Parking in the high density suburbs

Eco-rat · May 29th, 2010, 03:31 PM

Given the discussion in the Green Square thread - what do posters feel should be the approach?

Should the existing Australian approach of fixed ratios of off street parking by mandatory (and thus capitalised into value, but discriminating against non-car-users?)

How about HK, let the market rule. People build or own car parks, if you want one just pay the market rate for one near you. If you can't afford one in your own building, maybe next door is cheaper.

How about Japan, must have proof of a car spot to register a car. Again, one you get in your building, a nearby building or even these mechanical stackers they have for storing cars away. The onus is on the prospective car owner to prove they can park the car off-street; not on the developer as such to provide the parking.

How about like the French, on the street with 'parking by touch' such that every car in Paris has scratches and dings on it. No use being precious about it.

What about the Smart scheme, where the developer includes a Mercedes Smart in the sale price, but is able to cut the parking spots in half as a response.

Should we be looking at the vehicle stackers?

I like the Mercedes Smart idea - not quite De Bono but still some evidence of thinking going on.

MILIUX · May 30th, 2010, 04:27 AM

In theory, if more people find it difficult to get a carpark either at home or work, more people would use public transport to commute. But on the other hand not every occupations can be run with public transport, especially tradies.

Something that is equity balanced but also pressures people to using public transport unless unable for occupational reasons.

Something like a registration scheme would be preferable.

***invincible*** · May 30th, 2010, 04:41 AM

I like the idea of leaving it to the market - I think JP posted a good idea to separate parking into independent facilities. Residents could rent a parking spot with all remaining spaces becoming casual parking. If car usage changes significantly, you could demolish excess capacity and redevelop without being left with a glut of parking spaces in every single building.

crazyknightsfan · June 4th, 2010, 04:28 AM

unbundle parking from dwelling purchase but still enable the purchase of parking spaces
fixed ratios for residential buildings are OK - I have no problems with 1 space per dwelling or 0.5 spaces per bedroom etc

my philosophy is to restrict parking at the destination rather than the origin. You will never serve everyone and every trip with PT so it seems stupid to penalise a car owner so much. discouraging parking at the destination restrict use of the car to certain trips so there is your traffic/sustainability outcome achieved. certain destinations, eg bunnings, would have parking provided so that people can drive there. other destinations would have limited parking and some would have no parking, depending on use and location.

ideally this is matched on the policy side of things by making registration of a car some token amount, say $50, and all other costs are variable based on use - i.e. fuel, maintenance and insurance. this more accurately reflects the marginal cost of any trip and discourages unnecessary usage to make the most of the current high fixed costs.

hornetfig · June 5th, 2010, 08:38 AM

well we can promote this a little bit. At the moment most apartments have their parking spaces annexed to the one strata lot. Ban this and force parking spaces be separate lots. Then prevent strata rules from disallowing the sale of the parking spaces separately to the apartments (and then you need some other rules about rights of access for people who only own parking spaces etc).

May 29th, 2010, 03:31 PM	#1
Eco-rat Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,992 Likes (Received): 1	Parking in the high density suburbs Given the discussion in the Green Square thread - what do posters feel should be the approach? Should the existing Australian approach of fixed ratios of off street parking by mandatory (and thus capitalised into value, but discriminating against non-car-users?) How about HK, let the market rule. People build or own car parks, if you want one just pay the market rate for one near you. If you can't afford one in your own building, maybe next door is cheaper. How about Japan, must have proof of a car spot to register a car. Again, one you get in your building, a nearby building or even these mechanical stackers they have for storing cars away. The onus is on the prospective car owner to prove they can park the car off-street; not on the developer as such to provide the parking. How about like the French, on the street with 'parking by touch' such that every car in Paris has scratches and dings on it. No use being precious about it. What about the Smart scheme, where the developer includes a Mercedes Smart in the sale price, but is able to cut the parking spots in half as a response. Should we be looking at the vehicle stackers? I like the Mercedes Smart idea - not quite De Bono but still some evidence of thinking going on. Last edited by Eco-rat; May 29th, 2010 at 03:41 PM.

May 30th, 2010, 04:27 AM	#2
MILIUX skyscraper connoisseur Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sydney Posts: 5,520 Likes (Received): 25	In theory, if more people find it difficult to get a carpark either at home or work, more people would use public transport to commute. But on the other hand not every occupations can be run with public transport, especially tradies. Something that is equity balanced but also pressures people to using public transport unless unable for occupational reasons. Something like a registration scheme would be preferable. __________________ My Flickr V2

May 30th, 2010, 04:41 AM	#3
*invincible* Lurker Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne Posts: 3,392 Likes (Received): 13	I like the idea of leaving it to the market - I think JP posted a good idea to separate parking into independent facilities. Residents could rent a parking spot with all remaining spaces becoming casual parking. If car usage changes significantly, you could demolish excess capacity and redevelop without being left with a glut of parking spaces in every single building. __________________ Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and everyone thinks that theirs is the only one that doesn't stink. My Melbourne Photos My photos at Panoramio & flickr

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 5th, 2010, 08:38 AM	#5
hornetfig Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sydney... Posts: 2,316	well we can promote this a little bit. At the moment most apartments have their parking spaces annexed to the one strata lot. Ban this and force parking spaces be separate lots. Then prevent strata rules from disallowing the sale of the parking spaces separately to the apartments (and then you need some other rules about rights of access for people who only own parking spaces etc).