Aug252015
Can a parking space be worth $1 million?
It’s difficult to imagine paying more for a single parking space than most houses are worth, but some urbanites do.
Like any form of real estate, the sales prices of parking stalls are subject to the laws of supply and demand. If the demand is high and the supply is low, bidders compete with each other for the available spaces and bid prices up. If prices rise high enough, it becomes economical to build more parking garages to add to supply, but in places where adding new supply is difficult or impossible, there is nothing stopping prices from going as high as buyers are willing and able to push them.
Luxury parking spaces are not generally bank financed unless the sale is tied to a home or office; therefore, the market for them is a function of the wealth of those who covet the most precious spaces. Since this is a cash market, parking spaces are worth whatever someone pays for them. Even if the price paid is foolish, it doesn’t matter as long as a greater fool comes along.
But seriously beyond bragging rights, is there any reason to pay $1,000,000 for a place to park your car?
The Race to the $1 Million Parking Spot
As parking in major cities becomes scarce, developers are charging record prices for parking spaces in luxury condominiums
By Candace Jackson, Aug. 19, 2015
Buyers of luxury condos have a new place to park their cash: in their parking spots.
In cities like San Francisco, New York and Boston, parking prices have reached an all-time high. At least two new developments in Manhattan are asking $1 million for a single parking spot. Condominium developers are touting parking spaces with glossy brochures and promotional videos, marketing the small patches of concrete as luxury amenities.
Price tags are rising as parking options become scarce in major cities. Until recently, the rule of thumb for San Francisco developers in prime, central areas was to build one parking space for every unit, the maximum allowed by the city planning department in some locations, says Alan Mark… . Now, the maximum allowed in many central locations is an average of half a parking space for each unit, after a change in local rules.
Although I am generally pro development, I am not in favor of bad development. Changing weak parking standards to something even weaker benefits developers while creating problems for the people who must live with the results. The lack of mandated parking is creating demand for parking stalls where there is little or no supply, which drives prices up — a high price passed on to everyone in the community.
Prices now run as high as $125,000 for a single parking space in a prime San Francisco neighborhood, compared with $40,000 to $70,000 per spot several years ago, says Mr. Mark.
(Click for larger image)
For about four times the cost of an average single-family home in the U.S., buyers can purchase a parking space in New York’s Soho. At 42 Crosby Street, a 10-unit luxury building under construction in Soho, 10 underground parking spaces are asking $1 million—more on a price-per-square foot basis than the units upstairs. …
If the parking costs more than the house, I’d park my car in the living room.
Jonathan Miller, president of appraisal firm Miller Samuel, says the highest actual sales price he’s seen for a single parking space in Manhattan is $325,000. Million-dollar parking spaces, he says, aren’t anything close to market rate, but rather are priced proportionally to the high price tags of units in the building. …
At least New Yorkers haven’t completely lost their minds.
The building also has six “man caves” priced from $1.5 million to $2.5 million that hold up to nine cars and have room for a bar and billiard table. Two are still available.
Now that has some possibilities…
I want a nine-car garage man cave, don’t you? But how could we get one?
To make this happen, we need to put Anthony Mozilo back in charge of Option ARM lending to inflate house prices.
Then we need to put Daniel Sadek back in business providing cash-out refinances to every lucky homeowner.
Then we can all have man caves!
What could go wrong?
[dfads params=’groups=3&limit=1&orderby=random’]
[dfads params=’groups=23&limit=1&orderby=random’]
[listing mls=”OC15186826″]
Today vs 2008
A) The world has taken on 30% more debt than we had prior to the 2008 collapse.
B) Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citibank are all larger than they were in 2008.
C) American Household income is less today than it was prior to the 2008 collapse.
So if you believe that more debt, bigger banks and less income results in a healed economy, than yes, the worst is likely behind us.
The problems that we’re dealing today, came as a result of covering up the problems of the housing bubble. The problems of the housing bubble, came as a result of covering up the problems of the Tech Bubble (Y2K).
We cannot have a vibrant economy where asset prices are determined by increasing borrowing power, in the face of declining income.
Decades of private and government credit growth fueling economic growth is an issue, just not a catastrophic issue.
Ohhh … I get it … the world is not going going down the toilet.
Ohhh … I get it … the Stock Market is not getting slammed.
Ohhh … I get it … the FED is not at 0 percent after 7 years of “recovery”.
Ohhh … I get it … Everything is blue skies and red roses.
You can’t have years of increasing private debt without increasing incomes. It simply doesn’t work, and the table is set for a massive reset.
BTW, Please go back to disregarding everything I write.
Wut??
Reminder…
In late 08, the FFR was banged to 0.25 due to catastrophic issues; still remains in-play ever since.
+1 The people that believe there are no issues today are the same ones that believed there were no issues prior to 2008.
P.S. The two people on this blog that keep saying nothing is wrong are recent buyers of Irvine “high-end” real estate. Hmmm…
I could say the same thing about the flock of chicken-littles kicking up dust in the barnyard.
Pre and post-2008 are very different periods. Massive under-regulation of the mortgage and financial industries has been replaced with massive over-regulation. There are negative economic consequences to both.
Market volatility is creating massive profits for traders. That is why many on this blog want the turmoil to continue. Huge daily swings make it easier to make money. Others on this blog want the wealthy to lose all their money through an economic “reset” in the hope that home prices will be affordable again. Everyone has a personal interest, but we all have some interest in understanding what is really going on.
That is why I frequent this blog: in the vain hope that something intelligent might be said, and that I might learn something. I could really care less if I’m right or wrong. It doesn’t really matter, this is just a blog. What matters is whether I hone my understanding of the issues. I do care about if the economy recovers or reverts since that has a real impact on people’s lives.
I like the back and forth in the comments. I feel I learn a great deal from the astute observations, even the ones I don’t agree with — probably more so from the ones I don’t agree with because it forces me to examine by own beliefs and analysis.
I don’t thing we are seeing cognitive biases on display (mostly not anyway). These issues are complex, and none of us knows the outcome, and intelligent people can have divergences of opinion. We are fortunate here that we all mostly believe in the same facts, unlike political boards where even the fact are in dispute.
Do you believe a recovery has been stimulated or simulated?
+1 I always learn alot by reading here and that’s the real point. Getting viewpoints different from your own helps to make you a smarter person. Doesn’t matter if we are right or wrong.
In the short term, I don’t see a difference between stimulated and simulated, which is why they do it.
Are you certain there is a long-term difference? (I believe there is)
How would you identify this difference? (IMO, this is a tougher proposition)
Agreed short term.
The long-term difference is certain, regardless of what you or I believe. As evidenced most clearly in extreme cases such as Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany.
The difference must be identified using real vs. nominal values. Unfortunately we use a government generated inflation statistic to currently differentiate.
Last week you resorted to a straw man argument, and today an ad hominem attack. Nice. This is not a good trend.
Thanks for confirming that my comment struck a nerve.
P.S. Two data points don’t make a trend. Another strike against your understanding of science. 🙂
The fact monetary stimulus is still at crisis levels makes it hard for me to believe there has been any recovery.
Also the Federal Reserve is still doing QE because it just rolls over the bonds in it’s balance sheet. QE is just not being expanded but it has been maintained.
+1 The fact monetary stimulus is still at crisis levels makes it hard for me to believe there has been any recovery.
There has been no recovery whatsoever. Anyone telling you differently is a charlatan or completely confused.
Dow crash questions our “tortoise” economic recovery
Within minutes of the opening bell on Wall Street this morning, as we are all now well aware, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off by 1089 points. A precipitous drop in commodities signaled what was going to happen on today, following a downward trend in recent weeks that was largely due to real and perceived events taking place in China.
While I have been predicting a negative turn of economic events here in the U.S. created by fanciful delusions that our economy is in growth mode, I believe what we are experiencing is actually a “pressure release valve” being activated.
This will, I trust, become a wake-up call for those who have believed our economy has been in recovery. At best, we have been experiencing what some economists call a “tortoise” economic recovery.
With anemic GDP growth of just 2%, skewed unemployment numbers that do not reflect the reality of a vastly shrinking workforce, an artificially created bull market on Wall Street, our continued deficit spending, and mounting federal debt, not to mention other global threats, today’s financial roller coaster was inevitable. Real damage has been done, and continues to be done, to the American economy, not just by what is taking place in China, but also by the Fed’s questionable monetary policies and the failure of the Bush and Obama Administrations’ economic policies.
“We cannot have a vibrant economy where asset prices are determined by increasing borrowing power, in the face of declining income.”
First: Why not?
Second: Who said the economy had to be vibrant? The economy was vibrant right before the bottom dropped out in 2008, and look where that go us. Speculative bubbles are always vibrant, but are they good?
Third: Per capita income is higher now than it was during 2008, in either current or chained 2009 dollars (BEA):
yr current chained (2009)
2008 36,101 36,098
2014 40,461 37,084
Fourth: Oil is less than $40/bbl. In 2008, oil topped out at $140/bbl. Lower energy costs means prices can fall (i.e. deflation) without lowering profits.
Fifth: Productivity has been growing at 1.3%/yr overall, and 2.2%/yr in the manufacturing sector from 2007-2014. This has the effect of growing profits if productivity outpaces labor costs.
Sixth: To-big-to-fail isn’t just the size of the bank, it’s the likelihood and consequence of their failure. Higher capital reserve ratios decrease the consequence, tighter regulation decreases the likelihood.
LOL
You’re funny.
+1; ie.,
Russ Wetherill says 18-03-2015, 15:12
A strong dollar is good for Chinese manufacturing
Without a link, your out-of-context cut-and-paste job can’t be verified.
LOL!! Was totally expecting your chime-in here LOL! Had the link locked and loaded 😉
http://ochousingnews.g.corvida.com/flippers-rip-off-lenders-through-short-sales/
“out of context cut and paste job” LMAO! Good one!
Cheers!
A strong dollar IS good for CHINESE manufacturing, and bad for US manufacturing. The Earth revolves around the Sun. True.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/business/economy/as-dollar-heats-up-overseas-us-manufacturers-feel-a-chill.html?_r=0
Just because China is having economic difficulties caused primarily by their biggest customer, Europe, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be far worse in China if the dollar was weaker.
If US consumers can suddenly afford to pay twice as many yuan as they did last month for a good produced in China, what does that do to Chinese manufacturing profits? Contrast that with selling a good made in Ohio to someone living in Shanghai: they can now only afford to pay 50% of what they paid last month. US factory loses money on every good they ship.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really not understand? Not sure which is worse…
LOL! Actually, the data id’s the FACTS and the person who is being obtuse.
1)dollar uptrend commenced in July of ’14
http://quotes.ino.com/charting/history.gif?s=NYBOT_DX&t=l&w=15&a=50&v=dmax
2)China manf PMI downtrend commenced July of ’14
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/china-manufacturing-pmi.png?s=chinamanpmi&lbl=0&v=201508221958h&d1=20140101&d2=20151231
3)As a result, China devalues Yuan Wed Aug 12 2015
Tuesday’s yuan devaluation was the largest against dollar in more than two decades.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/08/12/yuan-china-devaluation/31521611/
Glad I could clear that up for ya.
“As a result, China devalues Yuan Wed Aug 12 2015”
In other words, China strengthens the dollar (by devaluing the yuan) to improve their own manufacturing sector’s ability to sell goods to the US. I.e. Chinese goods are more competitive against US goods produced/consumed domestically.
If a strong dollar were bad for Chinese manufacturing, then the Chinese would be moving to increase the value of the yuan relative to the dollar, not devalue it.
Correlation is not causation.
This debate teeters between a glass half empty and a glass half full. If the next 6 to 9 months are tough, the half-empty view will prove correct. If the next 6 to 9 months are good, the half-full view will prove correct. I could see this going either way.
I can’t go as far as Lee in Irvine. I don’t see a scenario where everything really unwinds, perhaps worse than 2008.
I am still optimistic that the federal reserve won’t take away the punch bowl too soon. If interest rates remain at zero for another 6 to 9 months, the economy may overheat, but after 7 years of weak or stagnant growth, a little heat would be welcome.
Irvine Renter, how is the economy possibly going to “overheat”? Come on now … the Fed is at 0 percent. Within 1 week the conversation has gone from a .25 point rate increase, to no rate increase, to QE4.
IR … just step back and think about what is going on in the global economy. You already know the issues of China, Deflation and Debt. The central bankers have failed, and the proof is they’re all either printing money, or at 0 percent, or they’re on the way to 0 percent. They have lost.
The economy could overheat because they keep injecting liquidity at zero percent rates. If the federal reserve gives away free money long enough, many people will take it. Over the last several years, investors used this free money to bid up asset prices, but eventually, that money will work its way into production and consumption, and when it does, the economy will heat up. If the spigots don’t get turned off, you end up with an economy like the 60s where the economy grew, but it was mostly due to inflation rather than real gains in productivity. The”heat” won’t be any more real than the artificial stimulus of the last 7 years, but at this point, with all the overhanging debt still in the system, the “heat” of inflation would be welcome, particularly among the debtor class.
The way I see it, we’ve been boiling off bad debt for the last seven years with the burner set on high. Once the bottom starts to show… you can either turn down the heat or get the fire extinguisher, or both. Physics changes rapidly near inflection points. Economics is no different.
The question is how close are we to the bottom? My feeling is that wage growth will be the canary. When wages start to rise in excess of 3%, then the Fed should begin to throttle down. Until then, stop watching the pot.
What part of “the Fed has painted itself into a corner” do you not understand?
1% interest rates gave us 2008, which was systemic. The ensuing bust from the ZIRP Boom will be larger than systemic. And here we are discussing 3% wage growth LOL.
That’s a good analogy. And we’ve never been so close to the source of the flame with zero percent interest rates, so the change could occur very rapidly.
I have one anecdote to offer:
I’ve been looking to lease a 1,200 SF retail space since February. This is a common configuration, and over the last 7 years, you had your pick. Over the course of 2015, I’ve noticed these places getting leased up, and new supply is not coming to market to take its place. The commercial retail space market in SoCal is heating up.
The pattern for economic (shill) forecasters is to come out in November with a Pollyanna forecast that couldn’t possibly happen but makes everyone feel good. Then the shills spend the first half of the year making excuses for the poor performance of their forecasts until finally, late in the year, they revise their forecasts down to match the reality they can no longer ignore.
Fannie Mae economic outlook for the second half of 2015 less upbeat
The first print of second-quarter economic growth was weaker than expected, and its composition presents a less optimistic outlook for the rest of the year, according to Fannie Mae’s Economic & Strategic Research Group.
The federal government’s upward revision to first-quarter growth was essentially offset in the second quarter, due in large part to a drop in nonresidential investment in equipment and structures.
Fannie’s researchers say that these factors, coupled with continued headwinds from a strong dollar and renewed declines in crude oil prices, are expected to continue to pose challenges in the current quarter, although consumer and government spending will likely provide support.
Housing is expected to contribute to 2015’s growth, with year-to-date main housing indicators staying well above year-ago levels.
“While consumer spending growth picked up as we expected in the second quarter of this year, other components disappointed,” said Fannie Mae Chief Economist Doug Duncan. “On balance, our full-year growth outlook remains unchanged from the prior forecast at 2.1%.
“We hold by our previous comments that income growth still needs to strengthen, particularly for younger households, in order to drive significant housing growth, but we are nonetheless seeing some positive improvements in the housing sector,” said Duncan.
Home sales have trended up and inventories are lean, supporting strong home-price appreciation, Duncan says.
“That price growth, driven by laggard supply response, helps build equity for existing owners but is a headwind for first-time buyers,” he says.
I’ve consistently maintained the federal reserve wouldn’t raise rates in 2015. Perhaps they will be foolish and surprise me, but I still believe a 2015 rate hike isn’t going to happen.
Fed Rate Increase Questionable Among Recent Stock Market Losses
No kidding
The performance of the stock market Monday morning brought about some anxiety among big U.S. businesses and other stakeholders while the Dow Jones dropped by 1,000 points and spent the rest of the day fighting its way back toward the break-even point.
The morning started with an 8.5 percent drop in China’s Shanghai Composite Index, which erased all the gains made by the world’s second-largest economy so far in 2015. At 9:30 a.m., the Dow Jones began its 1,000-point drop from 16,459 points down to 15,454, which was completed in just 10 minutes. It closed Monday down 588 points, a decline of about 3.57 percent.
“The interesting near-term impact is on the Fed’s September decision to raise rates or not. Market sentiment was split roughly even before this event. Today it’s tilting toward no action in September.”
For many, the Dow Jones’ steep decline on Monday removed any doubt as to whether the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, which have been at or near zero for seven years. Prior to Monday, many pundits predicted that the country’s economy had experienced the growth needed for the Fed to raise the rates; now, they’re not so sure.
“The real effect—if any—from the stock market volatility of the last few days won’t occur for a while,” said Sean Becketti, Chief Economist at Freddie Mac. “It will take time for investors to analyze the depth of the economic weakness in China, the effectiveness of the Chinese government’s responses, and the ultimate impact on various sectors of the U.S. economy. The interesting near-term impact is on the Fed’s September decision to raise rates or not. Market sentiment was split roughly even before this event. Today it’s tilting toward no action in September.”
I do not believe the Fed will raise rates this year.
However, I also believe that the Fed will not intervene as much as they have in the past … even after the markets drop. We need “sustainable stability” and we’ll never get it by perpetuating economic bubbles. I think some of the knuckleheads on the FOMC are starting to figure this out.
I wonder how the markets would react if the federal reserve started floating the idea of QE4. Is everyone tired of the intervention? Or would everyone prefer to keep the party going by cranking up the printing presses?
Hopefully, the federal reserve won’t need to intervene as much, but if the reset really does happen, I expect they will quickly proceed to QE4, QE5, QE6, and as many episodes of printing money as necessary.
The FED may raise rates slightly to let us know just how addicted to ZIRP we really are. It will be temporary. The lemmings will clamor for more QE, “do something” as that blowhard Suze Orrman was recently quoted.
I don’t know if they’ll do more QE … I am sure that (more) members of the Fed are starting to question QE and it’s effectiveness.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-19/after-6-years-qe-and-45-trillion-balance-sheet-st-louis-fed-admits-qe-was-mistake
Assume no more QE and rates raised to 3%. What happens to the recovery? Is a recession and falling asset prices good for Trump’s presidency ? 😉
I don’t think we’re gonna have a recession, but rather an economic depression and it will have likely started before the election.
Assuming Trump wins and does what he says he’s going to do, which is send home millions of undocumented workers, we’re likely gonna (finally) see inflation in our wages.
I believe they would do more QE because the alternative is doing nothing, and when people are hurting, politicians come under intense pressure to do something even if it’s the wrong thing.
+1.
I would add that most people do not abhor QE as a “wrong”.
What does Black Monday mean for Chinese homebuyers?
The repercussions of Black Monday could go further than just today’s major hit, with the future of Chinese homebuyers now in question.
The Black Monday market collapse badly dented the stocks that drive the housing and mortgage finance economy worse than the major indices early Monday morning.
The HW 30 — HousingWire’s proprietary list of major players in the space — was down 4.75% as of 10:09 a.m. ET.
In a blog post on LinkedIn, John Burns, CEO and owner of John Burns Real Estate Consulting, explained that Chinese homebuyers comprise roughly 2% of U.S. housing demand—and far more in than that in the gateway metro areas with excellent airport access. As a result, he expresses his increased uncertainty about the level of future Chinese homebuying.
While the recent Chinese stock market correction has caused a decline in sales (one of my builder clients has noticed a sharp pullback, another just told me about a home sale cancellation specifically due to the buyer’s stock market losses, and one publicly traded home builder even mentioned the pullback on their earnings call.), our research has convinced us of tremendous Chinese demand to buy US real estate for their families and as investments.
This unit is smaller than a parking stall.
Would you live in this 100-square-foot apartment in Manhattan?
How much are you willing to sacrifice in order to live in the heart of New York City? One apartment dweller in New York City traded in the luxury of even having a window to live within walking distance of the city’s best attractions at an affordable price. Per the New York Post:
Despite only being 100-square-feet, the article explained that Grayson Altenberg, a chef at Lincoln Ristorante, moved into the tiny apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan for just $1,100, which is unheard in the area where a studio goes for an average of $2,844 per month.
Like many young New Yorkers, Altenberg sees his apartment as a crash pad, and is planning to spend most of his free time out. “I don’t need a living room,” he says. “I don’t intend on spending that amount of time at home. My living room is Central Park.” (The park is a block and a half away.)
But he does acknowledge the pitfalls of small-space living, like the fact that he has to eat sitting on his bed, and that he needs to buy a curtain to serve as the bathroom door. He half-jokes: “There are things I am living without . . . like a chair.”
Why some billionaires are bad for growth, and others aren’t
Over the past few decades, wealth has become more concentrated in the hands of a few global elite. Billionaires like Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim Helú and investing phenomenon Warren Buffett play an outsized role in the global economy.
But what does that mean for everyone else? Is the concentration of wealth in the hands of a select group a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of us?
You might be used to hearing criticisms of inequality, but economists actually debate this point. Some argue that inequality can propel growth: They say that since the rich are able to save the most, they can actually afford to finance more business activity, or that the kinds of taxes and redistributive programs that are typically used to spread out wealth are inefficient.
Other economists argue that inequality is a drag on growth. They say it prevents the poor from acquiring the collateral necessary to take out loans to start businesses, or get the education and training necessary for a dynamic economy. Others say inequality leads to political instability that can be economically damaging.
A new study that has been accepted by the Journal of Comparative Economics helps resolve this debate. Using an inventive new way to measure billionaire wealth, Sutirtha Bagchi of Villanova University and Jan Svejnar of Columbia University find that it’s not the level of inequality that matters for growth so much as the reason that inequality happened in the first place.
Specifically, when billionaires get their wealth because of political connections, that wealth inequality tends to drag on the broader economy, the study finds. But when billionaires get their wealth through the market — through business activities that are not related to the government — it does not.
Nice link, IR. Here’s a bit in the article I found very compelling:
“One of the things that shocked us is that once the billionaires had a significant amount of wealth, they would often take steps to try to limit the amount of competition,” Bagchi said.
The article then goes on to outline how Carlos Slim reaped a fortune off the Mexican government’s decision to privatize the telecom industry, and now years later, Mexico still has higher than normal rates for telecom service. And Slim has used the opportunity to move his winnings into other industries, rather than investing more into telecom.
Parallel this to the US, and it seems this is why we should be moving away and discouraging large-entity monopolies in whatever industry in which they are involved. Yet in recent years, our government with TBTF policies has basically run the other way. I guess it is heartening to see traditional monopolies such as cable TV losing out to cord-cutters and Netflix.
In regards to monopolies, whenever they are allowed, quality of service suffers. I’ve had both Cox Cable and Time-Warner over the last few years, and they both suck. In particular Time-Warner has the worst user interface I’ve ever been burdened with. Compare this with the evolution of user interfaces in real estate, Redfin, Zillow, Trulia. The competition on the Internet forced those companies to innovate to produce outstanding user interfaces while the cable companies leave us with complete crap.
4 reasons Bay Area developers are souring on real estate boom
When Bay Area real estate developers get residential highrises or open-floor offices out of the ground at the right time in the economic cycle, they make a killing. If their timing is off, they risk never getting out of the ground at all.
That’s why – about four years into this real estate boom – there’s a growing sense that the good times are teetering.
1. Construction costs skyrocket
San Francisco notched the dubious distinction of having the biggest year-over-year increase in construction costs of any city in the country,
2. Political warfare
It’s getting riskier to pour time and investment into projects that may not get built as the political climate for development darkens.
3. Getting late in a hurry
Real estate is, of course, a cyclical business. That’s in part why San Francisco office developers surveyed by law firm Allen Matkins and UCLA earlier this month reported their lowest levels of optimism since 2009 about how rental rates will fare in three years. The confidence of residential builders also declined.
4. Oakland skepticism
A slew of proposed market-rate housing is making its way through Oakland’s approval process, buoyed by the city’s “specific plans” that clear environmental hurdles for development. A surge of companies escaping San Francisco rents for cheaper Oakland space is also helping the office market tighten, raising speculation that office construction could follow.
Regarding the million dollar parking spot…there was a building in Miami which came with a heavy duty elevator system where you could drive right into an elevator in the building and be lifted (inside the car) right to the front door of your unit…get out, and walk inside your unit. When leaving it was the reverse. No driving down into a parking garage…no leaving the keys with a valet…interesting idea.
I wonder why more people in the OC don’t ride bikes to work…there are some areas that have great bike routes and you could ride a bike to work without worrying about being hit by a car.
I’ve heard of the parking garages where they lift the cars by elevator, but those put the car into a cubicle to be retrieved later. The elevator and cubicle approach was a method of eliminating all the circulation space and get more cars in a smaller area.
I’ve never heard of a car elevator leading directly to a persons unit. That sure seems like an expensive luxury item. It has to cost a lot of money to build an elevator that large and secure. Plus, if the development is large, you would need several of these elevators to accommodate the demand to come and go several times a day.
I visited Portland earlier this year, and I was struck by the large number of people who commute by bicycle — even in a city where it rains so often. It would certainly be easier and more comfortable to commute by bike in the OC.
Your comment reminds me of this classic blog by Mr. Money Mustache:
The True Cost of Commuting
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/
I was at a family party recently talking to one of my relatives that lives 1 1/2 miles away from his job at Boeing. I made a passing comment about how could just bike to work and he freaked out on me, like I was his wife nagging him to exercise. LOL.. I guess my perspective is that it would be a fringe benefit to be able to bike to work, but his view is that it’s a real negative, and wants to keep driving his prized truck to work because it’s his baby.
I think many people in LA/OC have strong attachments to their cars, and they look down on biking as something that only people that can’t afford cars would be caught doing.
I got back on my bike after Hurricane Sandy as the subways were a mess. I live near Lincoln Center and work in TriBeCa, about 5 miles each way. I take the path along the Hudson River. I’m out the door and on my way a little after 4 am Monday thru Friday. I’ve missed two rides in the last couple years, once the elevator was broken so I couldn’t get to the basement for my bike, and once the snow was just too deep–couldn’t get down the street after two attempts.
On really cold days I wear goggles and put plastic bags over my gloves. I keep clothes at work. When I get soaked, I hang my gear in the boiler room to dry.
Totally addicted to my daily ride!
That is devotion! Kudos to you.