05-15-2016, 08:40 PM
(05-15-2016, 04:54 PM)REnerd Wrote: IMO you are missing two things:
1) There is a perception that people can deal with parking on their own. This results in people parking in public parking locations and jamming up streets in the immediate neighbourhood. There is a very good example of this when Madison/Revel built a bachelor suite without parking (they were so small that they were exempt from parking) and caused the neighbourhood to be very upset with the amount of parking displaced onto the street. If I understand this particular case made City of Kitchener rethink their parking requirements for small units.
2) Developers largely sell to investors who are not necessarily thinking about their own situation, but that of the future tenant. They will be more inclined to buy without parking if such an option is granted. Partly due to pricing discounts; partly because if the city permits it, there must be a demand?
The city definitely needs to set the rules of engagement with regards to parking. The hand of the developer will not always make the best decisions.
Speaking to your first point, in that case residents of a new development parked in free-of-charge public spaces, and the neighbours were upset- why? Because they felt entitled to that public space themselves. The solution there is to just price the street parking. If it's over-subscribed, it's too cheap. If neighbours are complaining that they can no longer find ("free") street parking because a new building has gone up, charge for that street parking and you'll find that some people clean out their garages and remove their cars from the street, or some people factor in the price of parking into their calculus and get rid of their cars. The solution isn't to compel developers to build more spaces to continue the illusion that parking is free.