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.

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.