Chapter 3 – Part four: A central metropolitan block

The fourth study: piecemeal redevelopment.

367

At the present time the London County Council require the provision of a standard amount of parking space in all new buildings as a condition of planning consent. Many other cities are now following the same practice. We were interested to see where this policy would lead on the assumption that the study area was allowed to redevelop ‘naturally’ by the piecemeal reconstruction of individual buildings, on their present sites, each with it own parking facilities. The Council’s regulations for parking space are complicated, but as an example, the standard for offices requires one car space for every 2,000 sq. ft, of gross floor area of a building.

368

The Council’s standards, if applied to a complete piecemeal reconstruction, would produce about 5,500 parking spaces for non-residential buildings, and 1,500 for residential use. These figures may be compared with our estimate of 2,000 spaces required (in 2010) for essential car traffic alone, plus (in our partial redevelopment scheme) the 8,500 spaces available for commuters and shoppers, to say nothing of the 5,000 spaces for residential use.

369

The parking space that would gradually accrue as a result of the official standards would meet the ultimate needs of essential traffic, but it would not necessarily be of the appropriate kind. The balance available for commuters and shoppers would enable about 4% of the persons in these categories to use cars. Any further provision for commuters and shoppers would presumably have to be provided in the form of special parking garages, but the emergence of these is an entirely haphazard process at the moment. On the other hand we have demonstrated (para.322) that even with a proper primary distribution system, only about 30% of the demand of commuters together with 60% of the demand by shoppers etc. could be met. Thus, if parking garages were proceeded with regardless of other considerations, there could result a serious imbalance between the amount of parking and the ability of the local streets and the network to handle the resulting traffic. This is confirmed by the fact that our estimates show that, with the type of network at present being implemented (described in para. 355), there will hardly be sufficient capacity for the ultimate level of essential traffic. So even if no additional parking garages were provided, the application of the parking standards, low as they are, would eventually lead to an overloading of the road system.

370

As to the parking provision for residential uses, the official standards seem likely to lead to a severe under-provision. It could be argued, as it often is, that people who live so close to the centre of London should not expect to have the convenience of cars, but we think this is misjudging the situation. We think people may have to be told fairly firmly where, and when, and how they can use their vehicles, but we feel sure they will demand the right of ownership, along with the use of a garage or parking space, wherever they live, and that they will not be greatly deterred in this by such restraints on usage as may be necessary. Once again, however, there could be serious difficulties if ownership built up without the accompanying provision of a proper network. The usage of cars from a central residential area such as this would not, however, contribute greatly to normal peak periods, but it would do so to a quite different peak period—the homeward rush from coast and countryside on Sunday evenings.