To Overpark, or to Underpark, Aye, That is the Question!

Over the past couple of weeks, the SLC Planning Commission has been talking about parking standards in areas where business or high-density residential abuts single-family neighborhoods.  As parking spills over from small neighborhood businesses or from apartment complexes into nearby residential streets, the reaction from the neighbors can get rather sharp (see video of the SLC Planning Commission on July 13).

SLC, like a number of others around the country, has made a conscious policy decision to de-emphasize the car and make the city more pedestrian- and bike-friendly.  One sure-fire way to do that is to not provide so much parking, so that people have to find other ways to get around conveniently.  In 2008, the city changed its parking standards from 3 per 1,000 square feet for retail businesses to 2, and for restaurants from 6 to 2.

That seems to work OK in the downtown and large commercial areas, where there are numerous businesses, parking lots, and few residents to worry about the parking in front of their house.  But it does lead to friction in those single-family areas adjacent to small businesses, like 9th & 9th and 15th & 15th.

There seems to be pretty good agreement that residents like to have the amenities that having small neighborhood-scale businesses provides to their areas - local services, coffee houses and small restaurants.  But it is unlikely that those businesses can survive purely on the market area of those who can walk to the business.  They need to draw from a larger area, and those people seem to get there primarily by car.  And should a business get really successful (The Dodo, Eggs in the City, etc), there can be a substantial number of cars parked on nearby residential streets.

While the downtown and large commercial areas usually have transit to assist in getting people there, those options are much more limited in residential neighborhoods.

We've found, as we've done some research on this topic, that cities all over are generally reducing their parking requirements.  Perhaps the conflicts that come with it are just part of the transition that's taking place from auto-centered to people-centered.

My desire to blog about this was prompted by a story I saw in yesterday's New York Times, called "Should a 'Walking Paradise' Save Plenty of Room for Parking?", using Denver's experience as the primary example.  No quick or easy answers to this one...