I'm not an architect, and that will probably become obvious as you read my idea and questions.
I've been thinking of an idea for a few years, and I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented. It's probably either an issue of cost or safety or both.
My idea came when I was living in an apartment complex in Southern California. I thought that the community were built with all the cars parked beneath the buildings, it would eliminate the need for streets. The complex could then be full of green parks, with sidewalks being the only concrete other than the living spaces themselves. Aside from the aesthetic value, it also mans less space, since there's no need for parking lots and streets. Space is at premium prices in places like Southern California...
It's possible structurally, I know that, because commercial buildings are fundamentally the same design, with parking below several levels of building.
Is it cost-prohibitive?
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, so I'm curious why new apartment complexes aren't built like this. Or maybe they are and I just haven't seen any?
Just curious.
Thanks,
Eric
archietechie
Nov 7, 16 1:22 pm
"...all the cars parked beneath the building" - They'll eventually have to traverse somewhere at sometime which necessitates the need for roads so I don't really get your query here.
You didn't factor in travel distances in your hypothesis, even if the supposed urban plan is a nucleated one but developed cities are indeed heading toward this direction due to concern for the environment.
Pocket green spaces (obviously not central park) also thrive in sunlight, not very possible in cities littered with skyscrapers (shadows) but some workarounds are roof-gardens & podiums above street level (MahaNakhon tower by Ole Scheeren/Spiral tower by BIG). Besides, with that much green, maintenance is critical (much more than concrete).
The alternative would be a tabula rasa approach to achieve a Garden City by Ebenezer Howard - not feasible imo (case in point: masdar city by fosters)
Rent is high everywhere in developed cities because of convenience to activity centers and of course, developers' pockets. Take the High-line for instance: The subsequent effects of proximity to much desired green spaces are further compounding land cost invariably leading to higher rent.
Of course, there are many more considerations (Not an urban planner) one could think of such as transportation/comfort/stormwater and drainage, but I believe the above should be plenty cause for concern.
senjohnblutarsky
Nov 7, 16 1:23 pm
Still need streets. Otherwise, those cars aren't going anywhere.
There are code provisions relating to parking under buildings. Often it requires separations between the two occupancy types. That one is easily solved with additional money.
There really isn't anything wrong with the idea of parking under an apartment. It's just not going to be implemented in the idealistic way you think. Suppose a family has more cars than allotted underneath the structure. There will be a car on the street. Is the door closer to the street than to the under-building parking? People are lazy, and will park at the closest spot. My apartment is a fine example of this. Everyone has assigned spaces in an actual lot, but they don't get used because the street parking is closer to the door.
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 7, 16 1:25 pm
There are plenty of apartment buildings in Southern California with parking below them...
Peter Normand
Nov 7, 16 2:36 pm
This is not a strange idea, but often doesn't happen because people still want pedestrian access to their neighborhoods or the area is of such low density that the cost of building a plinth of parking with landscaped roof and then buildings on-top is too costly. Sometimes there is an opportunity for this type of development with sites that have the right topography. A parking spot on a simple asphalt lot can cost 1/3 to 1/10 the cost of the same spot in a parking structure, so this would have to happen in a place where the land values per square foot are relatively high.
this is a good question to be asking and it is good that people are asking architects to consider these quality of life issues
Over and OUT
Peter N
Josh Mings
Nov 7, 16 2:55 pm
Caldwell and Hilbersheimer handled the Car/Apartment relationship really well at Lafayette Park.
mightyaa
Nov 7, 16 3:17 pm
Yes. We have one right now on the boards in CO. Basically a large underground parking garage, street, walks, etc. with 4 low rise apartment buildings and a rec center above. The big hurdle though is the property size; you need a very large chunk of land.
So, if I'm understanding you right, you are picturing this on at least a neighborhood scale (more than a single block). The logistics get seriously nasty. Who owns and maintains? So a normal street, utilities, etc. are all by various government entities. In what you are thinking, you'd have to have very open minded agencies (which is NOT the mindset of any regulator I've met). That means all of it is privately owned and maintained. That is seriously deep "government style" budgets. Think about the money; the neighborhood owner still will pay property taxes, utility bills, income tax, etc. ... yet be on their own completely to provide and maintain all those services within the neighborhood forever and ever (just like snow removal or sewer lines). OR they can just make streets, utilities, etc. like normal developments and hand them over to the agencies and be done with it. Simple things like easements become a battleground.
Can it be done? Possibly. It'd just take a abnormal act of God (or extremely heavy political pressure) to get every single agency to agree to it OR a developer to literally form new agencies like a water district and utility provider to carve themselves out of the tax district and provide the services themselves.
JLC-1
Nov 7, 16 3:55 pm
where land is cheap, no corporation will bury its money
gruen
Nov 7, 16 8:16 pm
Park cars vertically then no streets needed. They did this at the Cadillac Ranch.
prof99skg
Nov 10, 16 3:19 am
Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm going to try and draw a sketch of what I have in mind, because the vision I have wouldn't require streets, as your parking space would exist directly below your living space. The exits are on the perimeter of the property and only then do they ramp up to ground level.
Eric
Non Sequitur
Nov 10, 16 3:52 am
How do people get to their houses if there are no surface streets? What about groceries and offices?
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 10, 16 4:13 am
A sketch would help. Go for it.
archietechie
Nov 10, 16 4:19 am
Then again, mixed use mega-blocks in HK are usually connected via link-bridges and travelators. That might help ease traffic conditions and usage.
mightyaa
Nov 10, 16 11:16 am
How do people get to their houses if there are no surface streets? What about groceries and offices?
Like the one we're doing... Big underground parking lot and individual elevators/stairs for each of the 3 story Type V apartment buildings above (podium construction). Also, it's not one of those low ceiling garages. We needed to accomodate moving trucks, garbage trucks, etc., so it's 16'. Basically, we're treating it like the front door introduction unlike most garages. We've got the height.
Easiest way to picture this is take your typical multi-building apartment complex layout with surface parking and drives where the garages are below your apartment and you have to walk up a stair to get to your main level. Now put a roof over all the parking and drives. Then make a green roof over that. Now your main level is at grade instead up a story. And you have a lot more options for finishes... Think this w/ upgraded finishes, light wells, plantings, etc. (ours is much higher and more upscale residential)
For mixed use, the new codes help a lot. Before we had to make the top of the garage our podium. The new code allows us to podium at the top of the first level. So we can now easily accommodate retail, boutique offices, etc., then use Type III or V over that for multistory residential.
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 10, 16 11:44 am
I worked on a project with an apartment complex of several buildings on top of the podium and it looked nothing like that. Is that picture of the garage, mightyaa? Do I see drive aisles and numbered parking spaces?
SneakyPete
Nov 10, 16 11:48 am
JLC-1 hit the nail on the head. It's also why, even though it would be beneficial, the vast majority of our grid infrastructure is also above ground.
mightyaa
Nov 10, 16 2:37 pm
Do I see drive aisles and numbered parking spaces?
Not ours... just a web image. But we're going to be similar such as a special concrete finish and/or polymer, Ceiling will be concrete, but with formal clouds and accents done with longboard (aluminum wood) and some aluminum around pedestrian areas. Our graphics team will also be designing the directional signage and we do a lot now with lighting. Basically the concept is this is the introduction and entry and NOT back of house utilitarian. It's also how most residents during bad weather will get from their building to the common amenity building (3 story rock climbing wall, pool, common kitchen, game rooms, dog wash, meeting spaces, theatre, etc.).
What is driving this... Basically, the zoning requires full turn-around loading and we can't just back in/out. Multiple buildings and a client direction that they wanted dumpsters for each building. And the zoning building coverage / hardscape versus landscape requirement is "sprawl oriented" (70% landscaped). So to create higher density, we needed buildings in a park without parking (and even need greenroofs to meet it). Basically, we needed a subgrade neighborhood with building 'fingers' coming out of the ground.
SneakyPete
Nov 10, 16 4:51 pm
Gonna be a pain in the ass for your MEP folks.
Wilma Buttfit
Nov 10, 16 5:25 pm
Looks like it'll be a bitch to keep clean.
mightyaa
Nov 10, 16 6:03 pm
...or else it gets the hose again.
It's how every parking garage gets cleaned every now and again; low pressure power washer. These are also hard cleanable surfaces and wet environment fixtures.
SneakyPete
Nov 10, 16 6:17 pm
Cleaning isn't so bad, I've just had a difficult time in the past with cost of excavation causing the floor-to-floor height being dictated as low as possible, then the MEP needs a bunch of fans to avoid ducting the hell out of the space. The coordination of drive aisle height, parking space needs, with a "low as possible" ceiling makes for a lot of coordination headaches.
mightyaa
Nov 10, 16 7:00 pm
Have that issue too Sneaky on most..
This one though has 16' floor to deck in most places (lots of sloping bits). It's 13' minimum at every location. We're also good a 'cheating' by working with both deck slopes to maximize where we need it. And another cheat is with the planting on the roof, I had to raise up the floor levels of the buildings giving me another 18"+ as crawlspace to route stuff so the floor is above the landscape. <= that also helps me keep a clean ceiling down below without pipes & conduit all over (one drop through versus at every bathroom x 30 units).
Oh, the other cheat is I don't have building over the whole thing, so I can put in open lightwells for intake and just exhaust at the edges = barely any ducting.
SneakyPete
Nov 10, 16 7:05 pm
I'd like to see photos when it's done. I think parking garages are generally much worse than they need to be, and a good garage always makes me feel better.
mightyaa
Nov 10, 16 7:55 pm
lol.. it'll take a couple years before photos. We just had our first round of public hearings in planning commission in August. We'll go back next month for the final. Ground break probably mid-summer... then 20 month construction period.... Welcome to architecture where hopefully one of your virtues is patience.
I'm not an architect, and that will probably become obvious as you read my idea and questions.
I've been thinking of an idea for a few years, and I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented. It's probably either an issue of cost or safety or both.
My idea came when I was living in an apartment complex in Southern California. I thought that the community were built with all the cars parked beneath the buildings, it would eliminate the need for streets. The complex could then be full of green parks, with sidewalks being the only concrete other than the living spaces themselves. Aside from the aesthetic value, it also mans less space, since there's no need for parking lots and streets. Space is at premium prices in places like Southern California...
It's possible structurally, I know that, because commercial buildings are fundamentally the same design, with parking below several levels of building.
Is it cost-prohibitive?
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, so I'm curious why new apartment complexes aren't built like this. Or maybe they are and I just haven't seen any?
Just curious.
Thanks,
Eric
"...all the cars parked beneath the building" - They'll eventually have to traverse somewhere at sometime which necessitates the need for roads so I don't really get your query here.
You didn't factor in travel distances in your hypothesis, even if the supposed urban plan is a nucleated one but developed cities are indeed heading toward this direction due to concern for the environment.
Pocket green spaces (obviously not central park) also thrive in sunlight, not very possible in cities littered with skyscrapers (shadows) but some workarounds are roof-gardens & podiums above street level (MahaNakhon tower by Ole Scheeren/Spiral tower by BIG). Besides, with that much green, maintenance is critical (much more than concrete).
The alternative would be a tabula rasa approach to achieve a Garden City by Ebenezer Howard - not feasible imo (case in point: masdar city by fosters)
Rent is high everywhere in developed cities because of convenience to activity centers and of course, developers' pockets. Take the High-line for instance: The subsequent effects of proximity to much desired green spaces are further compounding land cost invariably leading to higher rent.
Of course, there are many more considerations (Not an urban planner) one could think of such as transportation/comfort/stormwater and drainage, but I believe the above should be plenty cause for concern.
Still need streets. Otherwise, those cars aren't going anywhere.
There are code provisions relating to parking under buildings. Often it requires separations between the two occupancy types. That one is easily solved with additional money.
There really isn't anything wrong with the idea of parking under an apartment. It's just not going to be implemented in the idealistic way you think. Suppose a family has more cars than allotted underneath the structure. There will be a car on the street. Is the door closer to the street than to the under-building parking? People are lazy, and will park at the closest spot. My apartment is a fine example of this. Everyone has assigned spaces in an actual lot, but they don't get used because the street parking is closer to the door.
There are plenty of apartment buildings in Southern California with parking below them...
This is not a strange idea, but often doesn't happen because people still want pedestrian access to their neighborhoods or the area is of such low density that the cost of building a plinth of parking with landscaped roof and then buildings on-top is too costly. Sometimes there is an opportunity for this type of development with sites that have the right topography. A parking spot on a simple asphalt lot can cost 1/3 to 1/10 the cost of the same spot in a parking structure, so this would have to happen in a place where the land values per square foot are relatively high.
this is a good question to be asking and it is good that people are asking architects to consider these quality of life issues
Over and OUT
Peter N
Caldwell and Hilbersheimer handled the Car/Apartment relationship really well at Lafayette Park.
Yes. We have one right now on the boards in CO. Basically a large underground parking garage, street, walks, etc. with 4 low rise apartment buildings and a rec center above. The big hurdle though is the property size; you need a very large chunk of land.
So, if I'm understanding you right, you are picturing this on at least a neighborhood scale (more than a single block). The logistics get seriously nasty. Who owns and maintains? So a normal street, utilities, etc. are all by various government entities. In what you are thinking, you'd have to have very open minded agencies (which is NOT the mindset of any regulator I've met). That means all of it is privately owned and maintained. That is seriously deep "government style" budgets. Think about the money; the neighborhood owner still will pay property taxes, utility bills, income tax, etc. ... yet be on their own completely to provide and maintain all those services within the neighborhood forever and ever (just like snow removal or sewer lines). OR they can just make streets, utilities, etc. like normal developments and hand them over to the agencies and be done with it. Simple things like easements become a battleground.
Can it be done? Possibly. It'd just take a abnormal act of God (or extremely heavy political pressure) to get every single agency to agree to it OR a developer to literally form new agencies like a water district and utility provider to carve themselves out of the tax district and provide the services themselves.
where land is cheap, no corporation will bury its money
Park cars vertically then no streets needed. They did this at the Cadillac Ranch.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm going to try and draw a sketch of what I have in mind, because the vision I have wouldn't require streets, as your parking space would exist directly below your living space. The exits are on the perimeter of the property and only then do they ramp up to ground level.
Eric
How do people get to their houses if there are no surface streets? What about groceries and offices?
A sketch would help. Go for it.
Then again, mixed use mega-blocks in HK are usually connected via link-bridges and travelators. That might help ease traffic conditions and usage.
How do people get to their houses if there are no surface streets? What about groceries and offices?
Like the one we're doing... Big underground parking lot and individual elevators/stairs for each of the 3 story Type V apartment buildings above (podium construction). Also, it's not one of those low ceiling garages. We needed to accomodate moving trucks, garbage trucks, etc., so it's 16'. Basically, we're treating it like the front door introduction unlike most garages. We've got the height.
Easiest way to picture this is take your typical multi-building apartment complex layout with surface parking and drives where the garages are below your apartment and you have to walk up a stair to get to your main level. Now put a roof over all the parking and drives. Then make a green roof over that. Now your main level is at grade instead up a story. And you have a lot more options for finishes... Think this w/ upgraded finishes, light wells, plantings, etc. (ours is much higher and more upscale residential)
For mixed use, the new codes help a lot. Before we had to make the top of the garage our podium. The new code allows us to podium at the top of the first level. So we can now easily accommodate retail, boutique offices, etc., then use Type III or V over that for multistory residential.
I worked on a project with an apartment complex of several buildings on top of the podium and it looked nothing like that. Is that picture of the garage, mightyaa? Do I see drive aisles and numbered parking spaces?
JLC-1 hit the nail on the head. It's also why, even though it would be beneficial, the vast majority of our grid infrastructure is also above ground.
Do I see drive aisles and numbered parking spaces?
Not ours... just a web image. But we're going to be similar such as a special concrete finish and/or polymer, Ceiling will be concrete, but with formal clouds and accents done with longboard (aluminum wood) and some aluminum around pedestrian areas. Our graphics team will also be designing the directional signage and we do a lot now with lighting. Basically the concept is this is the introduction and entry and NOT back of house utilitarian. It's also how most residents during bad weather will get from their building to the common amenity building (3 story rock climbing wall, pool, common kitchen, game rooms, dog wash, meeting spaces, theatre, etc.).
What is driving this... Basically, the zoning requires full turn-around loading and we can't just back in/out. Multiple buildings and a client direction that they wanted dumpsters for each building. And the zoning building coverage / hardscape versus landscape requirement is "sprawl oriented" (70% landscaped). So to create higher density, we needed buildings in a park without parking (and even need greenroofs to meet it). Basically, we needed a subgrade neighborhood with building 'fingers' coming out of the ground.
Gonna be a pain in the ass for your MEP folks.
Looks like it'll be a bitch to keep clean.
...or else it gets the hose again.
It's how every parking garage gets cleaned every now and again; low pressure power washer. These are also hard cleanable surfaces and wet environment fixtures.
Cleaning isn't so bad, I've just had a difficult time in the past with cost of excavation causing the floor-to-floor height being dictated as low as possible, then the MEP needs a bunch of fans to avoid ducting the hell out of the space. The coordination of drive aisle height, parking space needs, with a "low as possible" ceiling makes for a lot of coordination headaches.
Have that issue too Sneaky on most..
This one though has 16' floor to deck in most places (lots of sloping bits). It's 13' minimum at every location. We're also good a 'cheating' by working with both deck slopes to maximize where we need it. And another cheat is with the planting on the roof, I had to raise up the floor levels of the buildings giving me another 18"+ as crawlspace to route stuff so the floor is above the landscape. <= that also helps me keep a clean ceiling down below without pipes & conduit all over (one drop through versus at every bathroom x 30 units).
Oh, the other cheat is I don't have building over the whole thing, so I can put in open lightwells for intake and just exhaust at the edges = barely any ducting.
I'd like to see photos when it's done. I think parking garages are generally much worse than they need to be, and a good garage always makes me feel better.
lol.. it'll take a couple years before photos. We just had our first round of public hearings in planning commission in August. We'll go back next month for the final. Ground break probably mid-summer... then 20 month construction period.... Welcome to architecture where hopefully one of your virtues is patience.