Comments on: 555 Fulton: When Parking By-Right Just Isn’t Enough

By: t-dawg

t-dawg — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:31:11 +0000

I think that having lots of off street parking, while it may enable/encourage people to “bring” their cars, it may also let them use them less. When I didn’t have off street parking, I drove more because I had to move my car from parking spot to parking spot to avoid tickets, so I’d end up driving places just because I was going to have to move my car eventually… etc. etc. I agree with Realist–having a car doesn’t necessarily mean not using transit when/where it’s available!

By: Drake Gardner

Drake Gardner — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:50:01 +0000

Where is the proof that those who occupy units without parking usually don’t bring a car. They do bring thier cars and they, at best, park them on the street. As any S.F. citizen will tell you, there is already a shortage of parking. The parking reductions in new mixed-use projects will just add to that shortage. Also, with a transit system that is so disfunctional, it can hardly be considered as much of an alternative.

By: lyqwyd

lyqwyd — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:05:32 +0000

I do find it irritating that developers are gifted with additional parking merely by claiming a project is not viable without it, when such a statement is provably false. There are plenty of condos with no parking, even some single families with no parking that have no difficulty in selling.

By: jon

jon — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:04:25 +0000

they need a new architect

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:11:27 +0000

There’s no colorable basis on which to challenge the number of affordable units included, so whether or not I’ve let the developer off easy is basically irrelevant.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 04:50:19 +0000

I think you’re letting the developer off a little easy here with regards to the 16 units of affordable housing–12% is pretty pathetic. I’m guessing the 25% threshold doesn’t apply here for whatever reason. Nevertheless, that figure could definitely go up if less parking was included (not to mention the added price to each regular housing unit with such high parking ratios).

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:25:43 +0000

Realist, other than note the obvious points (e.g. use of car rentals for occasional out-of-city trips, etc.), the question here isn’t about eliminating all parking. If the developer had included just 68 off-street residential parking stalls, the project could be built without any conditional use for parking. The policy decision regarding parking was already made when the Market/Octavia Plan was adopted.
–
jon, this Curbed link describes some of the push and pull over that design issue. To be honest, I don’t know if the more fine-grained alternative design is better than the original, although I generally agree that the issue you’ve raised is an important consideration. Renderings can be misleading, but either way you cut it, this design will look different from other buildings in the neighborhood. Also, even though there are many smaller buildings with different facades, that’s not universally true — for example, it’s not true of the homes directly across the street from the 555 Fulton site. (Not that that is necessarily a design to emulate…)

By: jon

jon — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:07:04 +0000

i have much more of a problem with the enormous repetitive single tone look of this complex… completely lacks scale with the rest of the neighborhood made up of smaller buildings each with a different facade.

By: Realist

Realist — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:48:13 +0000

Some people take transit every day AND want to have a car. That will continue, until public transit reaches Mount Tam, Squaw Valley, all the wineries in Napa, Monterey, etc etc etc.

Isn’t it possible to utilize transit every day for your life, but still keep a car to explore the things that make many of us wish to live in Northern California? Why should that be bad?

If you want to reduce traffic, impose a congestion charge. Fight the problem at its source. Don’t try to stop driving by limiting parking. After all, a car parked in an underground garage does not create traffic congestion.

By: Pedestrianist

Pedestrianist — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:19:12 +0000

“More generally, why did we bother spending the better part of a decade crafting the Market-Octavia Plan, only to ultimately betray the spirit of that planning effort on a case-by-case basis?”

This is an important question, and one I hope the Planning staff who worked so hard to craft a good plan take to heart.

Mark’s argument above is understandable, but fallacious. He may imagine that people frustrated with Muni will avoid low-parking-ratio buildings, but the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion. As you point out, Eric, older areas with low parking neighborhood-wide are among the most sought after by residents.

We should absolutely improve Muni to make is a more obvious choice for more riders, and one principal way to do that is to avoid generating new auto trips.