Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you that the GFR on newer buildings is a plus but to be fair some of the buildings in Austin take the parking podium thing way too far. I drive by this monstrosity at least once a week and think wtf am I looking at.
I get that there HAS to be ample parking for these large mixed-use buildings, but does the garage (or podium as you call it) HAVE to be that ugly? Why can’t they make it look like the rest of the building?
Last edited by Arcenal813; 03-27-2024 at 11:16 AM..
The vast majority of the 80s towers have underground parking. I prefer that instead. I mean, any above ground parking garage isn’t ideal…but at least they can be demolished. With massive changes due to WFH and Dallas’ potential elimination of parking minimums, maybe that parking garage can be redeveloped one day. I think it’s nearly impossible once they build the tower and parking garage together. I’ve always thought, don’t the architects/developers ever think, what if this massive garage isn’t needed anymore? It’ll be less of an eyesore, if they’re designed with the idea of being converted to other uses, when the time comes. Even cladding it with all the same materials at least hides that it exists.
I’m more fine with it being done with high-rise infill (‘cause that’s happening in some of the towers in Uptown), but not signature towers that make up the skyline from afar.
I get that there HAS to be ample parking for these large mixed-use buildings, but does the garage (or podium as you call it) HAVE to be that ugly? Why can’t they make it look like the rest of the building?
A lot of new sunbelt cities don’t have anywhere as near stringent design review panels that force architects to design around the aesthetic of an old/historic built environments so they can simply get away with throwing up everything and anything.
You’re going to get a lot more “bold” skyscrapers designs in Austin or Miami than you would get in Philly or Boston, but they’re also going to look way more hap-hazard where as the latter will look organic and cohesive.
The vast majority of the 80s towers have underground parking. I prefer that instead. I mean, any above ground parking garage isn’t ideal…but at least they can be demolished. With massive changes due to WFH and Dallas’ potential elimination of parking minimums, maybe that parking garage can be redeveloped one day. I think it’s nearly impossible once they build the tower and parking garage together. I’ve always thought, don’t the architects/developers ever think, what if this massive garage isn’t needed anymore? It’ll be less of an eyesore, if they’re designed with the idea of being converted to other uses, when the time comes. Even cladding it with all the same materials at least hides that it exists.
I’m more fine with it being done with high-rise infill (‘cause that’s happening in some of the towers in Uptown), but not signature towers that make up the skyline from afar.
How is WFH going to make a massive office tower not need parking? I'm not sure I follow. if they demoed that massive garage in Dallas who the hell is going to work in that office building? Is the entire office going to use DART?
We'd need massive technology breakthrough for onsite parking in a Texas building to be useless. Even in a self-driving car fantasy land there is probably still a use case for these onsite garages (which generally aren't actually all that big relative to the number of workers or residents in the building).
How is WFH going to make a massive office tower not need parking? I'm not sure I follow. if they demoed that massive garage in Dallas who the hell is going to work in that office building? Is the entire office going to use DART?
We'd need massive technology breakthrough for onsite parking in a Texas building to be useless. Even in a self-driving car fantasy land there is probably still a use case for these onsite garages (which generally aren't actually all that big relative to the number of workers or residents in the building).
While I agree that garages are going to be needed since this is Texas I don’t think the garages need to be the size that they are. In Houston, for example, about 43% of Downtown workers did not use a car to commute to work. About 32% used Metro or another local transit agency (Woodlands Express, FB Transit, etc.). These figures are from 2013 and coverage and frequency has significantly improved on metro since then so I could see it being even higher now. That’s pretty impressive for a sprawly sunbelt city and I don’t see any reason why Austin cannot replicate that.
While I think that on-site parking probably still be necessary in new buildings in Austin, the podiums don’t need to be as massive as they are and there are better ways to hide it.
How is WFH going to make a massive office tower not need parking? I'm not sure I follow. if they demoed that massive garage in Dallas who the hell is going to work in that office building? Is the entire office going to use DART?
We'd need massive technology breakthrough for onsite parking in a Texas building to be useless. Even in a self-driving car fantasy land there is probably still a use case for these onsite garages (which generally aren't actually all that big relative to the number of workers or residents in the building).
I’m saying long term or in the future. Much of the office space in downtown is obsolete. Many companies are downsizing and moving to Uptown to modern office buildings with a high amount of amenities. So, a good chunk of Dallas’ 80s office stock (I believe over 3 million sq ft) is being taken off the market and converted into residential space. BOA Plaza is losing its lead tenant as Bank of America is building a new tower in Uptown. The owners are exploring conversion options for the BOA Plaza. Parking has plummeted downtown since WFH. I’m not saying parking isn’t going to be needed, they just will not need to have as much of it. Also the parking minimums elimination will let developers decided what they need, not some arbitrary numbers.
While I agree that garages are going to be needed since this is Texas I don’t think the garages need to be the size that they are. In Houston, for example, about 43% of Downtown workers did not use a car to commute to work. About 32% used Metro or another local transit agency (Woodlands Express, FB Transit, etc.). These figures are from 2013 and coverage and frequency has significantly improved on metro since then so I could see it being even higher now. That’s pretty impressive for a sprawly sunbelt city and I don’t see any reason why Austin cannot replicate that.
While I think that on-site parking probably still be necessary in new buildings in Austin, the podiums don’t need to be as massive as they are and there are better ways to hide it.
Austin has identical per-capita transit rates as Houston and a higher share of walking, cycling, carpooling, etc. Neither city is anywhere close to the point where they don't need parking downtown. If parking becomes less in demand, there are hundreds of older standalone garages that can be redeveloped before worrying about podiums built in the 2020s. This fear of "what are we going to do with all these parking podiums!!" Is comical urbanist fan fiction I think.
As far hiding it goes, a lot of nicer buildings do this, but it is significantly more expensive because you need to actively vent the space. Cheaper buildings use some kind of mesh screen to avoid this, which doesn't look as good. While I do prefer when buildings build underground and/or cover up the aboveground, I don't think requiring this would be a good idea, as that makes it significantly more expensive to build.
Last edited by whereiend; 03-27-2024 at 03:10 PM..
Austin has identical per-capita transit rates as Houston and a higher share of walking, cycling, carpooling, etc. Neither city is anywhere close to the point where they don't need parking downtown. If parking becomes less in demand, there are hundreds of older standalone garages that can be redeveloped before worrying about podiums built in the 2020s. This fear of "what are we going to do with all these parking podiums!!" Is comical urbanist fan fiction I think.
As far hiding it goes, a lot of nicer buildings do this, but it is significantly more expensive because you need to actively vent the space. Cheaper buildings use some kind of mesh screen to avoid this, which doesn't look as good. While I do prefer when buildings build underground and/or cover up the aboveground, I don't think requiring this would be a good idea, as that makes it significantly more expensive to build.
Austin actually only has half the transit ridership rate when it comes to downtown commuting at 16% but it still does pretty decent (for a sunbelt city) with about 30% of downtown workers taking advantage of either transit, walking, or biking.
No one is saying there needs to be no parking in downtown but rather that there doesn’t need to be so much on-site parking provided or the garages could be hidden better. That’s the whole point I think Dallaz is making. The podiums on a lot of these buildings are eyesores and for the most part a good chunk of them are unnecessary as well.
Austin actually only has half the transit ridership rate when it comes to downtown commuting at 16% but it still does pretty decent (for a sunbelt city) with about 30% of downtown workers taking advantage of either transit, walking, or biking.
No one is saying there needs to be no parking in downtown but rather that there doesn’t need to be so much on-site parking provided or the garages could be hidden better. That’s the whole point I think Dallaz is making. The podiums on a lot of these buildings are eyesores and for the most part a good chunk of them are unnecessary as well.
Agreed. How many office workers (or even apartment tenants) are driving up to park on the 8th floor, and back down and out daily?
Garages can really hard to convert. Their floor-to-floor height is often in the 9' range vs. 10' for housing/hotels and 13' for offices. But they also tend to have wide floorplates, so housing/hotels wouldn't have much use for a lot of it. Any ramp would need to be torn out.
But two buildings could share one garage if mode shares advance enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
