|
3'ROM ACROSS THE STREET
<br />The proposed Lumiere Theatre in downtown Fayetteville would not provide
<br />any parking of its own, relying instead on the private and public supply on
<br />surrounding streets and lots.
<br />impacts, "the question is does this cure more
<br />problems than it creates? And absolutely, it
<br />does" (Gill 2015).
<br />As Fayetteville's parking reform ap-
<br />proaches its second anniversary, Garner
<br />reports that results have been as expected so
<br />far. In more auto -oriented districts, business-
<br />es continue to provide ample parking. Some
<br />sites exceed the old minimum requirements,,
<br />while others have made use of the increased
<br />flexibility to fill spaces previously kept vacant
<br />due to code requirements. Meanwhile, down-
<br />town Fayetteville is making room for a pair of
<br />theater projects that planners anticipate will
<br />make the area even more vibrant. One of the
<br />theaters proposes no parking at all, while the
<br />other (which includes a small number of on -
<br />site dwelling units) proposes a small tot for
<br />staff and residents. No matter the location,
<br />Fayetteville businesses are now free to pro-
<br />vide as much —or as little —parking as they
<br />need to become successful contributors to
<br />the community.
<br />Buffalo, New York
<br />Parking reform in Champaign and Fayetteville
<br />may seem like a leap to planners in communi-
<br />ties still nipping and tucking their parking
<br />codes, but their partial parking repeals are
<br />downright modest compared to Buffalo, New
<br />York. That city closed out 2016 by adopting a
<br />sweeping new unified development ordinance
<br />that, among other things, eliminated parking
<br />requirements almost universally.
<br />Having grown to over 550,00o residents
<br />before World War II, Buffalo has spent the last
<br />several decades shrinking to approximately half
<br />its peak population. Buffalo's population de-
<br />cline has been accompanied by a hollowing out
<br />of its many prewar neighborhoods by parking
<br />lots. As one civic booster quipped about down-
<br />town Buffalo in 2003, "Ifyou lookvery closely,
<br />there are still some buildings that are standing
<br />in the way of parking progress" (Shoup 2005).
<br />Not content to idly watch the city contin-
<br />ue to slide, the city's strategic planning office
<br />launched the Buffalo Green Code planning
<br />effort in April 2010. This project stripped the
<br />city's existing unified development ordinance
<br />down to the studs, replacing its standard use -
<br />based zoning with a form -based code, retool-
<br />ing street design standards, and severely cur-
<br />tailing parking requirements. As one project
<br />consultant put it, the Green Code represents
<br />"a radical reimagining of how they were going
<br />to do every facet of the development controls
<br />in the city of Buffalo" (Strungys 2017).
<br />The sheer scope of the Green Code proj-
<br />ect necessitated an extremely robust public
<br />input process, with over 24o community meet-
<br />ings attracting over 6,50o participants. With
<br />every element of the development control
<br />process up for review, parking received sub-
<br />stantial emphasis during these meetings but
<br />did not lead the agenda. As project manager
<br />John Fell, AICP, recalls, "parking was prob-
<br />ably a top five important issue to the public,"
<br />but people were equally or more concerned
<br />with building height and materials, site de-
<br />sign, and the redevelopment of large vacant
<br />institutional sites. The project also recruited
<br />a citizen advisory committee, composed of
<br />representatives from every city neighborhood,
<br />to both act as a sounding board and recruit
<br />neighbors to public meetings.
<br />The input process gave the plan-
<br />ning team opportunities to urge concerned
<br />residents to consider a more comprehensive
<br />transportation demand management (TDM)
<br />approach to congestion, rather than clinging
<br />to an outdated system of parking require-
<br />ments that had only managed to degrade
<br />the urban environment while doing little to
<br />mitigate congestion. Under the new code,
<br />projects consisting of (a) 5,00o square feet of
<br />new construction or (b) 50,00o square feet of
<br />a renovation involving a change of use must
<br />prepare a TOM plan. While each project must
<br />accommodate the travel demand it generates,
<br />developers may employ a host of demand
<br />management tools ranging from bicycle park-
<br />ing to subsidized transit passes to alternative
<br />work schedules,
<br />The full impact of Buffalo's parking
<br />reform will not be felt for several years, but
<br />things are already starting to change. Staff
<br />members report fielding interest from a few
<br />developers in adding dwelling units without
<br />additional parking to small projects already
<br />under way. Though many of Buffalo's walkable
<br />neighborhoods currently bear the scars of
<br />required parking lots, look for these areas to
<br />mature and thrive as the city's residents redis-
<br />cover the value of urban -style developments
<br />in their urban neighborhoods.
<br />STRATEGIES FOR SELLING PARKING REFORM
<br />The context for parking reform in each of the
<br />preceding examples was unique, as it is for
<br />every community. The elected officials and
<br />citizens in these cities may have shared a
<br />willingness to listen, learn, and experiment
<br />with parking reform in a way that other com-
<br />munities are not quite ready for. Nevertheless,
<br />some of the strategies employed are transfer-
<br />rable to municipalities of every type and size.
<br />Consider trying the following strategies when
<br />pursuing parking reform in your community.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 6.17
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (pages
<br />
|