This is an oversimplification that won't apply to all markets, but typically the decision tree for urban parking looks something like this:
This is an oversimplification that won't apply to all markets, but typically the decision tree for urban parking looks something like this:
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?
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.
Image: Ha/f Studio
Do I need to build parking?
If no, great. That's ideal!
If yes, how many levels of below-grade will I need?
If below-grade parking doesn't work because it's either too expensive or because the soil is bad, try above-grade parking.
And if above grade, how can I "wrap it" with occupiable space or, at the very least, treat it in such a way that it doesn't look ugly and the city doesn't get mad at me?
What I'm getting at with this is that above-grade parking is generally frowned upon. It is done in lots of places, like in Miami where you can't go underground, but if you ask your average urbanist they will probably tell you that above-grade parking is ugly and that said ugliness should be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.
But here's a counter argument. Let's assume that we believe any one of the following:
We should design new buildings to be adaptable (i.e. easily convertible to other uses in the future)
We should design and build in a way that reduces carbon to a minimum
Lower construction costs are good for end-users of space
In the future, people will be less, as opposed to more, reliant on privately owned cars
In this case, the ideal solution is actually "unwrapped" above-grade parking. It's less intensive to build, and both below-grade parking and wrapped above-grade parking result in large windowless spaces with very little utility other than for storing inanimate objects. Your options are parking, self-storage, and maybe a large gym for people who don't like natural light.
Judging by the above poll, which was still in progress at the time of writing this post, this is not how most people think about urban parking. But I think it's time we start changing the discussion.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog