Paramount747

Hines/Hayes Office Tower|24 Stories|305 Feet|U/C

597 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

There are regulations in place in the CBD and redevelopment districts requiring a certain ratio of parking based on the number of units, the type of unit, such as 1,2 or 3 BR, and if there is a commercial and or retail element involved. It does not have to be a garage, but it would be cost prohibitive to buy enough land for a surface lot.

That's a dumb regulation. Metro should get rid of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well, lets say someone builds a 500 unit condo or apartment tower with no parking. What Then?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

Well, lets say someone builds a 500 unit condo or apartment tower with no parking. What Then?

I don't understand the horror that this scenario engenders in most people. If, for some reason, a developer was able to get financing for such a wild experiment, in Nashville TN in 2017, what would happen is very simple. A new market would be established - for residential space that doesn't have expensive parking sq ft priced in. Those who don't need parking would be able to rent more space or pay less money. How much is parking-less residential space worth to people in Nashville? We don't know, because you can't build it. Are there a significant number of people who can't afford a $2500 rent at Sky House or wherever, but would be able to swing $1800 and take transit/bike/Uber to get around? We don't know, and we won't find out as long as we require every development to mark their prices up and include parking spaces for everybody.

Even in an absolute worst case scenario, if there were not 500 people at any price who are able to live without parking, the rates for the units would fall until they reached the point where somebody could live there and put up with the hassle of renting a monthly space elsewhere. This can be done in lots of places downtown for $100-150. The developer would probably lose his shirt in this scenario, and nobody would follow in his footsteps until there was a proven market.

I just don't see the horror. Lots of potential upside here in jump-starting a less car-centric population, and the downside seems quite digestible.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

There are regulations in place in the CBD and redevelopment districts requiring a certain ratio of parking based on the number of units, the type of unit, such as 1,2 or 3 BR, and if there is a commercial and or retail element involved. It does not have to be a garage, but it would be cost prohibitive to buy enough land for a surface lot.

Thanks for the information!

BTW, this (a certain amount of space dedicated to parking) is unfortunately a necessary evil in cities that are sprawl-y and have just short of no mass transit system. I sort of get the argument about government overreach with respect to forcing developers to include a certain amount of parking with their structures, but at the time same time, the reality is if in fact this was a issue, Nashville wouldn't be having the development / high-rise boom it's seeing now (developers would instead shop elsewhere to build their projects) and there wouldn't be a shortage of desirable housing in these parts of the city where the ordinance applies (residents would instead be looking for other locations to live).

All of that being said, the developers in Nashville seem to be (by-and-large) handling it the right way IMO. Hopefully underground parking or the integration of these above-ground parking structures into the design of the building (such as the case with the Hines/Hayes, Tri-Brand Marriot and Bridgestone buildings as examples) is something that will catch on here in Detroit as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Well, lets say someone builds a 500 unit condo or apartment tower with no parking. What Then?

 I doubt that financing would even be provided for that. 

To address some of the earlier posts, the requirement for parking is a smart move, as long as it's highly regulated (design standards, buffering from row's, etc.). In a perfect urban world there wouldn't be a need for cars, or places to park them in the urban core ( I don't really think this or believe it's even possible for most outside of a couple of zip codes in certain cities, but that's my opinion), but good luck developing a condo or apartment tower without assigned parking for a majority of the units. Would any of you realistically want to live somewhere that didn't provide you with an assigned parking location? Would any of you want to own a business that had someone not visiting your store or office parking directly in front or in the vicinity when their dwelling unit is 2 blocks away?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the fact that financing wouldn't be provided is the point. Removing these requirements would not suddenly result in 500-unit buildings with no parking. It would give developers the flexibility to establish a market and establish exactly how much parking people really want to pay for when they're actually given the option. Right now you pay whether you want it or not, so you might as well use it. A parking space takes up around 200 sq ft, an expensive commodity in a Nashville building these days. If given the opportunity, there are some people, even in Nashville, that would avail themselves of the cheaper rent that would follow from not having to pay for it.

This isn't some crazy idea that would only work in a few zip codes. The whole idea that parking needs to be explicitly mandated by zoning requirements is a holdover from the sprawl era. Here's an example I was just reading about in Buffalo: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/01/buffalo-is-first-to-remove-minimum-parking-requirements-citywide/512177/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was just an article in Charlotte talking about why there are still so many parking spaces in projects next to our light rail lines. Part of the answer was fairly simple: investors would not buy developers projects unless an adequate amount of parking was provided. Agree or disagree with that I had never thought of it from that angle. Marketing apartments or office buildings without adequate parking at least today could be financial suicide. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/development/article149577004.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2017 at 9:22 PM, smeagolsfree said:

There are regulations in place in the CBD and redevelopment districts requiring a certain ratio of parking based on the number of units, the type of unit, such as 1,2 or 3 BR, and if there is a commercial and or retail element involved. It does not have to be a garage, but it would be cost prohibitive to buy enough land for a surface lot.

This is actually not true.  Go to page 80 of the Downtown Code, accessible here:

http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/dtc/DTC_150819.pdf 

Parking Requirements • No parking is required within the boundary of the DTC.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I stand corrected, but no one will build a building without parking if they want anyone to live, work or visit retail and commercial space. As long as there are cars, there will be parking somewhere close, and this is a money maker for them to lease out space. Try this is some of the districts and the neighbors will demand parking, otherwise, people  that do not live in that specific area and visit will be taking their spaces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonCamp said:

This is actually not true.  Go to page 80 of the Downtown Code, accessible here:

http://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/dtc/DTC_150819.pdf 

Parking Requirements • No parking is required within the boundary of the DTC.

That's hilarious. So I guess it's like KJHburg was saying, the developers/financers are just as conservative as anybody on this.

After this thread piqued my curiosity, I was cross-examining a friend that bought at 1212 a year ago, and they actually kept their parking a little tighter than I would have expected. He doesn't remember that they made any units available with no parking spots, so I don't quite get to answer my question of what a parking spot is really worth on the open market. But they did apparently build out less than one spot per bedroom, which is pretty impressive (they sold some two BR units with a single parking spot). So I guess developers are already experimenting with this, trying to devote as much sq footage as possible to finished space.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I stand corrected, but no one will build a building without parking if they want anyone to live, work or visit retail and commercial space. As long as there are cars, there will be parking somewhere close, and this is a money maker for them to lease out space. Try this is some of the districts and the neighbors will demand parking, otherwise, people  that do not live in that specific area and visit will be taking their spaces. 

Yes, exactly - downtown office buildings 20-30 years ago would typically have 1.0-2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf of office; nowadays there's no way you can get away with less than 3.5/1,000 at minimum.  The office market demands parking, and your building will be at a disadvantage in leasing if you don't provide it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would point out a couple of recent projects where parking is significantly curtailed:

-The Stanza Hotel is planned to have no parking. The developer has stated that it plans to cater to people who use ride sharing over car rentals. 

-The planned Pannatoni development of the old CMA office on Music Circle South is planning to significantly reduce the required number of parking spots. Instead, they have teamed up with Lyft to provide transit to and from work for their employees.  

Parking is expensive, and as soon as the market will support developments that don't require the developer to build millions of dollar of parking spots then they will begin to get rid of parking.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows nearly complete all the way around.

222 2nd Ave South 2, May 14, 2017.jpg

 

Looking south along 2nd Ave. south into retail/restaurant/lobby area.

222 2nd Ave South 3, May 14, 2017.jpg

 

Looking NW along 1st Ave. South into retail/restaurant/lobby area.


222 2nd Ave South 5, May 14, 2017.jpg

 

Looking south along 1st Ave. South into retail/restaurant/lobby area.

222 2nd Ave South 6, May 14, 2017.jpg

 

Looking NW at intersection of 2nd Ave. South and Molloy into retail/restaurant/lobby area.

222 2nd Ave South 4, May 14, 2017.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm holding out some hope that fast growing trees will be planted to hide some of that "bar code" cladding on the parking structure. The restaurant/retail space WILL be the saving grace of this development.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

And now for the "she's got a really good personality" comment.... 

This building should activate First and Second Avenues quite a bit. 

Demonbreun and 2nd Avenue is going to be a very busy intersection if TCG's development is built.. 

Edited by urbanplanet17
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such melodrama. Now that the full screen is in along with the glass I think it is very interesting. It is a box on top of a box. They had only pattern to play with and they did a good job.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NoChesterHester said:

Such melodrama. Now that the full screen is in along with the glass I think it is very interesting. It is a box on top of a box. They had only pattern to play with and they did a good job.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  It's all in the eye of beer-holder.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.