This is an oversimplification that won't apply to all markets, but typically the decision tree for urban parking looks something like this:
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.
We knew it was coming. But it's important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.
If you'd like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you'll find them linked here. I haven't gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for "maximum" given that this week's adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here's an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I'm talking about:
Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide
Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should
allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given
use and minimums should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
zoning standards should require the minimum responsible amount of parking for a given
land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
dependence.
One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.
All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There's a joke (half-joke) that when you're designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That's not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week's adoption is in service of that.