Lol. Ok man. Lets say we reduces minimum parking requirements to zero. How are you financing a deal in, say, California or Colorado or Washington state with a parking ratio of zero? When you sit down with an LP or Sr. Lender and explain to them that you're going to reach that 6% return on cost (with building cost soaring so underwriting with 5% escalation) with above market rents while competing with buildings parking at 1:1 or more while you're at zero. I'm sure you'll have tons of interest from all the players. I'm listening, please explain.
Honestly, you have no idea what your talking about. Maybe stick to the AOC "retrofit every building in America" talking point?
When you understand his comments come in the context that he's a big (huge, major) believer in autocratic, absolute gov't control exceeding the Orwell Animal Farm, his ideas make sense.
Says the person who wants to remove personal privacy as well as personal freedom.
People will die trying to reach a better life for their family.
Lol, come on man. Should the US accept 4 billion people or is there a certain limit on people that we will accept that 'will die trying to reach a better life'?
So you didn't say: "Greatly reduce parking minimum requirements in lieu of better public transportation and better city planning."? Good, because its a fucking idiotic statement.
So you didn't say: "Greatly reduce parking minimum requirements in lieu of better public transportation and better city planning."? Good, because its a fucking idiotic statement.
And you took greatly reduce parking, with no parking at all?
And you took greatly reduce parking, with no parking at all?
Yes you're an illiterate moron
So what ratio? Does going from 1:1 to 0.8:1 constitute 'greatly' in your mind or do we need to go to <0.5:1? Let me know and I'll shit on whatever you think you understand, because, well, you literally have no development acumen.
Last Edit: Aug 24, 2022 12:23:58 GMT -8 by SanDiego11
And you took greatly reduce parking, with no parking at all?
Yes you're an illiterate moron
So what ratio? Does going from 1:1 to 0.8:1 constitute 'greatly' in your mind or do we need to go to <0.5:1? Let me know and I'll shit on whatever you think you understand, because, well, you literally have no development acumen.
And you do? Give me a break. Spreading everything out further and further is fucking stupid.
And you do? Give me a break. Spreading everything out further and further is fucking stupid.
Yes, quite a bit. Lol. So what is the parking ratio you think works as 'greatly reduced'. You know, because you're literate you should be able to answer, it was your suggestion, no?
Spreading what out further and further? Owning cars?
Last Edit: Aug 24, 2022 13:58:27 GMT -8 by SanDiego11
Stop being a dumbfuck. What Is your question dumbfuck?
How many are you willing to accept. 4billion seemed outrageous, so apparently your generosity and willingness to see border towns run over so long as the problem doesn't affect the northeast has a limit. What is it? And why limit immigration at all, people will 'do anything' so f it, right dumbfuck?
I see a few choices 1. Move 2. Live with it 3. Get involved and get grounded 4. Elect a Fucking Idiot again so you can to pretend that policy is easy, NATO sucks, Putin is a genius. Espionage act is silly.
And you do? Give me a break. Spreading everything out further and further is fucking stupid.
Yes, quite a bit. Lol. So what is the parking ratio you think works as 'greatly reduced'. You know, because you're literate you should be able to answer, it was your suggestion, no?
Spreading what out further and further? Owning cars?
Because a flat ratio is nonsense. You have to factor in population density, support of public transportation or whether it can be improved, if it's a destination for far travelers, how much space is readily available. I don't know why you people think everything has a black and white answer. Which is why a flat minimum is dumb considering it could be just wasted space.
Spreading out as in spreading destinations out. If every building has a flat requirement for parking which may be more than needed then you have to travel further away, which likely means walking becomes out of the question.
Because a flat ratio is nonsense. You have to factor in population density, support of public transportation or whether it can be improved, if it's a destination for far travelers, how much space is readily available. I don't know why you people think everything has a black and white answer. Which is why a flat minimum is dumb considering it could be just wasted space.
So when you say greatly reduce parking requirements, you had no idea about an amount, just a vague concept? There really is a 'black and white' answer though, its really simple. The market will dictate the issue. When people are willing to pay more per sq ft for a unit without parking while the other property across the street can offer parking, than maybe it will underwrite and pencil. Until then, you simply won't find financing for garden style apartments, let alone $250MM plus type 1 high rises or $150MM podiums if they're unparked. Its pie in the sky nonsense.
So spreading destinations out is 'fucking stupid'. What? Every building doesn't have a flat requirement for parking, there are certain minimum thresholds, but really depends on a number of factors. People do own cars and will continue to own cars, regardless of how you feel about cars. Those cars need to be parked.
Because a flat ratio is nonsense. You have to factor in population density, support of public transportation or whether it can be improved, if it's a destination for far travelers, how much space is readily available. I don't know why you people think everything has a black and white answer. Which is why a flat minimum is dumb considering it could be just wasted space.
So when you say greatly reduce parking requirements, you had no idea about an amount, just a vague concept? There really is a 'black and white' answer though, its really simple. The market will dictate the issue. When people are willing to pay more per sq ft for a unit without parking while the other property across the street can offer parking, than maybe it will underwrite and pencil. Until then, you simply won't find financing for garden style apartments, let alone $250MM plus type 1 high rises or $150MM podiums if they're unparked. Its pie in the sky nonsense.
So spreading destinations out is 'fucking stupid'. What? Every building doesn't have a flat requirement for parking, there are certain minimum thresholds, but really depends on a number of factors. People do own cars and will continue to own cars, regardless of how you feel about cars. Those cars need to be parked.
The market solution is walkable/bikable cities, with good public transportation.
The market solution is walkable/bikable cities, with good public transportation.
You're free to go elsewhere if you're too lazy
Ahh, in your bikable world, who is paying to build these multi family dwellings?
Anyhow, do you ever wonder why these awesome bikeable/walkable cities with no parking don't exist? Because the idea is stupid as fuck. Maybe you should pitch this stupid as fuck idea to a PE group and go buy portland?