Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions
A regular reader sent me a link to a new EPA report called Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. I’ve only scanned the 60+ page document but one section really stood out in light of the discussion around Hadley Township in Richmond Heights:
Consider the density of the development. Research shows that each time residential density doubles, auto ownership falls by 32 to 40 percent (Holtzclaw et al. 2002). Higher densities mean that destinations are closer together, and more places can be
reached on foot and by bicycle—reducing the need to own a car. Density is
also closely associated with other factors that influence car ownership, such
as the presence of good transit service, the community’s ability to support
stores located in neighborhoods, and even the walkability of neighborhood
streets.
Urban living is more affordable when a car is not a requirement to function in society. More affordability means people can live better lives on modest incomes.
Parking in the St. Louis region is really messed up. In the city we’ve got selective on-street parking and in the suburbs on-street parking is virtually non-existant. Too much of our region is devoted to cars — parked or moving.
– Steve
Amen! Too much parking everywhere! Thanks for the post.
Keep Cycling!
I understand how the excerpt you cite might relate to downtown St. Louis but not a suburb like Richmond Heights.
The Hadley redevelopment is not simply about eliminating cars and increasing walkability, nor is it about providing homes to those on modest incomes. I don’t understand why those three values have such importance to people such as Mr. Patterson in the context of Hadley.
What is wrong with people choosing a low to medium density development to surround them? Suppose they place great value on private yards for individual families, for families rather than transient singles, on not having people sharing walls, ceilings, and floors?
Most people would probably agree that it would be nice to walk to their grocery store, hair stylist, music store, movie theatre, bar and restaurant. But do people want to sacrifice privacy, quiet, autonomy, and space for this? Judging by the choices that people make about where to live in this region, Richmond Heights included, the answer is “no.” The exception is the loft trend and that trend is occurring in an urban area. Why insist on foisting an urban vision on a decidedly suburban location? Simply because you prefer to live in an urban way? I am not just being rhetorical. I would like to know the underlying values behind this “urban” vision.
More parks, less parking!
The location has an opportunity to be an urban location because of the proximity to MetroLink at Eager Rd. Few places in the region have that opporunity for those who chose a more dense environment. there is more than enough choice of suburban living in the region and few choices for new urbanist with quality transit such as the Conrad Developmnent would have offered.
Plus, we have become very aware of the external cost that low density housing arrangments place on the rest of society. For one it promotes increased use of car transportation, and decreased use of other forms of transportation. Another is that it promotes sprawled out forms of living due to the fact that it takes more land to accomodate housing. Inefficent use of land is what has led to our national energy problem. People now have no choice now but to accept high energy cost because of poor land use choices. On another note Richmond Heights is not a far out suburban area. It is about a mile from the city limits. It could accomodate a higher density. Because of choosing a low density plan, Richmond Heights is missing out on an opportunity to create a higher density neighborhood and bring in the services that would support that density. Governments should use land to its highest potential while at the same time providing for the needs of their citizens. Richmond Heights should encourage higher density because of its place in the region, and it has the responsibility to do so.
So Ted, if I understand you, the major value underlying your vision of new urbanism and increased density is to conserve our energy resources. Thanks for the response.
Tom, you didn’t quite answer my question. Of course Richmond Heights has an opportunity to become more urban. I was getting at what you would tell a current resident of Richmond Heights were the values and benefits of new urbanism such that they should accept a high density development. It seems that Ted would tell them that they have an opportunity to contribute to the conservation of energy.
If you are looking for an example of a fairly dense neighborhood that still offers the amenities of a back yard and detached homes, the Tower Grove neighborhood is a good example for our region. It may not be dense on New York or Chicago standards, but relative to the rest of the St. Louis region it is.
I thought this would be the best place to ask you your thoughs on this, as I know you recievee an email for each one of these posts. What is your opinion on what is going on currently at the BPV site? They seem to be paving a large section of in into a parking lot…….
more info:
Paving BVP