• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Planning: general 🌇 Random Planning Thoughts (and Photos) Deserving No Thread Of Their Own

So I have to set up a APA chapter session and our people are abnormally excited about parking standards. Like how to set them and into minutia like how much does a parking space cost to build, how big should it be, etc. I would say it's odd, but we're planners so I guess not. My question, who should I try to talk to about setting parking lot standards? If I talk to a developer I get lower the standards or why even have them. I'd talk to a city, but let's be honest, we just copy from what other cities did or maximize it for black friday. I'm thinking traffic engineer, but I'm not sure they actually do parking lot studies.
 
mendelman said:
To be fair, creating parking requirements was equally arbitrary.
Click to expand...
That's my problem. You and I are smart enough to say it's just arbitrary, but some planners like to have facts and figures and believe everything should have them. I can't just say, "Well, I looked at what city X was doing in the region and decided we have a lot of tourists so I increased it a little." or "I found a lead hanging out the back of my pants and just pulled."

Is there some kind of parking study group for retailers?
 
DVD said:
That's my problem. You and I are smart enough to say it's just arbitrary, but some planners like to have facts and figures and believe everything should have them. I can't just say, "Well, I looked at what city X was doing in the region and decided we have a lot of tourists so I increased it a little." or "I found a lead hanging out the back of my pants and just pulled."

Is there some kind of parking study group for retailers?
Click to expand...
It is arbitrary. We can't codify a fair solution to every situation. Minimum parking requirements are in place because community's felt that people wouldn't provide enough parking and maximum parking requirements are because community's felt that there was too much parking being provided. The reality is that access to a business is crucial for them to be successful, which in most auto oriented communities is parking. I think we should spend less time worrying about quantity of spaces and more time worrying about the quality of the spaces provided.
 
Big Owl said:
It is arbitrary. We can't codify a fair solution to every situation. Minimum parking requirements are in place because community's felt that people wouldn't provide enough parking and maximum parking requirements are because community's felt that there was too much parking being provided. The reality is that access to a business is crucial for them to be successful, which in most auto oriented communities is parking. I think we should spend less time worrying about quantity of spaces and more time worrying about the quality of the spaces provided.
Click to expand...
AKA: We're not going to tell you how many private off-street parking spaces you must have, but if you provide them here's specific parking area dimensional requirements.

EDIT: and locational requirements.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
AKA: We're not going to tell you how many private off-street parking spaces you must have, but if you provide them here's specific parking area dimensional requirements.
Click to expand...
Yup-

You can do a lot with design standards: maximum number of spaces before you have to divide with an island, provide safe pedestrian passage through, require islands to be landscaped with one or two trees to provide some minimum percentage of shading in the lot, etc.
 
DVD said:
So I have to set up a APA chapter session and our people are abnormally excited about parking standards. Like how to set them and into minutia like how much does a parking space cost to build, how big should it be, etc. I would say it's odd, but we're planners so I guess not. My question, who should I try to talk to about setting parking lot standards? If I talk to a developer I get lower the standards or why even have them. I'd talk to a city, but let's be honest, we just copy from what other cities did or maximize it for black friday. I'm thinking traffic engineer, but I'm not sure they actually do parking lot studies.
Click to expand...
I sat through a webinar/presentation about 4 years ago where a group had gone out and actually researched usage of parking for non-urban settings. They had some good info from different cities/small towns across the country about how many spaces were used for an interstate hotel, random fast food, dollar store, and grocery store among others. They had even figured out some coefficients to use in lifestyle centers vs strip center vs malls. I want to say that generally the peak usage came out to be between 33-40% of what was typically required by a city or mandated by a company for a lot of uses.

I always meant to go back and look at it when I got around to redoing our parking regs, but that keeps getting further down the list. I do sometimes admit to being bad at math when I'm doing parking calculations.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
I do sometimes admit to being bad at math when I'm doing parking calculations.
Click to expand...
Sometimes 'net' measurements can have a substantively different outcome than 'gross' measurements.

And the whole thing is often conveniently esoteric and opaque to the outside.

:cool:
 
What I find laughable in Consultant reponses to RFP / RFQ is that they don't proofread them
so at beyond page 1 it is a copy & paste job without changing the client community name to your own community name.
 
Big Owl said:
The reality is that access to a business is crucial for them to be successful, which in most auto oriented communities is parking. I think we should spend less time worrying about quantity of spaces and more time worrying about the quality of the spaces provided.
Click to expand...
The first half of this sounds sensible, but at the same time it blows my mind how often you hear about businesses nowadays protesting against transit expansions/extensions into their area, or even active transportation features being added to nearby streets. You could fit one of the Cuomo Mansion Second Ave Subway stations into many parking lots with room to spare and it'd still be a more efficient way of getting people to your front door than the parking spots it displaced, despite all the excess space it'd use compared to a more modest design.

As to the quantity vs. quality debate, though, I largely agree. There will still be a residual supply of parking in our cities for some time yet, and planners will need to mitigate the impacts from it by requiring the use of green islands, pervious pavement, and other such LID tools, as well as preventing parking from forming "craters" and "moats" that deter pedestrian access. (My personal stance would be more radical, involving mandatory municipalization and metering of off-street parking, but that's probably a bridge too far for communities that can barely stomach metered street parking.)
 
mendelman said:
We should always be ready and willing to objectively evaluate a process or code's present usefulness and/or purpose.
Click to expand...
1646753790050.png
 
In a conditional use review for a drive-through restaurant request, it's often a good strategy to 'split the baby' when making a staff recommendation.
 
mendelman said:
In a conditional use review for a drive-through restaurant request, it's often a good strategy to 'split the baby' when making a staff recommendation.
Click to expand...
So drive through but only for mopeds?

A former PD I worked under used "split the baby" all the time.
 
Faust_Motel said:
So drive through but only for mopeds?

A former PD I worked under used "split the baby" all the time.
Click to expand...
Actually, let me revise this to - Make most unhappy.

Since we have like 5% of our private property land area zoned/developed commercially, the muni's coffers kind of welcome this proposed project, but some neighbors are vocally opposed. The staff recommendation will likely have the project proceed (making the neighbors unhappy) but also remove one of the directions to which customers can exit (making developer unhappy).
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
Actually, let me revise this to - Make most unhappy.

Since we have like 5% of our private property land area zoned/developed commercially, the muni's coffers kind of welcome this proposed project, but some neighbors are vocally opposed. The staff recommendation will likely have the project proceed (making the neighbors unhappy) but also remove one of the directions from which customers can exit (making developer unhappy).
Click to expand...
Right- the true definition of splitting the baby is that nobody is happy and the baby isn't as functional after.
 
Having participated in 1,000 municipal public meetings, that's why.
 
I've been using the term 'ministerial' more often recently in my memos and staff reports when discussing the distinction between discretionary review of a portion of a project that doesn't apply to the project's many required standards/regulations.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
I've been using the term 'ministerial' more often recently in my memos and staff reports when discussing the distinction between discretionary review of a portion of a project that don't apply to the project's many required standards/regulations.
Click to expand...

I will try this
 
I wrote several comprehensive and corridor plans when I was working for a county planning agency Northeast Ohio - the place where I was laid off in part due to Great Recession-induced budget cuts, in part because the PD I was hired to eventually replace decided he really wasn't ready to retire, because he wanted to set a record for having the longest tenure of any employee for that county.

Anyhow, in recent years the county updated a lot of the municipal plans that I wrote. They changed very little; mostly some demographic background information. Also, the revised documents look a lot more amateurish. The county planning department -- really, just down to a couple of planners -- also wrote a couple of new municipal plans, with heavy borrowing of goals and recommendations from the plans I wrote over 15 years ago.

You're welcome, county.

:rofl: :pointright: :oh:
 
Nothing to see here. Move along. Just normal houses.

www.mirror.co.uk

London's fake houses which are only 1.5m deep and look normal but hide a secret

Two homes in west London's Leinster Gardens near Hyde Park appear like all the others on the street, where the average house sells for the tidy sum of £1.5million
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk

This is fantastic as, in this case, a city cares about what it looks like to the public (facade) but knows there needs to be certain infrastructure.

I think about this when I see 'engineered' solutions with no/none/zero/nada aesthetic appeal.
 
Planit said:
Nothing to see here. Move along. Just normal houses.

www.mirror.co.uk

London's fake houses which are only 1.5m deep and look normal but hide a secret

Two homes in west London's Leinster Gardens near Hyde Park appear like all the others on the street, where the average house sells for the tidy sum of £1.5million
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk

This is fantastic as, in this case, a city cares about what it looks like to the public (facade) but knows there needs to be certain infrastructure.

I think about this when I see 'engineered' solutions with no/none/zero/nada aesthetic appeal.
Click to expand...
I feel we should do more "inauthentic" design to protect that actual authentic places. You want a parking garage, which we all agree is needed... make it look like row houses. The aesthetic is extremely important too. Especially in small town downtowns, which have lost lots of height and architecture to the bulldozer and parking lots.
 
I just put assassinate a world leader in my list of goals for my performance review. It's just an informal email with a list of potential goals I should do this year. Let's see if she notices.

In other zoning news, Chick-fil-a is a nuisance.

www.cbsnews.com

California city may declare Chick-fil-A a "public nuisance"

Popularity of chicken-sandwich chain has for years led to traffic nightmares at multiple locations across the U.S.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

We did the same thing to a Dutch Bros in our city. It was causing a giant backup on a main road going downtown during rush hour. Had to be done.
 

Attachments

  • 1647379222814.png
    1647379222814.png
    541.8 KB · Views: 24
mendelman said:
I think dress pants are more comfortable than jeans, especially during the heat of summer.
Click to expand...

For the most part I'd agree but I went down a raw, selvedge denim rabbit hole during the pandemic and have a couple pair of jeans now that are very well broken in and extremely comfortable. But yes, most of the time I'd rather be in a pair of chinos.

DVD said:
In other zoning news, Chick-fil-a is a nuisance.

www.cbsnews.com

California city may declare Chick-fil-A a "public nuisance"

Popularity of chicken-sandwich chain has for years led to traffic nightmares at multiple locations across the U.S.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

We did the same thing to a Dutch Bros in our city. It was causing a giant backup on a main road going downtown during rush hour. Had to be done.
Click to expand...

We have one particular Starbucks here that backs up traffic at a major intersection on THE main road through the area all day, everyday. It's been like that since the location opened about 4 years ago. I'm surprised that the city hasn't done something.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
We have one particular Starbucks here that backs up traffic at a major intersection on THE main road through the area all day, everyday. It's been like that since the location opened about 4 years ago. I'm surprised that the city hasn't done something.
Click to expand...
I will not start on my opinion about whether the police dept is actually doing their job in these types of instances.
 
Hink said:
I feel we should do more "inauthentic" design to protect that actual authentic places. You want a parking garage, which we all agree is needed... make it look like row houses. The aesthetic is extremely important too. Especially in small town downtowns, which have lost lots of height and architecture to the bulldozer and parking lots.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in this thought train...

While I appreciate the utilitarian infrastructure being hidden in this case (it's actually kind of fantastic), I hate the term "inauthentic design". Yes, make a parking garage look better -- the first floor could be retail space, for example -- but I'm also okay with being honest. A new house built in a historic district should fit in the prevailing envelope of the neighborhood. But if you want a concrete and steel house that screams new, I'm okay with that too.

I'm also interested to know who paid for this gorgeous façade. It does look a billion times better than it would with a gap between the buildings showing off the infrastructure...
 
RandomPlanner said:
I'm interested in this thought train...

While I appreciate the utilitarian infrastructure being hidden in this case (it's actually kind of fantastic), I hate the term "inauthentic design". Yes, make a parking garage look better -- the first floor could be retail space, for example -- but I'm also okay with being honest. A new house built in a historic district should fit in the prevailing envelope of the neighborhood. But if you want a concrete and steel house that screams new, I'm okay with that too.

I'm also interested to know who paid for this gorgeous façade. It does look a billion times better than it would with a gap between the buildings showing off the infrastructure...
Click to expand...


I believe the entity that built the railroad built the façade. City zoning & health codes could have mandated it too, but IDK.

I don't have an issue with modern materials in an older neighborhood, but it should be keep in scale & proportion to the surrounding structures. Might be an interesting 'streetview challenge' to find examples.
 
Planit said:
I believe the entity that built the railroad built the façade. City zoning & health codes could have mandated it too, but IDK.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, 'Zoning' as we know it today didn't really exist in London at the time this was done.

It was probably more 'the politically connected, wealthy elite' lived in this enclave at the time and 'forced' the railroad to mask the impact in order to maintain the perception of value for their neighboring property.

Good old fashioned 'grassroots' societal pressure.

I'm so wealthy and connected, I'll just take care of it quietly behind the scenes.
 
Last edited:
Planit said:
I believe the entity that built the railroad built the façade. City zoning & health codes could have mandated it too, but IDK.

I don't have an issue with modern materials in an older neighborhood, but it should be keep in scale & proportion to the surrounding structures. Might be an interesting 'streetview challenge' to find examples.
Click to expand...
Here's one in Savannah's Victorian District -- https://www.homedsgn.com/2011/08/16/2-5-million-contemporary-home-for-sale-in-historic-savannah/ ($2.5 Million Contemporary Home in Historic Savannah). While it's not my style of home, I don't think it looks out of place and I respect the honesty.

(I feel a thread split coming on.)
 
mendelman said:
As I understand it, 'Zoning' as we know it today didn't really exist in London at that time this was done.

It was probably more 'the politically connected, wealthy elite' lived in this enclave at the time and 'forced' the railroad to mask the impact in order to maintain the perception of value for their neighboring property.

Good old fashioned 'grassroots' societal pressure.

I'm so wealthy and connected, I'll just take care of it quietly behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
Ahh, you're thinking that this is a historic façade then? Now that changes everything. I was thinking it was new which is where the honesty issue came in. If this was done when the infrastructure was built, it's that much more amazing and is not an authenticity issue at all. Yes, let's always hide the ugly if we have to build it!
 
RandomPlanner said:
Ahh, you're thinking that this is a historic façade then? Now that changes everything. I was thinking it was new which is where the honesty issue came in. If this was done when the infrastructure was built, it's that much more amazing and is not an authenticity issue at all. Yes, let's always hide the ugly if we have to build it!
Click to expand...
I've read about this before and I think that was the story, but I will now need to research further to find out the true story...actual work be damned. :p
 
When discussing community facts in a public forum in front of, say a Planning Commission, is it possible to remove interpretation from the presentation of facts? For example, if your Town is relatively flat, say a rural corn growing area in the midwest, would you be able to comfortably and freely discuss that overall flatness when your community might be triggered and/or overly self-conscious of its flatness? (Because your Planning Commission is stacked with economic development "professionals" (local businessmen that are know-it-alls) who aim to diversify the local economy and make sure the rest of the State knows that you are more than "Corn Country".) Could you say, "Our town is relatively flat which makes it highly suitable for continued agricultural operations," or would it be better to throw out the interpretation and say instead, "Across the six-square miles of our community, the overall change in topography is eight feet, with the lowest elevation toward the southeast near Pebble Brook."
 
Wannaplan? said:
When discussing community facts in a public forum in front of, say a Planning Commission, is it possible to remove interpretation from the presentation of facts? For example, if your Town is relatively flat, say a rural corn growing area in the midwest, would you be able to comfortably and freely discuss that overall flatness when your community might be triggered and/or overly self-conscious of its flatness? (Because your Planning Commission is stacked with economic development "professionals" (local businessmen that are know-it-alls) who aim to diversify the local economy and make sure the rest of the State knows that you are more than "Corn Country".) Could you say, "Our town is relatively flat which makes it highly suitable for continued agricultural operations," or would it be better to throw out the interpretation and say instead, "Across the six-square miles of our community, the overall change in topography is eight feet, with the lowest elevation toward the southeast near Pebble Brook."
Click to expand...
Also, objectively state that this topography is excellent for easy construction and access road building.
 
RandomPlanner said:
Here's one in Savannah's Victorian District -- https://www.homedsgn.com/2011/08/16/2-5-million-contemporary-home-for-sale-in-historic-savannah/ ($2.5 Million Contemporary Home in Historic Savannah). While it's not my style of home, I don't think it looks out of place and I respect the honesty.

(I feel a thread split coming on.)
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. The home mimics the scale, rhythm and proportions of the surrounding historic homes but uses modern materials. Looks completely in tune with surrounding environment.
 
RandomPlanner said:
I'm interested in this thought train...

While I appreciate the utilitarian infrastructure being hidden in this case (it's actually kind of fantastic), I hate the term "inauthentic design". Yes, make a parking garage look better -- the first floor could be retail space, for example -- but I'm also okay with being honest. A new house built in a historic district should fit in the prevailing envelope of the neighborhood. But if you want a concrete and steel house that screams new, I'm okay with that too.

I'm also interested to know who paid for this gorgeous façade. It does look a billion times better than it would with a gap between the buildings showing off the infrastructure...
Click to expand...
This is generally how our historic team does things. They hate fake historic.
 
In a the sign chapter of a ZO -

Each flag shall be attached to a flag pole which is permanently anchored to the ground or attached to the principal building.

is there any other way ?
 
When you have a complicated site and the engineer of record is the very last person you personally would choose to do the design work. FML.
 
Well Duh -

found in the sign section of ZO

Menu boards shall only be permitted in conjunction with a permitted drive-through use.
 
Back
Top