We we going to see larger parking spaces?
Discussion
Foliage said:
I design car parks,
Car parking spaces are a standard size, 2.4m x 4.8m. That wont be changing any time soon & will likely never change. They have been the same size since the 70s, during metrification their was a lot of work done on standardising sizes in the construction industry.
I find that cars have got bigger (they shouldn't have) & people are getting lazier (hence my amusement at the parent and child parking thread), and car parks are having to be designed with more complicated entry and exit routes in order to keep out large undesirable vehicles (you all know what im referring to)
If you don't want to use a car park stump up the cash to have your shopping delivered etc.
Has it not occured to you that you are using a standard that is forty years out of date?Car parking spaces are a standard size, 2.4m x 4.8m. That wont be changing any time soon & will likely never change. They have been the same size since the 70s, during metrification their was a lot of work done on standardising sizes in the construction industry.
I find that cars have got bigger (they shouldn't have) & people are getting lazier (hence my amusement at the parent and child parking thread), and car parks are having to be designed with more complicated entry and exit routes in order to keep out large undesirable vehicles (you all know what im referring to)
If you don't want to use a car park stump up the cash to have your shopping delivered etc.
Other companies/industries move with the times or go under. As you write cars have got bigger therefore you should be designing larger spaces.
Practices that were common in your industry in the 70's are not allowed these days due to H&S regulations so it is possible to change. I would suggest that your industry needs to come up to date on this matter.
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
No no no no - don't you get it? People buy bigger cars than they need, interior space has nothing to do with it. Footprint is all that mattersSo if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Jagmanv12 said:
Has it not occured to you that you are using a standard that is forty years out of date?
Other companies/industries move with the times or go under. As you write cars have got bigger therefore you should be designing larger spaces.
Well the standard in question was last revised in 2011... so it's not 40 years out of date. Sure the 4th edition of 2011 didn't change the basic minimum space dimensions that is besides the point, developers can of course choose to instruct the design team to design larger spaces. Other companies/industries move with the times or go under. As you write cars have got bigger therefore you should be designing larger spaces.
Why hasn't the basic parking space become larger? That would cost end clients come developers money in needing more land or add extra storeys etc to meet space GFA requirements. The GFA (gross floor area) per space has actually increased since the 70's such that a commercial office development today will provide less spaces than forty years ago, good for the environment apparently as it encourages public transport use.
Parking spaces are surprisingly expensive to construct.
TWPC said:
sjg said:
GravelMachineGun said:
What if I wanted a range rover?
What if I wanted a Unimog? http://swns.com/news/military-nut-infuriates-neigh...
king horrible council sthole. Scrap Transits on trailers dumped on the pavement, Escort vans, cars with tarps over them, some Merc "camper" van, a tank would be the best looking and most valuable thing in the area.It looks like something you'd see up North, and I thought Oxford was meant to be a desirable place to live...
irocfan said:
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
No no no no - don't you get it? People buy bigger cars than they need, interior space has nothing to do with it. Footprint is all that mattersSo if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
b0rk said:
Jagmanv12 said:
Has it not occured to you that you are using a standard that is forty years out of date?
Other companies/industries move with the times or go under. As you write cars have got bigger therefore you should be designing larger spaces.
Well the standard in question was last revised in 2011... so it's not 40 years out of date. Sure the 4th edition of 2011 didn't change the basic minimum space dimensions that is besides the point, developers can of course choose to instruct the design team to design larger spaces. Other companies/industries move with the times or go under. As you write cars have got bigger therefore you should be designing larger spaces.
Why hasn't the basic parking space become larger? That would cost end clients come developers money in needing more land or add extra storeys etc to meet space GFA requirements. The GFA (gross floor area) per space has actually increased since the 70's such that a commercial office development today will provide less spaces than forty years ago, good for the environment apparently as it encourages public transport use.
Parking spaces are surprisingly expensive to construct.
As you say there are less spaces now so the office workers will park their cars on the nearby streets.
Here's an example of a sensible size space - http://s286.photobucket.com/user/zzrman/media/Wies... Hopefully this can be adopted as the standard size.
I guess one of the problems is the restrictions made by councils. A block of 12 2 double bedroom flats were built in my area. So in theory a maximum of 48 cars which I realise is unrealistic. The council allowed 12 spaces thinking this would force owners not to have a car and use public transport.
Buses stop running about 10pm so a car is a necessity. Not enough spaces so excess cars are parked on the street.
swerni said:
RB Will said:
Swampy1982 said:
RB Will said:
so I need that much extra space before I even try to get myself out of my wider car.
Are you sure this isn't a pie intake related issue? 
I have already downsized myself and my car. I thought I was doing bloody well to fit my Ram between the lines in normal parking spaces since most people cant seem to fit a normal family car in one
Can we also make parking bays a bit longer? Its a pretty tight fit with my Octavia now length ways and my Legacy used to be a few inches too long too.
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Disagree. There's far more space in a MK7 than a MK4.So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Mr Gear said:
irocfan said:
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
No no no no - don't you get it? People buy bigger cars than they need, interior space has nothing to do with it. Footprint is all that mattersSo if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Europa1 said:
philmots said:
I'd happily pay double and have a spot twice the width.
Only place I've ever been with decent standard spots is Costco.
New Sainsbury's get double lines too, I think the space between the lines may even be slightly more narrow but the width between make the actual gap the same as normal, I think it encourages people to park central to the spot. Seems to work.
Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you? But here in Cambridge we have a special breed of f$%^tard....Only place I've ever been with decent standard spots is Costco.
New Sainsbury's get double lines too, I think the space between the lines may even be slightly more narrow but the width between make the actual gap the same as normal, I think it encourages people to park central to the spot. Seems to work.
And the absolute, world class, gold plated cocksocket...
Mr Gear said:
irocfan said:
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
No no no no - don't you get it? People buy bigger cars than they need, interior space has nothing to do with it. Footprint is all that mattersSo if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
tomjol said:
Dracoro said:
Cars have grown on the outside, however they haven't particularly grown inside. The size in exterior growth is for safety, sound deadening etc.
So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Disagree. There's far more space in a MK7 than a MK4.So if you needed the space/practicality of a Golf (for example) 15 years ago, the equivalent is probably still a Golf now.
Not just in size of interior, boot space too as well as similar-ish driving dynamics (comfort, performance etc.)
Dracoro said:
How does a MK4 compare to a newish Polo?
Not just in size of interior, boot space too as well as similar-ish driving dynamics (comfort, performance etc.)
The Golf's boot is about 10% bigger and the rear bench feels a bit wider; I don't think there's much in it in terms of rear leg room; the Polo has a more specious feeling driving position, at least for me. The Polo is a vastly better car to drive, both in terms of ride quality and handling, but then most things drive better than a mk4 Golf. Not just in size of interior, boot space too as well as similar-ish driving dynamics (comfort, performance etc.)
irocfan said:
errrrrm - except that oh so tidy sized B-Max you suggest is over 2000mm wide.....
Excluding mirrors the B-class is 1786mm wide compared to 1886 for the Mondeo. Including mirrors the B-class is 2010 and the Mondeo is 2121mm. So by any metric the Mondeo is at least 10cm wider than the B-class; it's over 11cm wider in total width.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 30th July 15:12
Nedzilla said:
I always park in parent and child or the disabled bays providing there is plenty available which there is always about 20 spare at my local sainsburys.
The doors on my car are very long and it is just about impossible to get out if there is someone next to me in a regular parking space......that and there's less chance of careless fkers damaging my car and before anyone starts I honestly couldn't give a fk!
Take my disabled parking space, take my disability.The doors on my car are very long and it is just about impossible to get out if there is someone next to me in a regular parking space......that and there's less chance of careless f
kers damaging my car and before anyone starts I honestly couldn't give a fk!Nedzilla proves that there are Ables out there, who have no shame.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff