July 23, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.-The Road to “Parking Hell” is Paved… and We Are on It

“Santa Monica pioneered the ‘park once’ strategy with centralized parking structures that made it easy for people to leave their cars behind… and walk” – Ted Winterer, Mayor.

There is an expression: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This certainly applies to our Mayor’s recent suggestion that parking in Santa Monica’s downtown needs to be reduced. His logic? Santa Monica now has a “diverse transportation system” supported by the Big Blue Bus, Expo Line and Breeze (bike share).” Are these supposed to replace cars and parking garages? Really! While these might be helpful on a regional level, local residents are unlikely to go downtown by Metro. If you are running errands or shopping, a bike or bus may also be a dubious alternative. Our City founders got it right- build centralized parking structures to encourage residents to shop locally. Make it convenient and ideally free, at least until other viable alternatives are available.

Traffic at a standstill as cutting parking options defies logic to many in Santa Monica.

Our downtown businesses are already suffering the effects of online competition. If the City were to make it more inconvenient by eliminating downtown parking, businesses are likely to suffer further. Shoppers have enough difficulty getting their purchases to their cars much less onto a bus, bike or Metro. The complications escalate quickly with a few kids, groceries, a bus transfer or long walk from the stop to their front door. The temptation to order online, and have your groceries delivered to your doors step, becomes a “no brainer.” Ask Jeff Bezos. The City’s new parking policy could be the final nail in our downtown merchant’s coffin.

If this new policy does not benefit residents or merchants, then why do it? It makes no sense for any reason other than to encourage more development. On a square foot basis, commercial buildings require more parking than residential projects. The cost of this parking increases dramatically if it is subterranean. This policy would result in substantial savings for developers and additional fees and taxes for the City. While some commercial buildings may contain ‘token housing,’ most don’t. Why would the Mayor believe that developer’s cost savings would go towards building more affordable housing anyway? It’s doubtful. What is certain is that this new policy will provide them with windfall profits at the expense of residents and local businesses. If “doing our part to reduce climate change” is truly our City’s intent, a policy that incentivizes development will only make it worse.

The other myth is that parking regulations are “worsening California’s housing crisis.” While parking does add to the cost of construction, should it be eliminated? Should new tenants be forced to to forgo their cars or park them in “unused hotel parking”? Will the elimination of parking for low-income units result in substantial savings and hence more units? Again, it is doubtful. The number of affordable units has more to do with City requirements than developer’s budgets. In the case of market rate housing, the elimination of parking will likely lower sales’ prices more than any potential savings. If so, one is left with little justification for a policy that will have little effect on low-cost housing but a substantial impact on our Climate and our downtown’s accessibility?

Finally, is it fact or fiction that the lack of parking downtown is due more to inefficiency than supply? The example of a hotel with 85 percent occupancy that is using only 17 percent of their parking is more of an anecdote than proof. Does the City really believe that private garages could be made available to the public? If so, would they have valets and high rates to discourage public use? Realistically, the public parking garages are the only ones that should be used to judge if downtown parking is adequate. If the “experiment” of eliminating parking for new buildings proves wrong, there is no going back.

Most urban planners agree that housing should be limited to three or four stories. Above this height, residents lose their connection to the street and their ability to monitor its activity. This is particularly true for family housing where children may be playing below. Most of downtown’s commercial buildings will exceed four stories and are therefore more suitable for bachelors than families. Hauling children and groceries across large, underground parking lots, riding up in cramped elevators and walking down long hallways to their small units is not conducive to family life. Neither is lack of schools, parks or places to play. Most downtown housing provided by developers has fewer bedrooms to reduce costs. In addition, many of these units are exempt from Rent Control and will therefore be leased at, or above, market rates.

For all of the reasons above, the City should not count on developers to provide affordable housing downtown. Instead, this housing should be built along our mid-rise boulevards, adjacent to markets and residential neighborhoods rather than high rises. Since low-rise can be built in wood frame rather than steel, this housing would also be less expensive to build and more ecological. Affordable housing should be provided at the developers’ expense but under public scrutiny and in residential areas. If this were the case, it is far more likely that it will be both more affordable and family-oriented.

SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow). Thane Roberts AIA, Architect, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Daniel Jansenson Architect, Samuel Tolkin AIA, Phil Brock, Santa Monica Arts Commission.

Thane Roberts AIA for:SM a.r.t. Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow

Thane Roberts AIA, Ron Goldman FAIA, Bob Taylor AIA, Dan Jansenson Architect, Sam Tolkin Architect, Mario Fonda Bonardi, Phil Brock Arts Commission. SMa.r.t. is a group of Santa Monica Architects concerned about the city’s future.

Related Posts

Food, Water, and Energy Part 2 of 4

July 21, 2024

July 21, 2024

Last week’s S.M.a,r,t, article (https://smmirror.com/2024/07/sm-a-r-t-column-food-water-and-energy-part-1-of-3/) talked about the seismic risks to the City from getting its three survival essentials, food,...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Food Water and Energy Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2024

July 14, 2024

Civilization, as we know it, requires many things, but the most critical and fundamental is an uninterrupted supply of three...

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing Israeli Policy Is Not Antisemitic

July 10, 2024

July 10, 2024

In the past several months, we’ve seen increasing protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have also seen these protests...

SMA.R.T. WISHES ALL A VERY HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK

July 7, 2024

July 7, 2024

We trust you are enjoying this holiday in celebration of Independence. Independence to be embraced, personally and civically, thru active...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Under SCAG’s Boot

June 30, 2024

June 30, 2024

Four years ago, our esteemed colleague Mario Fonda-Bonardi wrote the prescient essay below when much of the legislative development juggernaut...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 2)

June 23, 2024

June 23, 2024

Last week’s SMart article  (https://smmirror.com/2024/06/sm-a-r-t-column-the-up-zoning-scam-part-1/)  discussed the ambitious 8895 units (including 6168 affordable units) that Santa Monica is required to...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 1)

June 16, 2024

June 16, 2024

Over the last few years, the State of California has mandated a massive upzoning of cities to create capacity for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Shape Up – On Steroids

June 9, 2024

June 9, 2024

Nine years ago, SMa.r.t wrote a series of articles addressing the adaptive re-use of existing structures. We titled one “Shape...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Challenge of Running a City When City Staff Have Different Priorities

June 2, 2024

June 2, 2024

Living in a city has its perks, but it can be a real headache when the folks running the show...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path to Affordable Ownership in Santa Monica

May 27, 2024

May 27, 2024

[Note: our guest author today is Andres Drobny, a former Professor of Economics at the University of London, the former...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part II

May 19, 2024

May 19, 2024

As referenced in Part I of this article, the state’s use of faulty statistics and forceful legislation has left a...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part I

May 12, 2024

May 12, 2024

To quickly summarize, California grapples with an ongoing housing crisis spurred by state implementation of over 100 policies and mandates...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Where Will Our Huddled Masses Sleep? Navigating California’s Affordable Housing Mandates

May 5, 2024

May 5, 2024

Just as Lady Liberty beckons the “huddled masses” of immigrants to America, cities like Santa Monica have an ethical obligation...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMCLC SPEAKS

April 28, 2024

April 28, 2024

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) periodically invites guest columnists who have made a significant contribution to the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Building Modern Boxes Lacks Identity

April 21, 2024

April 21, 2024

In the relentless pursuit of modernity, cities worldwide have witnessed the rise of so-called architectural marvels in the form of...