emathias |
May 26, 2016 8:00 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire
(Post 7400922)
It's not stupid if you think of who their customer base is. While I never see myself needing a car, especially if I'm living close to public transit, the +40 population likes having 2+ cars, and that's just reality
|
I'm 40+ and married and have zero cars and am a downtown homeowner. That's just reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire
(Post 7401457)
You literally could have made that sentence, "you didn't back your claims with data", no need to try way too hard to sound smart. Also, I don't understand how my claim is wrong? Would less parking spaces be preferable? Yeah, but again as I said, the place isn't going to be attracting that many car free 20-30 year old buyers. That's just not the price market we are looking at here.
|
Perhaps not early-20s, but you might be surprised how many late-20s and 30-somethings who have both the money for and the interest in a development like this one. As long as we're throwing around anecdotes, it was a 26-year-old who bought the $800,000 unfinished condo next to me and poured another half-million into making it his own. I think that's probably well within the price point of this development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper
(Post 7401776)
the zoning for this area requires .55 parking spaces per residential unit.
|
It's a PD, is it not? A PD can negotiate that, can it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
(Post 7402948)
...
There probably is a significant unmet demand for units without parking, but it's worth noting that Chicagoans without cars can already opt out of parking and reap the savings by living in a vintage building, many of which are renovated and offer a standard of living similar or equal to new construction.
|
It's also worth noting that the City has put hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in investments into the area immediately surrounding that, a good chunk of that investment is targeted toward reducing driving. When a city invests in allowing, even encouraging, a car-free or car-light lifestyle, it is a waste of public money to then require parking and not irrational to even actively limit it. The price paid almost doesn't matter, since at all price points there will be some people who don't need or want a car, and they should not have to both subsidize investment in car-free areas AND also pay additional money for a place that can accommodate a car the do not want. I'm not necessarily against letting developers make market-oriented decisions about parking, but I'm also definitely not against it if the City were to actively discourage parking at sites that can support car-free living.
|