I’m back to answer some questions I’ve received about my previous post.
No regulations required 2 parking spots, it was designed that way to better conform to the neighborhood. Very often we hear from neighbors of proposed projects that any shortage of included parking will lead to more reliance on street spaces. This is a huge NIMBY factor when designing in a crowded area.
The site is very difficult to begin with, being triangular and on a steep slope. Two garages are forbidden under the design guidelines, so the only option is a narrow garage door leading to all parking. This leads to tandem parking, or a large enough garage to maneuver into a side-by-side arrangement. In order to save space on the compact property, we opted for the stacker solution.
This house is already going to be very expensive to build (again due to the site), with the current estimate at about $600,000. That points to the fact that one extra parking spot would add another 16% to the construction cost. The fact is, currently there is plenty of on street parking available (there is a large city-owned property adjacent), but what if there weren’t? How much would you pay to have dedicated parking?
In many San Francisco neighborhoods, we’re beginning to see parking as a luxury, not as a requirement. Other places see on-street parking as a requirement, because the garage is already filled in. It’s often a just a function of location and access to transit. The truth is, we can regulate and zone all we want, but until there’s a viable option, people will spend through the roof to use their cars.
Comments
Leave a Reply
