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.
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.
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.