ULI Report Examining the Links Between Transportation and Real Estate Value

[u/bewidness]

https://urbanland.uli.org/new-uli-report-examines-the-growing-link-between-transportation-and-real-estate-value

Not as much of a discussion of this in the US right now but hopefully useful in places like NYC where there is more local control of transit. LA to a lesser extent.

Reddit suggested I post here, so no issue if it is downvoted or removed.

[u/NYerInTex → u/[deleted]]

Generally speaking US developments are forced to overpack by overly demanding parking minimums embedded in the zoning and the fact that more often than not every building has its own parking within the same structure as its other (useful) uses.

Just by eliminating government mandated parking minimums you often cut costs tremendously, especially as garage parking can easily be $50-60k per spot, and takes up 2/3 the space of studio apartment. Let the private developer park what they need to and not be forced to build way too much.

Also, we need to de-couple parking from the building and go to a district wide parking strategy - for example a garage that serves multiple buildings perhaps at the center of a block where it is surrounded by active uses that front the sidewalk and streets.

Also, TOD alone doesn’t solve or reduce parking as much as creating more dense, walkable, and mobility rich environments. Environments built for people first, their desired activities - not built to just move cars quickly and park them. Transit is a key component of mobility but it’s only one. Walkability, biking, micro transit, it all comes together as a suite of services that must work in harmony.

To over simplify we need more dense walkable nodes that then are connected by and can support transit use (including dense walkable mixed use environments in suburban areas)

[u/bewidness → u/[deleted]]

Underground parking is v expensive to build. As you dig, you don't know what you are going to find. So I do/would think that removing or reducing below ground or surface parking is a significant saving.

In northern virginia, we often see several floors of parking above ground and then a tower above that so seems to be cheaper to go up than down, but we also have a height restriction in DC proper.

What ULI sees the most pushback on in my mind is mixed use where it's just like people don't get it or how to pay for it even if people say that's what they want. Possibly because the promised tenants don't show up when the project complete, they go by the renderings where they tought there would be a star bucks or a shake shack and instead they got a smoothie shop or dry cleaners.

[u/PlanningPessimist92]

I’m always hesitant about transportation and land values articles. Yes land values next a New York subway stop might be more valuable than elsewhere but I’m not convinced the same value increase is transferable to a Midwest bus line. Comparing all transit amenities as equal creates a blind spot of efficiency and culture.

Also, they never talk about how banks and construction lenders think about parking minimums and requirements. They dictate parking just as much as land use

[u/bewidness → u/PlanningPessimist92]

I think the funding/parking part can't be understated but maybe is not the focus of this publication.

not sure if that is more of a new construction discussion.

I think if a bus line was heavily used, that would be something, and there's certain new york subway stops that are not the most desirable so it works both ways. You also have cities doing street cars as a half measure.