While the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects remained suspiciously silent on the razing of the historic Century Building for an unnecessary parking garage, the AIA in San Francisco was busy questioning conventional thinking around parking. How refreshing it is to have members of a professional organization actually questioning & educating rather than simply using that tired excuse, “We have to do what our clients tell us.”
A recent issue of AIA SF’s “Line” magazine featured a spotlight on parking – divided into About Parking, To Park and Not to Park sections.
About Parking introduces some of the terms of the dialogue to follow. To Park features articles acknowledging that automobiles (and their parking needs) are here to stay, and posing ways of evolving parking within this context. Not To Park contains articles that examine alternatives to driving and parking, contributing to broader strategies for using our parking for maximum benefit, and by extension, tempering the debate over parking.
The Mythology of Parking:
Planners, designers and architects often fail to understand how parking works and how to use it to achieve their goals. Often, they fall prey to myths that are well established, not only among the public at large but also among specialist transportation planners schooled in conventional traffic engineering.
The Real Cost of Parking:
According to Driven to Spend, a nationwide study of the economic ripple effect of our transportation choices, transportation costs–including everything from car ownership to bus fares–are the second highest household expense after housing, far exceeding health care and education expenses combined. Conducted in 2000 by two nonprofit organizations, the Washington D.C.-based Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Chicago-based Center for Neighborhood Technology, the study also directly linked the percentage of household income consumed by transportation expenses to the degree of sprawl and availability of mobility choices.
These articles are outstanding examples of creative & critical thinking. This sort of collective thought process is a contributor to vibrant urban cities. Lack of such thinking is a contributor to devalued land prices and an anything goes development policy.
Imagine your doctor not wanting to tell you what you need to do to remain healthy out of fear you’ll go to another doctor? Or your accountant not informing you your accounting practices are outdated because he/she doesn’t want to lose your business? How much respect would you have for such professionals?
The silence of the architects in St. Louis is an endorsement of the status quo. We can no longer afford to have our architectural profession remain quiet on issues of parking, sprawl, historic preservation and urbanity.
– Steve
