There is an ongoing architecture/development joke that the way you design a building is by first starting with the parking. Once you've figured out how the parking will work, you can then move on to, you know, the secondary stuff, like figuring out how actual humans will occupy your development. I'm calling it a joke, but there's obviously some truth to this. Parking is almost always a challenge, especially if you're developing in a city that still has parking minimums.
Previously, I've talked about the benefits of "unwrapped" above-grade parking. This is generally counter to how most cities like to think about parking. But for a few reasons, it can make a lot of sense. However, to be clear, I'm not advocating for more parking. My point was simply that -- if you absolutely have to build parking -- then maybe you should look at spaces that give you some flexibility in the future.
At the same time, there's another more nuanced thing to consider: how big are your actual parking spaces? Here in Toronto, a standard parking space is 2.6m wide x 5.6m deep (about ~157 sf). This is larger than some apartments. But these minimum dimensions can vary greatly by municipality. Oftentimes you'll hear planners say, "well, people here like their big cars." The problem with this is that these dimensions will dramatically change your parking design.
Here's an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.
The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let's assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.
The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.
It also makes for more flexible spaces. It's hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you're building something that can be repurposed in the future.
However, unless you're forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it's unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.
What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here's the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?
The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It's a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?
So today I thought it would be interesting to gather a few data points from all of you. What are the minimum parking space dimensions in your city? Please leave a comment below so that everyone can see. As far as I know, there isn't a globally accepted set of dimensions for parking spaces. Perhaps because some places like big cars and other places don't care. But maybe there should be.
Kelly Alvarez Doran shared this article with me on Twitter earlier today. It talks about some of the work that his design studios are doing at the University of Toronto around embodied carbon. More specifically though, his studios are being tasked with figuring out how to halve the carbon emissions generated by new buildings during this decade.
And one of the big findings from his studio is exactly the title of this post: our buildings have become carbon icebergs. Here in Toronto, we tend to build a lot of below-grade parking. We recently got rid of parking minimums (which obviously needed to happen), but the market still demands it in certain areas and for certain projects. So we continue to build it.
What the above section drawings are showing is the percentage of carbon emissions resulting from the below-grade construction component in each project. And as you can see, the numbers are significant, particularly in the case of smaller mid-rise buildings where you don't have a lot of above-grade area to grow the denominator.
Looking at 2803 Dundas Street West, which is just down the street from our Junction House project, the number is 50%! And sadly, I would guess that our project is probably only marginally better; we're a bit taller up top, but we also have a raft slab foundation and a watertight below-grade.
This is one of the reasons why I recently tried to make the case for above-grade parking. A big part of my argument was that if we want parking that can be adapted to other uses in the future, and if we want to reduce the embodied carbon in our buildings, then we should be building "unwrapped" above-grade parking. That is, parking which isn't hidden behind other uses.
But this is often frowned upon in planning circles and it's not going to be feasible in smaller mid-rise buildings like the ones shown here. We're also just talking about what is less bad. What we really ought to be doing is trying to build our cities so that people don't need to rely so heavily on cars to get around.
