News & Discussion: CBD Carparks

[Omicron]

I would have thought that the most appropriate test for whether there were too many parks was if someone builds it and it remains empty then there are probably too many. I'd suggest that if there are developers proposing to build more parks, then there is probably demand for those parks, and it would be a bad idea to stop them being built. If the amount that developers build is actually too high for demand, then surely they won't make any money and they'll stop building them (or start tearing down existing ones).

And I would think that feedback from an existing business nextdoor on the possible impacts on demand qualifies as the very definition of anti-competitive behaviour. I'm not sure that the ACCC has rules on lobbying activities with the expressed purpose of limiting competition, but this would seem to qualify as against the spirit of national competition policy if not the legislation. If the council listens to any of this claptrap at all then they aren't doing their job properly.

I agree with you that it is not the role of the ACC to determine whether supply or demand exists or not, that's up to the investors to bare that risk and make that determination. The direct commercial impact on competitors to the proposed development should never be a factor for consideration by the council. Whether or not a car park would be empty, full, profitable, bankrupt or owned by a goldfish in the Cayman Islands is irrelevant for planing considerations.

The ACC's role does include "research and studies are done on the impact of this car park on this area of the city" - the social impact of noise, traffic, pollution, mode shift, aesthetics, and reduction in pedestrian amenity. In this role, the impact on the amenity of commercial competitors is a subject for consideration (eg new traffic and queues preventing access to/from competitor's car parks). Also in this role, I think I'd speak for most of the forum in suggesting that the ACC should be highly critical of any stand alone or "staged" car park development.

However, I'm not completely confident that those two functions remain separate enough for my liking given the language used in this thread. It is not unheard of for commercial lobbies to use the development approval process at the council level for anti-competitive behaviour, Coles and Woolies have been accused of it many times.

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that on many occasions they would use your second paragraph to justify decisions that they want to (but can't) make based on factors in your first paragraph.

My question is this - if carparking is apparently so cheap and plentiful in Adelaide, how on earth are operators making any money? Whatever money is being made is obviously enough to convince new developers to construct standalone carparks or construct the parking stage of multi-purpose developments first, so apparently the demand is still there.

[Professor]

Yes, build less car parks and put up the parking meter rates X 2 (as has happened this past year). That drives everyone to the suburban shopping centres and then we can complain when people do not come to the Mall to make their significant purchases.
As a CBD dweller the city activity and options are getting less as droves stay away. There is simply not enough street parking so if people want to come to the city they need to park somewhere.

And if a developer puts up a non viable car park without doing the research, then more fool them. As for looking to the council for guidance... spare me.

[iTouch]

to put more demand for infrastructure it shouldn't just be the cbd who raises car park prices as it won't help but Marion, TTP, Collonades, West Lakes, hell even Elizabeth should also do the same (not to mention increasing public transport supplies beforehand) to make PT more appealing

[jk1237]

Yes, build less car parks and put up the parking meter rates X 2 (as has happened this past year). That drives everyone to the suburban shopping centres and then we can complain when people do not come to the Mall to make their significant purchases.
As a CBD dweller the city activity and options are getting less as droves stay away. There is simply not enough street parking so if people want to come to the city they need to park somewhere.

And if a developer puts up a non viable car park without doing the research, then more fool them. As for looking to the council for guidance... spare me.

completely disagree. We have plenty of street parking. Too much. The massive carparking rates in Brisbane hasn't stopped the massive amounts of activity in their CBD. Aparently their shopping mall is so busy and vibrant. Same for Melb, Syd and Perth. Higher parking costs havent deterred economic activity including retail, quite the reverse. Infact the city with the lowest carparking costs is the CBD with the least growth in economic/building activity - us.

The suburban Westfields now cater a different type of shoppers to the CBD. Nothing will make them come into town and I dont care. Rundle Mall is far from dead, improvements in public transport, new city residents and thousands of int students will see it thrive into the future without cars

[crawf]

I also disagree that there is less activity/people in the city, when in fact it's more busier these days - especially Rundle Mall

[SRW]

As a CBD dweller the city activity and options are getting less as droves stay away. There is simply not enough street parking so if people want to come to the city they need to park somewhere.

Are we living in the same city? The city is as busy as ever - in fact, I'd wager busier. And where is there a need for street parking?

[AtD]

If the city was dead why would Woolies go to the expense of subdividing and upgrading their store? When was the last time a new public car park was opened near Woolies? Somehow I think they've put more thought into it than you have.

[Waewick]

that is easy.

why pay rent money for space your not using?

That is prime retail space being taken up by supermarket. There is no way in hell Woolies would be wanting to pay retail rent for a bunch of checkouts and photo shops.

[AtD]

They could have achieved that without the complete refit.

[Waewick]

the re-fit is part of a national program, kill two birds with one stone I think you'll find.

increase in self serve check outs and the like, i think your looking too far into it.

[AtD]

OK.... Harris Scarfe then!

Oh wait that hasn't happened yet...

[Waewick]

OK.... Harris Scarfe then!

Oh wait that hasn't happened yet...

well is that by choice? but this is going way off topic!

I for one want carparking back to $7 a day! until I get decent public service from my area and not just buses with "full" signs running past - i'm driving.

[Aidan]

My personal opinion: Less CBD car parks = higher cost of parking = less people traveling by car = more PT demand/usage (which is a good thing). Really depends what sort of societal transport behaviour you want to encourage.

Good luck avoiding the grammatical flames!

Unfortunately restricting the supply of car parking while failing to improve the supply of PT just makes everyone worse off. Having lived in London, I can say with certainty that I don't want a lack of parking to force Adealideans onto an overcrowded and inadequate public transport system!

[monotonehell]

Do you guys realise that you're arguing chicken and egg? One thing must come before the other. It doesn't matter which. Just as long as both occur eventually.

Summary of both arguments: "I'm not going to change my behaviour."

[Isiskii]

Well its obvious which must come first.

Moar trams plz!