I wish I knew more than I do, but housing regulation is a subject which still overwhelms me. Which is why last week’s interview with transportation activist and bike parking expert Chris Smith was so satisfying. Sometimes it’s just nice to hear someone explain things.
The treat on top of the interview was that Smith hopped into the comment section and engaged with a couple folks. It was a good bunch of comments, but when reader “qqq” called the 15-feet-from-the-door alcove requirement for bike parking a “design hurdle” which “clearly was created by people who have never had to design units,” Smith countered that the chair of the commission was an architect.
And then he went on to say, “But I’ll bite, how would you describe a requirement that would ensure space for an actual bicycle?”
OK, this is about as exciting as life gets for me, high drama in the comment section. And qqq’s response shifted my thinking a little. The whole exchange is a good example of how to push back firmly and politely, which is what can happen when knowledgeable people have good faith conversations.
Here’s what qqq wrote:
The fact that someone included similar alcoves in some projects doesn’t mean it’s something that should be turned into a standard requirement, although it could show I was wrong about it being created by people who’ve never designed units.
The first thing I’d get rid of if I were designing a requirement that would ensure space for an actual bicycle would be to get rid of the requirement that it be within 15′ of the unit door. The distance to the door is irrelevant to whether a bike fits in a unit. And although it would be nice if the space were close to the front door, that rule could be (as was, based on comments from architects and developers) a real stumbling block. Deleting it opens up a lot of perfectly good bike storage possibilities.
Like I said, I can’t find the old code language, but I also recall (could be wrong) that the rule required an actual alcove, versus simply requiring space. If that’s true, it could also be difficult to meet without distorting unit designs, and again is irrelevant to whether there is actual space. Again, deleting specific alcove requirements could open up a lot of perfectly good storage possibilities.
I understand that if there are no requirements, developers can simply say there’s space within the unit, without changing their units from what they’d be offering anyway. On the other hand, you can store a bike in quite a small space, which many units do have, and did have when the code didn’t have ANY in-unit bike space requirements.
Lots of people spent lots of time trying to solve this (which I appreciate) so I’m not trying to say I know the best solution better than anyone else. I’m mainly saying that I understand why architects and developers objected to the alcove requirement.
Thank you qqq and Chris. Qqq helped me think like an architect. How would Frank Lloyd Wright feel about a requirement to build an alcove within 15 feet of the door? And there you have it, another thought-provoking comment. The whole thread was good, start at the top.