I guess, like phoenix flyer, I misunderstood the point you were making. It sounded to me like you are advocating for more developers to build less or no parking. I agree the city doesn't need to mandate how much parking a building has. If some schmuck builds 350 units and no parking then it gives someone else the opportunity to build a stand-alone garage, plenty of vacant lots that can serve as parking garages. Share the potential income, I guess.

The problem with parking is that it's dead space when it's overbuilt. Not a problem in the suburbs but when that $30,000 or whatever space is built into the cost of rents in a half-empty garage and occupancy is low you're in a bit of a pickle.

That's the classic justification for parking minimums: to prevent "intruder" parking in neighborhoods. That should really only be a concern in areas where most residents own cars but can park only on the street. Of course, the situation is amplified by the misperception of many homeowners that their deeds include the curbs in front of their houses.

In downtown Phoenix, however, the situation is different. Even the historic districts adjacent to downtown generally have their own driveways and carports or garages. In the downtown core, most street parking is already metered. In my dream scenario, car owners would either pay for a parking space at their own building if one is available or pay for a space in a garage within a few blocks. As a result, "intrusion" into nearby neighorhoods would be minimal and what little occurs could be addressed by a resident permit system if needed.

Actually, I would like to see that outcome, but I believe it should be arrived at via market forces rather than the government mandates. The only situation in which government might induce the development of less parking would be with GPLETs, zoning variances, and other concessions or subsidies. If a developer wants something from the city, maybe the city should ask for something in return. Traditionally, that has taken the form of asking for a certain fraction of the project to be set aside for affordable housing, but unbundled parking is also a way to make housing cost less.

How would you feel if 2-3 apartment developers built something with too-little parking and the result was someone building a full-block parking garage? Something like the Chase garage at 2nd and Van Buren.

I could see that happening in a situation where a guy who's owned a vacant lot for many years realizes there's a demand. Having a glut of parking in the buildings would reduce the chances of stand alone garages.

Or developers should build their podium projects with even more parking than required and charge for parking if you aren't a resident. The union tempe is a good example of this. Provides ample parking for residents underground and then charges the public for parking in the garage above grade. That scenario would reduce the amount of standalone garages. Although expensive to build, the income generated from downtown parking rates has to be substantial over time.

I see that as an unlikely outcome due to rising property values. Ten years ago, parking was often the most profitable use of land. These days, an apartment tower will almost always be a better investment than parking.

Yes, but only if there's demand for the housing and only if money is available to build. Parking is a pretty safe investment whether the economy is booming or not. I agree it's unlikely, just something to think about. And I know this site hates the idea of a garage taking up a city block so it was tempting to bring up that possibility.

Let’s move all this parking one-upping to another forum, shall we?

Here's a break from the parking garage conversation to post a couple permit updates:

Union Phase 2:
A few civil plan permits issued on Friday for Union phase 2 and also a plat review. May see this one moving dirt fairly soon.

Garfield House:
Hydrant flow test permit issued today. Kinda surprised on this one. May not mean anything, but any permit issued is always some indication of movement.

We're having a civil conversation about parking, no one is one-upping anyone. Do you just not like the topic so we can't discuss it?

Good suggestion. I've created a new thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=242775

I think it was more due to that parking is technically more transpiration related than development related. So it probably would have been the better place to discuss it, but exit started a new thread. So either way all good.

I know someone involved in that project. It is moving along, but still pretty preliminary, hence why we haven't seen any renderings or elevations.

Flow tests are done really early in design before you can begin to start designing utilities and building plumbing to know what kind of pressure you are designing your building around. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean a whole lot, but it is progress which is always good!

I've always wondered why they did that!

I can imagine some of the pipes under there are old as dirt and clearly not designed for this kind of development. I am curious to see why you don't see more roads torn up to service these buildings from the main wherever they are.

They normally always do, but a lot of times its just a small stub, so not a major impact. If the line in the road is small, <10-12", then they have to rip up the whole road and up-size the entire pipe as well.

i just got a letter from snell and wilmer that was sent to garfield homeowners about rezoning for the project. they attached renderings and siteplan. i tried posting but failed. i can email them to someone who has a posting site.

26 story, 309 units

26 stories! Very nice! Good to see more of these exceeding 19-20.

Bring on the renderings!!!!! :)

Yes, this would be nice but remember this parcel is zoned for 250' I believe. Hopefully neighborhoods don't have an issue w/ this and they get this built at 26 stories!