Mapping of selected North American cities, by alphabetical order. All to the same scale at ~9000 feet above ground elevation. This is part of a package for a presentation to a planning committee in Houston, that I received from a coworker. Highlighted areas include surface parking, single-purpose parkade structures, and all brownfields.

Calgary
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2628/calgaryparking9000ft.jpg

Houston
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2736/houstonparking9000ft.jpg

Los Angeles
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6000/losangelesparking9000ft.jpg

San Francisco
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6316/sanfranciscoparking9000.jpg

Seattle
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8426/seattleparking9000ft.jpg

Toronto
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1618/torontoparking9000ft.jpg

Vancouver
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2310/vancouverparking9000ft.jpg

Yuk, Houston has more parking lots than actual buildings. LA ain't no prize either...

Wonder what Chicago's looks like.

Look at Houston! I thought they had gotten rid of most of those surface parking lots! Dleung thanks for posting these but do you have any other cities?

Those graphics are just sad... Please post more so i can be depressed about the failings of American urban policy in other cities as well:)

Fantastic job! Very enlightening. Especially once I saw that garages were included.

In Seattle, you got a few buildings that might not qualify. Some that come to mind:
--For example NikeTown and Levis occupy multiple floors of one at 6th & Pike.
--The "Main" Post Office occupies much of the building at 3rd & Union.
--At the four-block red area on the upper right, the garage is a multi-story car dealership and the two blocks on the east are a public utility.
--The garage to the right of Qwest Field is also an exhibition hall (the exhibition floor is used for parking depending on the event).

Wow. I knew Houston and LA were bad, but it's still surprising to see that. Miami ain't that great either.

Miami
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6501/78358905.png

If you do Tampa, you'll have fun! :(

Look at Houston! I thought they had gotten rid of most of those surface parking lots! Dleung thanks for posting these but do you have any other cities?

Many of those lots were cleared in the 1960s and '70s when the city was booming and new office towers were expected to fill them. Then the boom went bust in the early '80s and those lots remain, awaiting a return to the boom times.

Detroit would be a good study. much of that city's downtown has been demolished and surface lots abound. A sorry state indeed. :(

Very interesting and useful images. Really shows the frontier that we have available to us- it's daunting, but full of potential.

I wanted to show Oklahoma City as well, I started with surface parking lots, trying to get even the smallest ones, and as I was doing that I realized the enormous areas of brownfields/greenfields within the core of the city. It is truly astounding. Even with the amount of infill progress that has happened over the last decade, we are a long way from filling in all these spaces. It would be great to present these images to our cities; the amount of land that could be intensely developed without expanding utilities or services is awesome.

This image is from 9500 ft, includes the core CBD (center), Midtown (along the top), the Medical District (top right), and a mostly abandoned/demolished residential/industrial neighborhood (bottom right).

PARKING ONLY:

(notice the huge gap in the core CBD, it is very densely built up to the point that there is no parcel to build on)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/parking.jpg

PARKING WITH GREEN/BROWNFIELDS ADDED:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/parkingandgreenfields.jpg

Good god, imagine the enormous loss of revenue that the city loses by not having business or homes/apartments/condominiums on those lots.

It would be embarrassing to see Louisville, or any southern city for that matter. There are a few cities that have seen to got it right, Vancouver and San Francisco have a very small amount of red.

On a side note, I never knew San Francisco's baseball staduim was packed in so tightly. It looks like they had to add land to fit it in.

Here's Minneapolis.

Most of the surface parking is of course concentrated around the Metrodome. The good news is that the BLUE areas are former surface lots that now have new buildings (or bldgs under construction) on them, but the Google Earth images are outdated and still show parking. The GREEN area is a former lot that is now a park.


http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/9146/minneapolissurfaceparki.jpg (http://img547.imageshack.us/i/minneapolissurfaceparki.jpg/)

There are a few cities that have seen to got it right, Vancouver and San Francisco have a very small amount of red.

Not coincidentally, those two cities also have the highest inner-city land values out of all the cities, by a wide margin.

Thanks for contributing more maps guys! Hope to see more!

Minneapolis missed a bunch of garages. Maybe it's not clear that garages are included.

Mapping of selected North American cities, by alphabetical order. All to the same scale at ~9000 feet above ground elevation. This is part of a package for a presentation to a planning committee in Houston, that I received from a coworker. Highlighted areas include surface parking, single-purpose parkade structures, and all brownfields.

Calgary
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2628/calgaryparking9000ft.jpg



Interesting comparison.

Hey dleung, might y have a parking map of Buffalo NY that you could post here?

Minneapolis missed a bunch of garages. Maybe it's not clear that garages are included.

^You're correct. Sorry, those have been added and the image updated. I missed a few smaller private parking lots as well. :)

Good god, imagine the enormous loss of revenue that the city loses by not having business or homes/apartments/condominiums on those lots.

On the other hand, parking ramps do generate money and pay property taxes. They are a necessity for a lot of reasons. I mostly object to them on aesthetic grounds, not their utilitarian purpose. Regarding urban planning, in Minneapolis the giant ramps were purposely sited away from the central core and connected to the center via the Skyway System. That strategy cuts down on the core traffic congestion.

The thread topic is misleading to me. Why are brownfields considered the same as parking lots are far as parking goes? And are "single-purpose parkades" parking garages that are single level or multiple level?

It seems that these areas aren't necessarily parking lots but simply land that is not used for structures or parks. Brownfields and parking garages seems to be relatively opposite of each other as far as parking goes: one is not used for parking but can be utilized much better than being open land, while the other is efficiently used and fills up a parcel.

In my map of Miami I included parking lots and single standing garages only. I would try to do other cities but it's more difficult when you don't know the neighborhood.

Orlando
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1097/captureyr.png

Why are brownfields considered the same as parking lots are far as parking goes? And are "single-purpose parkades" parking garages that are single level or multiple level?

The maps show all the lots deemed under-utilized, which case an above-grade structure devoted entirely to parking is just that, regardless of how many parking levels it is. The study specified "single-use", so that parkades with office/condo above them, or with significant other uses at the base - such as retail - will not be included.

It's interesting how local terminology can be. "Parkade" and "ramp" just aren't used in my region, at least not in the same way. Here, a ramp is for circulation between levels.

Here's Minneapolis.

Most of the surface parking is of course concentrated around the Metrodome. The good news is that the BLUE areas are former surface lots that now have new buildings (or bldgs under construction) on them, but the Google Earth images are outdated and still show parking. The GREEN area is a former lot that is now a park.



Thanks for posting Minneapolis, I was thinking about all the metrodome parking when I read this thread. Good to see that a lot of the lots alon the river are in development.

I posted the satellite images of OKC at our local discussion board, and there is an interesting discussion going on about policies to either discourage leaving land underutilized, or incentives to develop these infill lots. Any good examples of this around North America?

It's interesting how local terminology can be. "Parkade" and "ramp" just aren't used in my region, at least not in the same way. Here, a ramp is for circulation between levels.

I think Minnesota is the only place where we call it a "parking ramp"...I've never heard it used elsewhere. When I hear "parking garage", all I think of is an actual home garage.

Isn't "Parkade" a Canadian term?

Here is one for Baltimore. For the most part, the downtown is large and dense. As in many places, there are lots of lots near the stadiums (lower left) , as well as the jail (upper right).
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6528/screenshot20101115at643.png

Here's Minneapolis.

Most of the surface parking is of course concentrated around the Metrodome. The good news is that the BLUE areas are former surface lots that now have new buildings (or bldgs under construction) on them, but the Google Earth images are outdated and still show parking. The GREEN area is a former lot that is now a park.

Yikes. Even with all of the surface parking that was eaten up with the Mill District and Twinsville developments, there's still such an embarrassing amount of parking downtown. When I used to work near the Metrodome, many times I'd have to walk up and down 5th or Portland and I'd just cringe. I'm so, SO glad this end of town is finally starting to see development...or at least was before the recession.

I think Minnesota is the only place where we call it a "parking ramp"...I've never heard it used elsewhere. When I hear "parking garage", all I think of is an actual home garage.

Isn't "Parkade" a Canadian term?

I've heard it used in a variety of places, just not my region.

Baltimore is one of the better US cities.

Here is Tulsa, Oklahoma's parking (red) and brown/greenfields (green) within the Inner Dispersal Loop around the CBD. Really significant amounts of both surface and structured parking lots. A lot of them represent whole blocks. There are a few areas where developers have realized what a great opportunity those whole blocks represent, and they are trying to fill them in- I think i remember seeing a really large proposal for the southern area with several contiguous blocks of surface parking.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/tulsaparking.jpg

Baltimore is one of the better US cities.
Right ON!:banana::cheers:

Baltimore is set up nicely for whats ahead. Rising energy prices will doom the cities and regions locked into car dependent modes of transportation. Baltimore's density and lack of sprawl is a huge plus...attention is now set on getting the new east-west Baltimore Red Line up and running by the end of the decade. With that, I feel as though a Baltimore renaissance is in order.

Washington, DC, which, thanks to its very expansive dense downtown, high downtown population, vitality and enormous public transit usage, has a virtually car free downtown. The way cities should look:
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1765/screenshot20101116at657.png

On the other hand, you have the way we currently build our cities, unfortunately. Shown is Charlotte, a typical sunbelt city designed for cars, not people. In addition to the mass of parking, there are tremendous amounts of greenfield areas, not to mention excessive landscaping around mid-rise buildings that makes the place look more like a large suburban edge city than a CBD. I give you... Charlotte: http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3460/screenshot20101116at655.png

DC is a very well planned city.

It's road network has a very European feel to it.

Lol. America's capital looks nothing like America.

Should also be noted that the density of DC's downtown is achieved purely from mid-rises, as opposed to highrises.

^^Yes, it's District of Columbia law that no building can be taller than the US Capitol, which is why it's solely a midrise city. Had this law not been instituted, Washington today would probably look a lot more like other North American cities.

wow i always though minneapolis's eastern cbd was really bad but its nothing compared to some of these other cities!

Here's Minneapolis.

Most of the surface parking is of course concentrated around the Metrodome. The good news is that the BLUE areas are former surface lots that now have new buildings (or bldgs under construction) on them, but the Google Earth images are outdated and still show parking. The GREEN area is a former lot that is now a park.


http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/9146/minneapolissurfaceparki.jpg (http://img547.imageshack.us/i/minneapolissurfaceparki.jpg/)

the armory on 5th and portland is also a parking lot on the inside...

the armory on 5th and portland is also a parking lot on the inside...


I thought the purpose was to show surface lots, not parking structures? There are a lot of ramps labeled as surface lots in that picture. Many of our ramps, just like in other cities, are not complete wastes of space...many have some street level retail, and some of those are red on there are literally hanging over a highway and wouldn't be used for anything else...making it a great use of space.

Washington, DC, which, thanks to its very expansive dense downtown, high downtown population, vitality and enormous public transit usage, has a virtually car free downtown. The way cities should look:


You're kidding, right??? Living on Capitol Hill for 7 months last year, I assure you the downtown is not "car-free" by any means! It in fact has the most nightmarish traffic I've experienced in more than 20 cities I've spent time in. The diagonal boulevards contribute to the horrible traffic. I kid you not, there was an intersection a few blocks from where I lived that had no less that eleven stop lights to manage the traffic flow.

I had to commute from East Capitol St to Chevy Chase 7 days a week at varying times of the day. The most direct route - 9.8 miles - took nearly an hour. The 13-mile route took 45 minutes. If I drove the route that was 25 miles long (basically around the Beltway) the trip would take only 35 minutes. I often joked that if I could find the 100-mile-long route I could get there in 5 minutes. :) Add to that the constant interruption by motorcades, police escorts, tour buses, street closings and emergency vehicles and you get a city that is sometimes horribly gridlocked. And don't blame rush hour. Rush hour doesn't exist in DC. It's a more like 18-Hour Rush.

Washington DC is exactly the way you don't want a city to be laid out for automobiles. There's good reason why it's always in the top 5 for worst traffic cities.

That said, I agree that - if you could outright ban cars - DC would be a beautiful city for the most part.

I thought the purpose was to show surface lots, not parking structures? There are a lot of ramps labeled as surface lots in that picture. Many of our ramps, just like in other cities, are not complete wastes of space...many have some street level retail, and some of those are red on there are literally hanging over a highway and wouldn't be used for anything else...making it a great use of space.

If you read the original post, parking garages should be included unless there's a significant mixed use component, which I interpret to me more than basic sidewalk-fronting retail.

You're kidding, right??? Living on Capitol Hill for 7 months last year, I assure you the downtown is not "car-free" by any means! It in fact has the most nightmarish traffic I've experienced in more than 20 cities I've spent time in. The diagonal boulevards contribute to the horrible traffic. I kid you not, there was an intersection a few blocks from where I lived that had no less that eleven stop lights to manage the traffic flow.

I had to commute from East Capitol St to Chevy Chase 7 days a week at varying times of the day. The most direct route - 9.8 miles - took nearly an hour. The 13-mile route took 45 minutes. If I drove the route that was 25 miles long (basically around the Beltway) the trip would take only 35 minutes. I often joked that if I could find the 100-mile-long route I could get there in 5 minutes. :) Add to that the constant interruption by motorcades, police escorts, tour buses, street closings and emergency vehicles and you get a city that is sometimes horribly gridlocked. And don't blame rush hour. Rush hour doesn't exist in DC. It's a more like 18-Hour Rush.

Washington DC is exactly the way you don't want a city to be laid out for automobiles. There's good reason why it's always in the top 5 for worst traffic cities.

That said, I agree that - if you could outright ban cars - DC would be a beautiful city for the most part.

But at least with DC u see a lot of people on the streets walking around after 6pm. A lot of comparable American downtowns are deader than doorknobs by then. Although it may have a large amount of cars riding around, at least DC has some sort of consistent streetlife.

You're kidding, right??? Living on Capitol Hill for 7 months last year, I assure you the downtown is not "car-free" by any means! It in fact has the most nightmarish traffic I've experienced in more than 20 cities I've spent time in. The diagonal boulevards contribute to the horrible traffic. I kid you not, there was an intersection a few blocks from where I lived that had no less that eleven stop lights to manage the traffic flow.

I had to commute from East Capitol St to Chevy Chase 7 days a week at varying times of the day. The most direct route - 9.8 miles - took nearly an hour. The 13-mile route took 45 minutes. If I drove the route that was 25 miles long (basically around the Beltway) the trip would take only 35 minutes. I often joked that if I could find the 100-mile-long route I could get there in 5 minutes. :) Add to that the constant interruption by motorcades, police escorts, tour buses, street closings and emergency vehicles and you get a city that is sometimes horribly gridlocked. And don't blame rush hour. Rush hour doesn't exist in DC. It's a more like 18-Hour Rush.

Washington DC is exactly the way you don't want a city to be laid out for automobiles. There's good reason why it's always in the top 5 for worst traffic cities.

That said, I agree that - if you could outright ban cars - DC would be a beautiful city for the most part.

+1

We're talking New York Ave. And the rush rour traffic getting onto 66 at the Kennedy Center? It nearly KILLED me.

A quick explaination on how I can get a image of the Google Maps to an image I can post on here? :)

I'll edit the post with the image and an rant. :ohno:

But at least with DC u see a lot of people on the streets walking around after 6pm. A lot of comparable American downtowns are deader than doorknobs by then. Although it may have a large amount of cars riding around, at least DC has some sort of consistent streetlife.

That's very nice, but not the point.

To make the claim that downtown DC is "virtually car-free" is the point. Downtown DC is the very definition of "automobile congestion." And it has everything to do with the design of the city.

Let me be clear: Washington DC looks great on paper.

In reality, it's a hell-hole for traffic.


And, as Desertpunk noted above, New York Ave is but one of the nightmarish routes anyone faint of heart should avoid! :)

Crikey, I'd rather be driving an Econoline Van full of Senior Citizens on 42nd & Broadway in Manhattan than navigating Mt. Vernon Square in DC on a Wednesday afternoon driving a Ferrari...

Knoxville, TN
http://oi56.************/szcrc2.jpg

Good god, there are more freeways than buildings! :crazy:

Can someone make one of Dallas.

^^Just download Google Earth (if you don't already have it like everyone else), zoom to about 9000 ft and highlight the parking using polygon tool and adjust the opacity. Save the image, and upload via imageshack.com =)

A quick explaination on how I can get a image of the Google Maps to an image I can post on here? :)

I'll edit the post with the image and an rant. :ohno:

IMO the DC area road network sucks.

In my map of Miami I included parking lots and single standing garages only. I would try to do other cities but it's more difficult when you don't know the neighborhood.

Street view might help a little.

IMO the DC area road network sucks.

They make it extremely easy to get around town. But apparently they don't work too well with the traffic flow.

So the question got me thinking. What if we look at the CBD of a typical auto-centric suburb?

Here at 9,000 feet is Maple Grove, Minnesota. Horrifying if you ask me. The areas to the NE are still being developed (former gravel quarry).

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2483/maplegroveparking.jpg (http://img251.imageshack.us/i/maplegroveparking.jpg/)

Knoxville, TN
http://oi56.************/szcrc2.jpg

Mother of god...

Mother of god...

I know, right. Tiny downtown surrounded by spaghetti. Thankfully what does it exist is very much being taken advantage of...lofts, mixed use, etc. The economy put a halt to a lot of projects that would have helped fill things in tremendously.

You're kidding, right??? Living on Capitol Hill for 7 months last year, I assure you the downtown is not "car-free" by any means! It in fact has the most nightmarish traffic I've experienced in more than 20 cities I've spent time in. The diagonal boulevards contribute to the horrible traffic. I kid you not, there was an intersection a few blocks from where I lived that had no less that eleven stop lights to manage the traffic flow.

I had to commute from East Capitol St to Chevy Chase 7 days a week at varying times of the day. The most direct route - 9.8 miles - took nearly an hour. The 13-mile route took 45 minutes. If I drove the route that was 25 miles long (basically around the Beltway) the trip would take only 35 minutes. I often joked that if I could find the 100-mile-long route I could get there in 5 minutes. :) Add to that the constant interruption by motorcades, police escorts, tour buses, street closings and emergency vehicles and you get a city that is sometimes horribly gridlocked. And don't blame rush hour. Rush hour doesn't exist in DC. It's a more like 18-Hour Rush.

Washington DC is exactly the way you don't want a city to be laid out for automobiles. There's good reason why it's always in the top 5 for worst traffic cities.

That said, I agree that - if you could outright ban cars - DC would be a beautiful city for the most part.

I admit, I phrased that incorrectly. And believe me (I live near DC), I know that DC has the worst traffic in the country and it drives me insane. I also know that there is a tremendous amount of vehicle traffic downtown. What i meant to say was that a much higher percentage of people use transit than in other cities and that DC has developed a dense downtown in which people aren't constantly using cars. DC does have terrible traffic, but only for those who live or work in the suburbs. What i meant is that unlike most cities, the dense and large downtown means that it is perfectly possible to live there without a car, as most people do

Here is Tulsa, Oklahoma's parking (red) and brown/greenfields (green) within the Inner Dispersal Loop around the CBD. Really significant amounts of both surface and structured parking lots. A lot of them represent whole blocks. There are a few areas where developers have realized what a great opportunity those whole blocks represent, and they are trying to fill them in- I think i remember seeing a really large proposal for the southern area with several contiguous blocks of surface parking.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/eyeblink/tulsaparking.jpg


Downtown Tulsa IS a parking lot!