The High Cost of Free Parking

[skwatra]

There are plenty of people that ride their bike to work at NASA and Boeing. And there are bikes you borrow once you get here to ride from building to building on campus. I rode on occasion when I lived in Clear Lake (though I am not a morning person so time was my limiting factor). People talk to me. I admit I won't do it from June - September but the rest of the year its great other than a few winter days.

When I lived in St Louis I chose to drive rather than bike most of July and August, as well as December through February. I had less options for biking due to weather than I do in Houston.

I agree the heat is hard to deal with, but that's just part of the year. The problem is the mentality.

[jgriff]

I agree the heat is hard to deal with, but that's just part of the year. The problem is the mentality.

What mentality is the problem?

[names]

I'll check this book out tomorrow at school and report back. Thanks for the tip (I'm in the process of finding a thesis subject).

http://library.uh.ed...ashoup/ashoup/1,15,48,E/frameset&FF=ashoup+donald+c&1,1,

[20thStDad]

Not to drag things too far off topic but the last 6 months or so have been the most amazing riding weather I've ever seen in Houston, for the most part. The last 2 weeks especially were just gorgeous.

I agree, it has been awesome since November or so. But still, no way I could do it to work unless it was a mile or less. Not in work clothes. I do wear suits once per week or so, and the rest of the time it's sleeves and a collar. Even in 50 degree weather I'd be swamping up the drawers after 10 minutes on the bike, and it's not feasible for people to change clothes at most workplaces where there isn't a locker room. I'll bike anywhere I can on the weekend though.

[skwatra]

What mentality is the problem?

The lazy mentality. Here you can drive and park right in front of your destination, for most situations. I was raised in Houston with that mentality, until I spent a lot of time in NYC and Chicago it remained. I have friends in midtown that drive 6 blocks to CVS, when its 65 degrees and sunny out.

People here think I'm crazy when I want walk somewhere. Luckily my gf lived in Boston for 4 years, so now I have company.

I know this isn't everyone, but the percentage of people with that mentality is really high in Houston.

[TheNiche]

The lazy mentality. Here you can drive and park right in front of your destination, for most situations. I was raised in Houston with that mentality, until I spent a lot of time in NYC and Chicago it remained. I have friends in midtown that drive 6 blocks to CVS, when its 65 degrees and sunny out.

People here think I'm crazy when I want walk somewhere. Luckily my gf lived in Boston for 4 years, so now I have company.

I know this isn't everyone, but the percentage of people with that mentality is really high in Houston.

It doesn't matter where you live, most people take the path of least resistance. Though differing infrastructures, costs, and climates result in different outcomes in various cities, the principle is just as true for NYC or Chicago as it is for Houston.

It's just as plausible that you've picked up a bad habit as that you broke one.

[BryanS]

Not to drag things too far off topic but the last 6 months or so have been the most amazing riding weather I've ever seen in Houston, for the most part. The last 2 weeks especially were just gorgeous.

It is, isn't it? The last two weeks... even the azelia's know: this is the time of year, it is nice.

And they bloom. Sooo nice....

And then... the flowers fall off.

In about a week or two.

...and for the rest of the year: hell on Earth. Until Oct.

I have to hand it to Marksmu. He's added some needed balance to this topic... and others.

[skwatra]

It doesn't matter where you live, most people take the path of least resistance. Though differing infrastructures, costs, and climates result in different outcomes in various cities, the principle is just as true for NYC or Chicago as it is for Houston.

It's just as plausible that you've picked up a bad habit as that you broke one.

i disagree, with my sampling of friends I went to college with, it was vary evident on their mentality depending on where they were from. All things being equal, people from Texas (and other places) would just automatically walk to a shuttle, wait for it, and take it to the grocery store. People from Chicago would walk there and it would take the same amount of time. Depending on the amount of groceries they would take the shuttle back. The grew up taking the train in to the city and walking around all day, and they enjoyed it. This is just one example, but its just so apparent that people from certain cities look at me crazy when I want to walk somewhere.

I know it goes both ways, we don't have a good environment to walk in here (not weather, but just the way things are laid out) nor do we have necessity. So I shouldn't complain. I'll continue to walk and ride my bike everywhere I can, even though I'm often alone. Hopefully they'll put more bikes racks out someday (River Oaks Kroger and Heights Target!).

[TheNiche]

i disagree, with my sampling of friends I went to college with, it was vary evident on their mentality depending on where they were from. All things being equal, people from Texas (and other places) would just automatically walk to a shuttle, wait for it, and take it to the grocery store. People from Chicago would walk there and it would take the same amount of time. Depending on the amount of groceries they would take the shuttle back. The grew up taking the train in to the city and walking around all day, and they enjoyed it. This is just one example, but its just so apparent that people from certain cities look at me crazy when I want to walk somewhere.

I know it goes both ways, we don't have a good environment to walk in here (not weather, but just the way things are laid out) nor do we have necessity. So I shouldn't complain. I'll continue to walk and ride my bike everywhere I can, even though I'm often alone. Hopefully they'll put more bikes racks out someday (River Oaks Kroger and Heights Target!).

I observed the same patterns at UH, except that the shuttles took less time. I enjoyed my ability to sleep in more than I cared about stinking up a classroom with my BO, so I usually hoofed it at a fairly rapid clip. I walked because I was lazy (and inconsiderate), not in spite of it. And that was the point that I tried to make in my last post. If I lived in NYC or Chicago, I probably wouldn't want to drive and park in the urban core, either. But I don't live there, and as we've already established...I'm lazy. So in Houston, I drive most places. So do most other people, and for good reason. Walking or biking to inconvenient places (or along dangerous routes) is a bad habit, like smoking.

[dbigtex56]

Back in the 70's and 80's before new office towers were required to have accompanying parking, market forces resulted in south and east Downtown being decimated as the highest and best use of land transitioned to surface lots.

The market forces which shaped the neighborhoods south and east of downtown had nothing to do with economic forces demanding more parking.

The economic forces were due to the EPA demanding that Houston clean up the filthy condition of its waterways. Because of inadequate sewage treatment, Houston was effectively barred from new development. However, existing sewer permits were transferrable; therefore, developers could purchase properties in decaying neighborhoods (i.e., what's currently known as Midtown), and transfer the sewage permits for use in new development. Greenway Plaza owes its existence to this sleight of hand.

Since the existing 'old' properties were essentially useless without sewer access, the buildings were demolished. Most of the property remained vacant; in the 1980's Midtown was a weird, bombed-out No Man's Land. Under the Whitmire administration modern sewage treatment facilities were built, and Houston was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th Century. Personally, I have no nostalgia for seeing intact human feces floating down Buffalo Bayou. If you missed it, be glad.

Yes, some blocks were converted to surface parking. Better to have a little income than none. But let's be clear; your premise is historically and logically incorrect.

Also, please stop misusing the phrase "highest and best". It means precisely the opposite of what you think it does.

[skwatra]

So in Houston, I drive most places. So do most other people, and for good reason. Walking or biking to inconvenient places (or along dangerous routes) is a bad habit, like smoking.

I still haven't heard the good reason. Regarding driving 10 blocks in good weather when walking will take a little more time and strain.

And who said anything about dangerous? By not having a good environment I meant the sidewalk ends and you have to walk on the grass.

Obesity is a bad habit too.

[TheNiche]

The market forces which shaped the neighborhoods south and east of downtown had nothing to do with economic forces demanding more parking.

The economic forces were due to the EPA demanding that Houston clean up the filthy condition of its waterways. Because of inadequate sewage treatment, Houston was effectively barred from new development. However, existing sewer permits were transferrable; therefore, developers could purchase properties in decaying neighborhoods (i.e., what's currently known as Midtown), and transfer the sewage permits for use in new development. Greenway Plaza owes its existence to this sleight of hand.

Since the existing 'old' properties were essentially useless without sewer access, the buildings were demolished. Most of the property remained vacant; in the 1980's Midtown was a weird, bombed-out No Man's Land. Under the Whitmire administration modern sewage treatment facilities were built, and Houston was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th Century. Personally, I have no nostalgia for seeing intact human feces floating down Buffalo Bayou. If you missed it, be glad.

Yes, some blocks were converted to surface parking. Better to have a little income than none. But let's be clear; your premise is historically and logically incorrect.

Wow, we've talked about the history and economics of surface lots in various topics on HAIF for years and this is the very first time I've heard of sewage being a factor. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong--you actually lived here at that time and I wasn't even born--but it does seem an unlikely explanation considering the sheer volume of space (and sewage output) was added during that period of time. It doesn't seem plausible that there would've been enough old buildings to knock down in the first place. ...unless of course the sewage permits were based on developed acres, but the City and the EPA would've had to have been chock full of mind-blowingly incompetent ninnies to do that.

Also, please stop misusing the phrase "highest and best". It means precisely the opposite of what you think it does.

What does it mean, then?

[TheNiche]

I still haven't heard the good reason. Regarding driving 10 blocks in good weather when walking will take a little more time and strain.

You just stated it. Time, strain, and the presumption of good weather.

And who said anything about dangerous?

Mile for mile, being a pedestrian or cyclist is more dangerous than being a driver.

Obesity is a bad habit too.

A bad habit is an activity that one engages in that has deleterious consequences. Obesity is the consequence (not a habit) of taking in more calories than are expended on a consistent basis. Overeating is the bad habit in your example and it is not pertinent to our discussion.

[dbigtex56]

Wow, we've talked about the history and economics of surface lots in various topics on HAIF for years and this is the very first time I've heard of sewage being a factor. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong--you actually lived here at that time and I wasn't even born--but it does seem an unlikely explanation considering the sheer volume of space (and sewage output) was added during that period of time. It doesn't seem plausible that there would've been enough old buildings to knock down in the first place. ...unless of course the sewage permits were based on developed acres, but the City and the EPA would've had to have been chock full of mind-blowingly incompetent ninnies to do that.

My understanding is that much of the demolition of older buildings in Midtown came about in the 1970s, when the EPA ordered the city of Houston to stop issuing new sewer permits due to the lack of sewage treatment facilities. A that time many neighborhoods (including River Oaks) simply dumped their raw sewage into Buffalo Bayou.

However, existing permits were transferable, so developers bought low-cost properties in Midtown and reassigned the sewage permits to new buildings. Because the existing buildings were useless without sewer hookups, they were demolished wholesale.

By the time I moved to Houston (1981) Midtown was already pretty much a vast wasteland.

You're welcome.

What does it mean, then?

"Highest and best use" means that an asset is being used to benefit the greatest number of people over an extended period of time; the opposite of a get-rich-quick scheme.

For example: Memorial Park could be exploited for the short term gains of a few greedy people by allowing oil wells to be drilled, or forests to be cleared and the land converted to surface parking. The higher and better use for that land is its current one - a recreation area, open to all, in the middle of a large city that's tragically park-poor.

[TheNiche]

You're welcome.

"Highest and best use" means that an asset is being used to benefit the greatest number of people over an extended period of time; the opposite of a get-rich-quick scheme.

For example: Memorial Park could be exploited for the short term gains of a few greedy people by allowing oil wells to be drilled, or forests to be cleared and the land converted to surface parking. The higher and better use for that land is its current one - a recreation area, open to all, in the middle of a large city that's tragically park-poor.

I realize that the planning and permitting process in Houston has come a long way since the boomtown days, but it is unfathomable that a new sewage permit for a new 75-story building could be substituted with an existing sewage permit for an old one- or two-story building...just like that. Can you cite any articles? Can anybody else on this forum back you up, at least?

As for "highest and best use", we were already on the same page, just that I think that you're projecting your high-minded opinions onto the vast population of average joes whose value systems are very different. For instance, the average joe probably wouldn't mind if a barely-utilized sliver of Memorial Park's western boundary were used to accommodate a few extra lanes of freeway. A lot of my preferences get plowed under by cost-benefit analysis, too, but that tends to happen when your goal is pareto efficiency.

[dbigtex56]

I realize that the planning and permitting process in Houston has come a long way since the boomtown days, but it is unfathomable that a new sewage permit for a new 75-story building could be substituted with an existing sewage permit for an old one- or two-story building...just like that. Can you cite any articles? Can anybody else on this forum back you up, at least?

As for "highest and best use", we were already on the same page, just that I think that you're projecting your high-minded opinions onto the vast population of average joes whose value systems are very different. For instance, the average joe probably wouldn't mind if a barely-utilized sliver of Memorial Park's western boundary were used to accommodate a few extra lanes of freeway. A lot of my preferences get plowed under by cost-benefit analysis, too, but that tends to happen when your goal is pareto efficiency.

I've anticipated your reasonable request for proof of (what I've believed to be the truth) the EPA's role in Houston's development in the late 70's - early 80's. Unfortunately, I haven't kept a copy of every publication I've ever read; at times like this, I kick myself.

The article I read seemed persuasive and well researched; I forget if it was published in the Houston Press or Public News. I've sent an email to HP, and hope that this article can be found among their archives. PN is, unfortunately, defunct. There even exists the possibility that I'm wrong, although that seems unlikely.

Speaking of same, mea culpa. According to online sources, your use of "highest and best" is in agreement with realtor/development types. Point goes to you. Let's just say that the phrase "highest and best" applies to real estate and city planning the way that "fair and balanced" applies to Fox News. The purpose of its use is to mislead.

[TheNiche]

I've anticipated your reasonable request for proof of (what I've believed to be the truth) the EPA's role in Houston's development in the late 70's - early 80's. Unfortunately, I haven't kept a copy of every publication I've ever read; at times like this, I kick myself.

The article I read seemed persuasive and well researched; I forget if it was published in the Houston Press or Public News. I've sent an email to HP, and hope that this article can be found among their archives. PN is, unfortunately, defunct. There even exists the possibility that I'm wrong, although that seems unlikely.

Speaking of same, mea culpa. According to online sources, your use of "highest and best" is in agreement with realtor/development types. Point goes to you. Let's just say that the phrase "highest and best" applies to real estate and city planning the way that "fair and balanced" applies to Fox News. The purpose of its use is to mislead.

Thanks. If you're able to find anything, I will concede that my mind has been blown.

There are two ways that the term "highest and best use" gets used. One is the economic definition where an objective is typically pareto efficiency, and the other is the financial definition where an objective is profitability. In each case, highest and best use can be validated by a comparison of net present value between various scenarios. Neither form of use of the term is misleading; it's just context-sensitive. When I talk about "highest and best use" on HAIF, I'm usually talking about the economic meaning. And I certainly was this morning--although both meanings certainly had applicability IMO.

[gnu]

The article I read seemed persuasive and well researched; I forget if it was published in the Houston Press or Public News. I've sent an email to HP, and hope that this article can be found among their archives. PN is, unfortunately, defunct. There even exists the possibility that I'm wrong, although that seems unlikely.

Perhaps you are referring to this article from the first issue (Aug 1982) of Cite?

http://citemag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TradingToilets_Neuhaus_Cite1.pdf

[marmer]

Note the link above. Cite archives from all but the most recent two years are now available online. This is news to me, and very cool.

[TheNiche]

Perhaps you are referring to this article from the first issue (Aug 1982) of Cite?

http://citemag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TradingToilets_Neuhaus_Cite1.pdf

I'm amazed that this kind of system ever had to be implemented, however by my reading of the article, there were quite a few factors at play.

1) Toilets had to be traded out one-for-one.

2) The trades had to be compatible with existing line capacities, making it difficult for trades to happen that were too geographically separated.

3) Downtown was exempted by decree. Most of the remainder of the Inner Loop was not exempted.

4) The article made it seem like the most impacted neighborhoods were Montrose and the Binz. Dbigtex56 also mentioned Midtown and Greenway Plaza as being significantly impacted (or impactful). That is significant because all of those neighborhoods (except for a part of Montrose) were served by the Sims Bayou plant rather than the Northside plant that serves downtown.

To be clear, I've never argued that parking revenues were behind the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods like Midtown. And in light of this evidence, I wouldn't be willing to say that the trading of permitted sewage capacity had no impact on the preponderance of surface parking in east and south downtown. However, given that east and south downtown were so completely flattened and parked even though they were geographically removed from restricted high-growth areas served by the same treatment plant, it's hard for me to buy into the argument that this was the proximate cause of their demise. The area that got wiped out was already in decline, shiny new office towers weren't required to self-park, and as evidenced in horrifying aerial photos from the mid-80's, there obviously was a tremendous amount of demand for parking.

Furthermore, if the trades really were toilet-for-toilet (as opposed to a modern metric like ESFCs), then I'd expect that a disproportionate amount of trading and demolition would occur with respect to multifamily properties. Commercial and light industrial buildings such as were characteristic of east and south downtown have relatively few toilets per square foot of either enclosed area or land area and would've offered more expensive toilet-based trades.

Surely the article left many things unclear. In fact, it seems that a lack of clarity was part in parcel with the subject matter. So I'm hesitant to take a definitive stance. But the article made no mention of downtown as a cause or a target of sewage trading and it didn't actually mention with specificity that trading was linked to demolition activity (it suggested instead that property owners that had traded away their sewage permits hoped to eventually get them back by one means or another...which is what ultimately happened).

An old wrinkle of Houston's developmental history has been brought to light, and perhaps it was a contributing factor. But I'm sticking to the "highest and best use" argument as being the proximate cause of our downtown surface parking.

[infinite_jim]

Great topic considering the off street parking meetings being held this month. Link

Sanitary sewer and off street parking are the two biggest factors that determine building forms in my work experience in Houston. I first heard of The High Cost of Free Parking from the director of community development in Bellaire a year or so ago. I was suggesting a Chicago style privatization of curbside parking in lieu of having to build a glorified parking garage for such a small commercial building atop and in our discussion the director referred my idea to this book. The author clearly is pro market-priced curbside parking, something I was assured would never gain immediate political support in Bellaire. I'm on lunch so I'll try to come back to this thread at a later date.

Oh and another good read on the subject and mentioned in High Cost is Travel By Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel

[lockmat]

Apparently there was a public meeting to discuss parking last Wednesday. Did anyone go or know of the outcome of it?

http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/play/04152010-30/0/

[dbigtex56]

Perhaps you are referring to this article from the first issue (Aug 1982) of Cite?

http://citemag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TradingToilets_Neuhaus_Cite1.pdf

gnu, thank you very much for finding that article - couldn't for the life of me remember the source (and considering that it's been 27+ years since I read it, little wonder!)

To be clear, I've never argued that parking revenues were behind the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods like Midtown.

Then please forgive me for having misunderstood every single one of your posts. It sure seemed like that was your whole point.

[porTENT]

http://www.austincon...ons-matter.html

The "direct" test is hardly definitive. So the authors also ran an indirect test. They used fancy econometric techniques to estimate the marginal value of a parking spot for commercial properties in the suburban parts of Los Angeles County. In other words, they determined how much value the "last" parking spot adds to the sales price In a competitive market, developers should add parking until the value of that last spot equals the cost of building it. Developers who build parking at a loss are either very stupid or -- more likely -- doing it only because the city makes them do it.

It turns out that 88% of commercial properties in suburban Los Angeles have parking spots that cost more to build than they're worth. The percentages vary wildly by type of property, though. "Only" 80% of industrial properties have more parking than one would expect. But 99% of restaurants and gas stations -- 99% -- and 91% of shopping centers have more parking than they'd voluntarily build.

[porTENT]

http://www.austincon...d-addendum.html

But Donald Shoup makes another important point in The High Cost of Free Parking. Merely looking at current costs and prices understates the full impact of minimum parking requirements. MPRs have legacy costs. One legacy is that decades of free parking have artificially driven up the demand for driving and artificially depressed the demand for dense, walkable development. Parking lots increase the distance between businesses, which makes walking less practical, which in turn makes driving more attractive. Thus, the marginal value today of a parking spot is much higher than it would have been without decades of MPRs.

[TheNiche]

http://www.austincon...ons-matter.html

Speaking from the vantage-point of someone that has been a developer's analyst...the findings are intuitive. A developer will never intentionally under-park a project; it strongly correlates to a higher cap rate, and is good enough reason to pass on a property being offered for sale.

Still, it isn't particularly helpful to know what percentage of properties are over-parked. That stat will seem to exaggerate the problem (i.e. lies, damned lies, and statistics). It'd be much more helpful to know the percentage of excess spaces.