How minimum parking requirements are a drag on Dallas

To understand the permanent state of crisis Dallas is in, start with a few frequently asked questions. Why are the streets of Dallas so unattractive? Why is the inner city constantly struggling? Why is it so difficult to start a new business in this city? Why is the development spreading further and further north? Why is it so hot Why do we have persistent inequality problems?

These questions can be answered independently and with a variety of reasonable explanations, but there is a relatively simple answer that covers them all: parking.

And no, the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough of them, although there are those who will tell you. Don’t believe them. If you imagine a healthy city where you can always pull up to your destination and park, then you are living in a world of madness. That’s what we’ve tried here, and if you spend some time downtown the evidence is pretty much incontestable. It doesn’t work.

But I’m not here to take your parking space away from you. I just want this city, with its “business first” ethos and conservative history, to live according to its own principles and put an end to the absurd over-regulation of parking. This eliminates the mandatory minimum parking requirements that throw the irritating stone into the urban pond: Their waves spread out concentrically and disrupt the functional well-being of the entire city.

There is some hope. The city has launched an initiative to address the parking situation, but as you can expect from a facility with the rather terrifying acronym ZOAC (which is Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee), the red tape can be pesky. On a recent online public forum, a representative of the committee announced that it would “remove parking minimums, except in cases where it would not be appropriate to remove these minimums”. Thanks very much.

For now, Dallas feels it is appropriate to have parking regulations in virtually every instance. The city code specifies more than 180 different uses, each with its own minimum parking requirement. There are requirements for a bingo parlor (1 space per 50 square feet), pawn shop (1 per 200 square feet), furniture shop (1 per 500 square feet), and taxidermist (1 for each). 600 square meters). If you are thinking, “Heaven help me,” you are on the right track because there is a whole section of code devoted to church parking.

There are requirements that would look appropriate in a Joseph Heller novel. A 250-room hotel must have 250 parking spaces, but a 251-room hotel can have 188 parking spaces due to a faulty incentive ladder. Of course, one can ask why a hotel in the city center should need space at all – especially when most visitors come here by plane.

If Dallas is building homes for the homeless, guess what – it has to meet standard home parking requirements. And that’s for people who can’t even afford a home, let alone cars. The city bureaucracy, entangled in its own bureaucracy, is adamant about giving waivers. An application to reduce parking requirements for the Cottages at Hickory Crossing, a permanent housing project right next to a public transit system, has been denied.

Mandatory minimum parking spaces make Dallas city planners drive around in circles and encourage development in suburbs like McKinney, where this photo was taken.(Smiley N. Pool / Employee Photographer)

A university must have one parking space for every 25 square meters of space. A 500-square-meter classroom takes 20 seats – essentially one seat per student, a ridiculously high number for a low-income cohort who is turning away from automobility.

The special cases are irritating, but the bigger problem is the most common building types: residential projects, offices, and restaurants. The parking regulations add to the cost of these businesses, a burden that is particularly difficult for smaller businesses with less capital. And then there is the spatial component; Properties used for other purposes are handed over to the car storage facility.

The results are punishable by law. Some stores just don’t open. Others are moving to the suburbs, where the cost of providing parking is far lower. This puts a self-imposed economic burden on the city, pushing its tax base beyond its limits. That means higher taxes for those of us who live and work here, along with decreased services. Most affected are residents of minorities, who are most likely to live in poorly maintained neighborhoods and are forced into an expensive car existence to hunt increasingly remote jobs.

The parking requirements make it even more difficult to build affordable housing as margins are initially small and adding parking – for people who don’t necessarily need or want it – can be a deal breaker. This is no coincidence either. Minimum parking requirements (and minimum property size requirements) have often been a tool to keep poor populations and minorities out of neighborhoods. This is NIMBYism at its worst.

The economic and social costs are offset by aesthetic costs. Parking requirements encourage car-centered development of shopping malls rather than friendly streets designed for people. All those boring podium buildings you see? There would be less and less intrusive if the requirements were removed.

And this last point gets to the heart of the matter. The parking requirements create a city that favors the use (and storage) of cars, that encourages walking without driving, and that expands the (heat-retaining) sea of ​​concrete. It is not sustainable economically, ecologically and justly.

In his honor, ZOAC has made some positive proposals, the most important of which are the reduction or elimination of the requirements in the areas bordering public transport.

This is a start, but not enough. Except in rare cases, compulsory parking should be abolished entirely. The free market can determine when and how many parking spaces are needed. The only condition the city can take is that if citizens park, they must pay for the privilege. Too many places in this city are not metered or are metered too inappropriately.

Dallas has talked a lot over the past few years about making itself a more walkable, engaging, and fairer place. There are a variety of initiatives and plans to achieve these goals, and that is a good thing. But in urban planning, the small print decides success. The parking conditions are the terms of use that we accept with every new digital application without reading them, because it seems we have no choice.

With the appointment of several new progressive members to the city council, this is the moment when the city can actually change these conditions. You get what your code promotes. It’s one thing to chat, but Dallas has to go the way or it will never be pleasant to walk here.

[ad_1]