New build - Unfair Changes to parking allotment

princeofpounds

The real issue is developers are building new sites which don't meet with current day standards, let alone expected future developments when they build these sites. Two car parking spaces should be provided for every unit in addition to visitor parking but they won't do this unless there is enough money to be had from it.

Actually once again the geniuses in planning have a lot to do with it. Many new developments have been heavily restricted in terms of car parking facilities to meet government objectives for moving people onto public transport.

In 20 years time, we will look back on this phase of anti-car planning as a terrible mistake, as cars become electric (and therefore non-polluting in themselves) and possibly even much less congesting (if automatic driving develops that fast - may take a bit longer).

dodger1

SerialRenter wrote: »

I'm afraid i'm not advocating anything. I'm merely trying to portray what actually happens in the real world.

I agree with moneyistooshorttomention, there may be alternatives for people in a lot of cases. But far be it for me to judge how people park. I just thought this thread seemed be peeking down from its ivory tower a little too much.

In the real world a couple with two cars will not rent or indeed buy a flat with one parking space.

PasturesNew

SerialRenter wrote: »

Has anyone seen housing market lately? What makes them think that a working couple would be able to afford to buy or rent a place with two spaces?

Move house? Sell the "spare" car? it's easy to say, but if you're a couple scraping by each month, both working full time in different jobs, in a lot of cases thats just not a realistic proposition.

Not everybody's a couple.... plenty of singles about.

dodger1

Guest101 wrote: »

Who says?

If i turned up at your estate and parked my vehicle wherever i chose, what would happen?

I doubt that the entrance to the estate has a big sign telling me im contracting to park

At my previous rented property we had numbered parking bays. On the rare occasion someone was parked in mine I simply parked in front of the vehicle boxing them in. The first time my space was taken I phoned the police to see if anything could be done, they said it was a civil matter as it was private land and they weren't interested. They also said it was a civil matter if I blocked the offending vehicle in, again as it was private land. Prior to the new clamping laws they would indeed have been clamped.

The vast majority of people however are reasonably decent and wouldn't dream of parking in a numbered spot or at the very least leave a note on the vehicle saying "visiting number *".

moneyistooshorttomention

princeofpounds wrote: »

Actually once again the geniuses in planning have a lot to do with it. Many new developments have been heavily restricted in terms of car parking facilities to meet government objectives for moving people onto public transport.

In 20 years time, we will look back on this phase of anti-car planning as a terrible mistake, as cars become electric (and therefore non-polluting in themselves) and possibly even much less congesting (if automatic driving develops that fast - may take a bit longer).

Possibly cars in the future will run off electric (which does need producing incidentally - so environmental costs to that). Possibly they will just run off fresh air (seem to recall a recent article about prototype cars like this). Okay, best case analysis is that future cars would run off air and/or solar power or suchlike that the fuel itself didn't have any environmental costs to produce it.

Actually, even then cars will pollute by sheer virtue of the manufacturing process (extracting materials to make them/etc) and cars have to be disposed of when they finish their useful life. There is literally no such thing as a pollution-free car and never will be then (even if fuel it ran on wasn't an issue).

Also, extra land would be required to provide all these 2nd carparking spaces and that land isn't then available for other purposes (buildings/food-growing/remaining as countryside).

AdrianC

dodger1 wrote: »

In the real world a couple with two cars will not rent or indeed buy a flat with one parking space.

That's this thread dead, then.

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Possibly they will just run off fresh air (seem to recall a recent article about prototype cars like this).

Compressed air. Which needs energy to compress.

princeofpounds

There is literally no such thing as a pollution-free car and never will be then (even if fuel it ran on wasn't an issue).

That's why I said they are non-polluting 'in themselves'. I couldn't think of a neat phrase, but I mean they will not pollute through operation.

Of course there is indirect pollution, but that is the case for almost every human activity.

Thinking that cars are going to be seen as bad in 20-30 years time as they are now is deeply short-sighted.

Also, extra land would be required to provide all these 2nd carparking spaces and that land isn't then available for other purposes (buildings/food-growing/remaining as countryside).

I don't want to turn this into another 'how much land is developed' thread - this has been done to death on the debate house prices board. But IIRC it is clear that it is only roughly 3% of land, and even with the most aggressive definition (including gardens and sports fields) it is still only around 10%.

Given most cars are parked on the roads, and many more underground or in garages that fit within the footprint of buildings anyway, actual parking spaces are probably a fraction of a percent of land in the whole country.

Anyway, my point is not that everyone should be provided with two parking spaces - to claim that is to miss the point entirely.

My point is that short-sighted planners should not be imposing artificial restrictions on their creation simply for political-environmental reasons that are likely to be utterly invalid within a decade or two.

Every generation of planners (if there has been such a thing, given that today's form of stalinist-style planning has only been in place for ~60-70 years) has their own myopic mistakes.

In my opinion this generation will eventually be accused of a few. When it comes to design mistakes in particular, being anti personal-vehicles will probably be one of the more significant ones.

dodger1

AdrianC wrote: »

That's this thread dead, then.

Sorry...:o

Guest101

Peasants should walk! Bah humbag, uppety fellows. Should know their place.

Clearly housing developments, built with no grocery facilities in mind, nor schools, not reasonable public transport, need to facilitate the modern family which is not 2.2 kids, but 2,2 cars!

Where I live they seem to spring up every year or two. Look lovely, and pretty, but houses are half the size of the traditional Victorian houses, price isn't much different. Sure u get a garden, but forget walking anywhere!