[meme] What would you replace parking lots with if it were up to you?
Jeez, well, there are SO GODDAMN MANY parking lots, I think that we could have a little bit of everything: housing, gardens, small businesses, parks, nature, et cetera. My answer is, then, "whatever the local community currently lacks."
This is what land use planning is in /c/reclamation@slrpnk.net is about. Consultation ins an integral part of deciding what to do with a development after it's finished. Not all land uses necessarily need to support wildlife habitat or ecosystem redevelopment.
I never understood the huge parking lots in the malls near where I grew up. I always thought "why not put in a garage?" It would use a 1/4 of the ground space and keep the same amount of parking and would leave room for more stores. But I like the idea of wildlife sanctuaries/parks replacing parking lots more than stores.
Parking garages are expensive compared to lots.
The mall probably also is in bumfuck nowhwre, meaning Therese bear unlimited space for other shops and their own parking lots
Definitely more expensive to build but I think most malls could get away with charging a small fee for parking. The amount of people who are addicted to shopping , it would pay for itself in no time.
I imagine they have worked out that they make more money with free parking encouraging people to shop. Same reason big box stores have free parking.
Malls make you pay for parking either way, "free" parking doesn't exist. The cost of building and maintaining the parking lot is recuperated from increasing prices.
Then they'd take the parking lot spaces from another buissenes next to the mall.
Parking garages are only worth it in high density spaces like middle of the City. But most malls and Walmarts aren't in the middle of the City, they're someplace outside where there's enough space for as many parking lots as you want
But if we put in a garage to begin with would could choose to make our shopping centers more compact .
I’d rather delete them than replace them. Move everything closer together again. But you can’t reverse time, so homes and parks are probably the best options. Businesses, museums… schools if feasible.
God I would love to see a network of tiny walkable neighborhoods connected by reliable public transit in place of the fields of asphalt we have now
I saw a video about a development in Tempe, Arizona, along the Phoenix LRT that claims to be the first planned car-free development in America. It has narrow, winding pedestrian streets between buildings, zero parking, and buildings built in a more desert vernacular style. I'd love to see more things like that.
There's also the superblock concept, as best exemplified by Barcelona, which sounds very similar to what you're describing.
Isn't New Haven, Connecticut the first planned walkable city in America?
I assume this based on: it was the first planned city and I doubt they planned for cars 400 years before their existence.
Commie blocks are pretty good, actually
Why superblocks are peak urbanism
from Adam Something on youtube
Tom Scott also had a great video earlier this week about the town of Zermatt, Switzerland that has banned all cars except tiny electric cars, and even those are only allowed for special cases like minibuses and deliveries. I really think we could build a city without cars, and just have dense commieblocks, superblocks, or missing middle housing everywhere, with trams and cargo trams on like every street.
In the middle of the neighborhood? Can you imagine having to walk to the grocery store across a solar farm? Or having the noise of a wind turbine next to your local cafe?
If something needs to be there, I would choose parks or community gardens.
Well, hence "if practical". Obviously, a wind turbine surrounded by existing multi-story buildings isn't going to be useful anyway - so this wouldn't be a good idea for inner city parking lots. But not every parking lot is in a city like that, so it really depends on the specific location. If the building near the parking lot is also defunct (like a lot of shopping malls in the US) then maybe tearing all of it down and putting turbines in the space would make sense.
For long-term society support we should be adding more power generation where we can, especially low-carbon options. Our need for energy isn't going down and probably never will. Fortunately, solar and wind have both reached the point where they are the lowest cost/MWh option for power generation (even without government subsidies) so they are often the best choice, and probably more people would be comfortable living near a solar or wind farm than a fission plant.
Pretty much anything else really - trees, gardens, parks, playgrounds, sports fields, markets, plazas, housing, business space. Hell - even just an overgrown vacant lot would be better than a parking lot.
Yeah, at least an overgrown vacant lot isn't an impervious surface that will contribute to flooding and urban heat island effect. Plants and soil are far better than asphalt and concrete.
The ones in regions of suburban sprawl should be torn up and given back to the Earth. Those in more urban areas should be redeveloped into a mixture of industrial, commercial, and residential spaces.
While that is an enviable end goal, it's not as simple as 'giving it back to nature'. I realize you're probably aware you've oversimplified that statement, but here are somethings that need to be considered to return the land to nature:
Again, I'm not trying to tee off on you, here, but I think a lot of people oversimplify reclamation. It is so, so much easier to conserve rather than reclaim.
Yes, I was being simple and romantic my lemon. But I'll engage.
do people even want this reclaimed? You’re going to have a shit load of stake holders that all have diffent visions for the land in question What was the pre-disturbance ecosystem?
Yes, I do. OP asked what I would do and my answer is tear up/redevelop based on proximity to urban centers.
Do you have a plan to unify this patch of land with other ecosystems like it?
No. We're going to have a new ecosystem comprised of scarred earth that will suffer from erosion for a decade or so before vegetation takes hold.
There is no topsoil, so what are you going to use for a growth media? Usually it’s organic amendments mixed with the subsoil.
There won't be topsoil until naturally deposited organic matter decomposes and mixes with minerals at the site. This could take awhile.
how much will it cost to amend the subsoil with organic amendments (in lieu of topsoil) and where will you get it from?
Not applicable. We're doing acclerated erosion until natural depostion and decomposition of organic matter can bring vegetation to the site.
what are the application rates of the amendments that ensure plant growth? " parking lots are compacted, so you’ll have to get equipment to decompact it. This will require a minimum of two passes with a dozer ripping to 50-100 cm in depth What planting or seeding rates are you going to use?
Not applicable...
how will you manage weed ingess? Spraying is relatively easy but it’s expensive. Manual pulling sucks
Weeds will be watered when it rains. They will help control site erosion.
how will you know when your reclamation and revgetation efforts are successful?
When clover and dandelions spring up in April and bees forage them.
That was fun, thank you for asking.
The best time to tear up a parking lot is 10 years ago.
The second best time is today.
Peaches,
Again, I'm trying to come at this from an educational perspective (not directed at you, but whoever will read it), as reclamation is my area of expertise.
do people even want this reclaimed? You’re going to have a shit load of stake holders that all have diffent visions for the land in question What was the pre-disturbance ecosystem? Yes, I do. OP asked what I would do and my answer is tear up/redevelop based on proximity to urban centers
Here, I'm getting at that you need to consider the sale of the land, the zoning, and neighbourhood and municipal government interests before you can change what land is used for.
Do you have a plan to unify this patch of land with other ecosystems like it?
No. We’re going to have a new ecosystem comprised of scarred earth that will suffer from erosion for a decade or so before vegetation takes hold.
This will take a lot longer than you'd expect, given the soil is compacted and devoid of nutrients. I've seen compacted pads/parking lots remain mostly unvegetated 20 years later. Look at abandoned wellsites, and seismic/cutlines for other examples, and those examples have surrounding seed sources.
There is no topsoil, so what are you going to use for a growth media? Usually it’s organic amendments mixed with the subsoil.
There won’t be topsoil until naturally deposited organic matter decomposes and mixes with minerals at the site. This could take awhile.
Again, this is going to take a very long time. Soil takes 200-500 years to form 1 inch of topsoil under ideal conditions. Most plants need a minimum of 10 cm of topsoil to grow. If you use amendments, you can definitely speed this process up. Look at oil sands or mine site reclamation. They can get some pretty solid establishment after 10-20 years. Despite this, they don't expect to achieve a late seral stage community until 100-250 years out.
how much will it cost to amend the subsoil with organic amendments (in lieu of topsoil) and where will you get it from?
Not applicable. We’re doing acclerated erosion until natural depostion and decomposition of organic matter can bring vegetation to the site.
I don't see how erosion is supposed to be a soil forming factor. natural deposition and decomposition of litter from established plants can definitely build soil, but it takes time. Alders are really good at this. They have nitrogen fixing capabilities, and can grow in some absolutely dogshit soil conditions.
what are the application rates of the amendments that ensure plant growth? " parking lots are compacted, so you’ll have to get equipment to decompact it. This will require a minimum of two passes with a dozer ripping to 50-100 cm in depth What planting or seeding rates are you going to use?
not applicable
yes, applicable. you need to prepare the reclaimed soil profile so that roots can penetrate and you've established soil drainage, lest your plants drown from ponding water.
Re: weeds - there's regulations around some of them (noxious etc). so you'd be forced to treat them. Clover and dandelions is a far cry from whatever pre-disturbance or naturalized system people may want.
If this is a blue-sky scenario, I'm going with: space dedicated to growing food or producing power (like with solar pv between rows of crops that need some shade). This will call for minimal pathways to access some of the spaces, probably also water lines for irrigation, plus strategically placed keystone trees like oak and some fruit-producers as well
Agrivoltaics and multistrata agroforestry are super cool. I know this sub is primarily about sustainable urbanism, but I love me some sustainable pastoralism as well. I want a world with denser cities so we can make way for more nature and sustainable agriculture instead of endless sterile suburbs.
If it were up to me? I'd talk to local ecologists/climate scientists along with the local community who would be exposed to and/or utilizing that space and see what they felt was best for their area.
A lot of empty lots in Denver get absolutely filled with prairie dogs already. They're cute but also reproduce like mad with no natural predators in suburbia. We need more ferrets to eat them, they're even more cute imo.
Gorgeous opulent tombs full of the ruling class, that everyone can enjoy for hundreds of years.
Really cool stores, parks, things like that.
I currently live in a place that doesn't have that many people parking, yet we still have a bajillion parking spaces. They tear down a perfectly good building and build a parking space, then proceed to make it seem like some great thing for the community when in reality it will be used by no one but drug dealers (in cars)
If you're in the US or Canada (or maybe some other places as well), that's likely a result if parking minimums. Climate Town has a really good and comprehensive video on them here. Essentially, the developers are legally required to build a certain minimum number of spots, based on the use of the building and the floor space. But these numbers are completely arbitrary, based on pseudoscience, and based on expectated max (as opposed to typical) usage. Buildings that existed before the laws were enacted in the mid 1900s were grandfathered in, but any substantial renovations or new developments require the developers to acquire neighboring properties and demolish them to satisfy the mandatory parking minimums.
The whole thing is truly insane and results in so much needless waste.
Makes sense, though in my case a lot of these parking lots are straight up built in the middle of nowhere, knowing that they serve no purpose.
Some are just way oversized as well, for instance, the capacity of grocery store parking lots far exceed the maximum number of inhabitants even if you have a single person per car. Absolutely insane.