cars, or even one?

Nailed it! If there is no up-front cost to these people, they will just take the car/cars they have and drive them right in without thinking about it. There are some great points being made that this has less to do with "the market" than it does about the direction of this city. These cars will be driving in and out of this building and adding MORE cars to streets in this city is NOT the answer. If this site "has to" have this high of a parking ratio then the floodgates will open.

In what condo world do the parking spaces not have a value or cost money? I added on my second space as an additional cost when I purchased my condo and I could turn around tomorrow and sell it for 20K. I also pay taxes and dues on them. The notion that people just get these spaces as a gift when they buy a condo is ridiculous.

And no, it's not simple or easy or desirable to live downtown with no personal transportation. There are so many great parts of this city that are not easy to get to via public transportation. The people spending money in this type of building are not going to wait at a bus stop when the wind chill is -30 outside.

My argument is against 2 spaces per unit, on average, not that residents shouldn't have cars whatsoever (this isn't NY or Europe!). Any 1BR or even 2BR units don't NEED 2 parking spaces reserved for their inhabitants, but 3+ BRs I can see that being the standard. So, to recalculate, 1 and 2 BR units would be allotted up to 1 space per unit, and 3+ BR units would be allotted up to 2 spaces per unit. Any residual spaces would then be allotted on either a first-come-first-serve basis, or perhaps sold openly in an auction-type setting if demand was high enough. However, by making some assumptions about the types of units being constructed here, the new required # of spaces would be:

*1BR (or Efficiency) - 50% of units (180 total) = 180 spaces required
*2BR - 30% of units (108 total) = 108 spaces required
*3BR+ - 20% of units (72 total) = 72 X 2 = 144 spaces required
TOTAL = 426 parking spaces for 360 units (or 1.18 spaces/unit on avg)


If we rounded it up to 450 spaces to make things nice and neat and to accomodate more of the 2BR units needing cars, the ratio would then be 1.25, which to me seems more than reasonable and I would think most residents living here would eventually not require more than 1.25 parking spaces per unit once they became accustomed to their more urban environs.

I do understand the point that if you spend $300K+ for a home and you want to have two cars that you should be able to have two cars, and I'm not saying they can't, but perhaps they don't have to have any "extra" cars in the same building, and somebody could be in the business of building speculative parking spaces that they sell out to residents who want more cars than their building is willing to dole out to them. This is exactly the type of parking situation that my parents inherited in Chicago.

[FISHMANPET]

Here's why parking matters: every parking space makes housing and commercial space more expensive, and more importantly, it displaces another more active use (housing, retail, office, etc). If this were 19 stories of parking with 1 story of residential on top would that be as good from an urbanism standpoint? I think we can all agree that that wouldn't be a very good building (no, let's not debate if that even makes sense, that's not the point). So obviously, too much parking can be a bad thing, the tricky party is knowing how much is too much.

And sadly I have to agree with fotoapparatic above me, in the vast majority of cases, not owning a car means you can't afford one or you've made a lifestyle choice similar to being vegan or something. I'm married and we have a single car (and in fact my wife doesn't drive) and it makes the most sense for us because I work at the U and take the bus and she's in a grad program at the U and takes the bus, and a couple times a week we'll drive somewhere to go shopping or get dinner or something. There are basically three destinations from where I life where, ignoring my urbanism bias, it just makes more sense to take transit: Mall of America (because even though parking is free it takes a horrendous amount of time), Downtown Minneapolis (because parking isn't free and odds are good I might have a drink when I'm there), and the University campus (because parking is expensive and parking areas are often far from where you actually want to be). Most any other transportation choice I make where I take transit instead of driving is going to be a lifestyle choice rather than a cost/benefit choice.

For the record, I still think this building has way too much parking. I'd also say that maybe we should think more about the idea of letting people use the parking area for storage. Yes, fire code currently prevents it. But let's get creative. How do storage locker buildings exist? How about we segregate all the storage areas to a single floor and install extra fire prevention there? I've always wanted a wood shop, but that'd be pretty hard in a condo building. Maybe that can be made possible?

Everybody just needs to get more creative here.

[RailBaronYarr]

Everybody just needs to get more creative here.

I think that's a good way to put it. Just because the fire code says so isn't a good enough reason, at least not more than saying "outside downtown, minimum parking requirements are X in the code, so it must be a good idea." What were the original reasons for the code? Have they changed (car construction, locker materials, etc)? Are there means of mitigation (double the garage sprinkler/fire prevention measures)? Etc. Obviously, maybe not pertinent for this particular project, but seems like the conversation (within the city) may be useful if Stanton's numbers don't pan out when people start buying.

[Chauncey87]

I couldn't really follow all of Chauncey's post, but I was going to say that my condo building does not allow for general storage in the parking stalls. You can hang a bike on the wall or rent an extra storage locker but no baby carriage where your car is supposed to go.

I was trying to point out that if I chose to live in a condo tower such as this. Looking at your neighbors household items being stored in their parking space is not something I would enjoy seeing on a daily basis. Thank you King for your answer. I am happy to hear this kind of thing already isn't allowed.