HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit DR-11-73 - TRILLIUM MAGUIRE - DESIGN REVIEWdr-11-73
southcenter parkway trillium maguire
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY of TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
Dear Mr. Shnier:
GC /lt
Encl: as
cc: Mayor Todd
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Charles Kober Associates
ATTN:. Mr. C. R. Shnier
2601. Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90057
RE: Trillium
Please find enclosed .a copy of the Complex Source
Regulations recently adopted by the State of Washington.
Department of Ecology and approved by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This final adoption will
constitute the rules for applicability and review for
construction projects within the State of Washington.
As you will notice in the marked paragraphs, this
regulation requires review of any project which does
not obtain the "necessary authorizations" (building
permits) prior to 15 AUGUST 1974.
Please disregard the Federal Air Quality Program given
you only yesterday. Our apology is extended for the
mistiming, but we only received the new information
within the hour.
Should you have any questions or desire any further
information regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gar Crutchfield
Planning Technician
CITY of TUKWILA
Charles Kober Associates
ATTN: Mr. C. R. Shnier
2601 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90057
RE: Trillium
Dear Mr. Shnier:
Frank Todd, Mayor
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This letter is in response to your letter of 8 May 1974
requesting clarification regarding the side yard require-
ments for the project referenced above.
There is no side yard requirement for structures located
in the C -M district so long as said structure does not
exceed thirty -five (35) feet in height. Thus, should
any structure near the side lot lines be in excess of
35 feet, please forward the appropriate elevations for
our review.
In addition to the information you requested, please .
find enclosed a copy of the Air Program regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Please note the marked sections which should clarify
any suspicions you might have regarding the date at
which the regulations will take effect.
Should you have any questions or desire any further
information regarding this matter please contact . me
at (206) 242 -2177.
GC /lt
Encl: as
cc: Mayor Todd
Bldg Off
Sincerely,
Gary 7 utchf ield
Planning Technician
17 May 1974
The Maguire Partnership
October 31, 1973
Mr. Dell Moss
Director of Planning
City Hall
14475 - 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Dell:
Sincerely,
Patrick R. Colee
PRC:pj
Enclosures
flf
Li
CITY OF TUKWILA
1 Al
We have appreciated your help and look forward to seeing you.
1800 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
213 556-1800
Enclosed is a set of site plans and renderings for our proposed project in
Tukwila. The architects and I will be in touch with you about the middle
of November.
•,• ' . •..
••••••,,
L
BURKE . HOBER . NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
♦, L, • ...1....1.. 1.• 117..1.. •11••••
....... s.••. •.....
• .. •.T.•.
OM =AM •1,•11,• W .OEIL 01.0611•11 Mr/ AVM a MR R.% Y 1.0.1 a MN /1.S. •
MM.R
yR 4SEPT MTh
.[YS. 1',50'
6&445'° C9[- NOTE
,��n' rn
secs.
•4.A2A LEVCL PLAN
TRILLIUM
TLIKWILA,WASHINGTON
oie 110.
••••••••■
IK
na
5OU114CENTER PCJ2KWAY
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
A•C111 TTTTTTT •••11111 •• 1•• TTTTTT • 0 •!1•11
TTTTTTT 50.1. •...A.
. 111ZOOL•11 •.I.••
IIIIILL•10
NM UMW m a r e s " um m o m . e m n e r g o o F. MB MET 1 1 11 1 5 WI MOM% 0 1 . 1 1 0 1 m a F S
mum GPC-
alloao ••
,, • SePY wrs
mut r. 5 s ,
PAR14105 SFPCVS.
SI.NOWL Vt.
rec.. mt
IVS•1. 1149
TYPICAL
FPFeems taycarr
wax srussm Perm. moms
SILC•S AT ••••■=11. /EL
SIT IE PLAN
TRILLIUM
TLIKULA,WASHINGTON
c•••••••••• •••• amen.. •s. 1•••••••■••••• ••• dor
TM. ••••L
OW
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
4a.a1 ...1 1.11 I•f.•l•• •1.1••
a. ... J.
M mamma' W rim a.m.. r/a i • .. POW ate.. w .rte. .r..a.. .� /M
MO OIL
WPM
OWNED .1
yw
.4 SEPT 1913
an. 6.e
-->N
CO!/OCT GEV @G PLAN
TRILLIUM
T LIKWILA,WASHINGTON
glem•IINIeloOlo =OWN. !On. IL Pooll• SIM sot a/
Ytt
VIVEVISIB
RN
BURKE SOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
AICMI ■..I• /III.. 1.41 1441414•
9w mamma eazoan we ...a e4Hasin 444e 14444.
Os•fit. ZO... •.i.•.
. i1COL•i. •.1.•.
w 4roa MEI. 1.. 44.•O4W. 444444.44 r slams
5— OP6
0,. 44.'71975
r•so
COURT OPPE2)LEVEL Raul
TRILLIUM
TUKW ILA, WASHINGTON
awry"... le wma. w,we�w,w•a voyage= a Ix.
SAM
RN
•
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
••CMIT•CtU•I •••1••C•1•• •• 1•t•1110. 0.311••
OS•SLS• W011a •.•.•.
•1 1• •.t.•. :
•
OM MAN. dMMI. In Yr NM CY•1MM EMT / SOY 2911 P t tlat W •IYMLA OM•11•• /ELM
no WT.
cams In GDS
Mn 4 SEM' 1773
.t.1t r•SO
PLA24 CL ER)LEVEL 0.d1
TRILLIUM
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
17••••710 11=71 01111111MIM rint. IIMMA•1111• ••• TIN MOM Mt
movisela
na
rxV V JV>r.2•70
II II
- �--
J+qw.TN ea-eh: 77.V
evscol
.4X/7i l C1CYgT/OV
IX.TP(4.7
/CAzn (tcsl )�t'le•
.rrny
fits)^ T CC'L:^.OV (c cnC nacn4
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS . ARCHULETA
a•C•Ii2CT••t
1111•1•1••1•• I•• 1
0£•11.1• £03•3 ••■••.
.••01.0 Z. ■i i• 3.1.3.'
It . •30£0LST•. 33. •.1.3.
.1 5 c a iet A•1•ta ca s /ew1 w ron mar. w 111111a0a clvaru w /wva
mum.' VI
ZOOM A
run 4 SEPT1971
WMGV /KYUS,
CLCY`I710 . SGGT /GIN
TRILLIUM
TUKWILA.WA51-IINGTON
sw.1�w w. mow- 0•IM wa �_u loa
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
•••nli•CT••• •••1 In• 1
05aii55 50555 •:•.a.
. 51ooi•i• •.t.•.
YS a. *.
r war manna u• ara cu•ar S /1411 w POST WM; w MAIM. CYaa.• rr iawa
ouan 605
auv 45CPT 1975
ieue 1/W1 -o-
OFFICE 15.111ONG -ST FLOOR
TRILLIUM
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
•w•nle w 7w7 n�a,1s•,n w .a Ile •••• l Op
_a1
c,, �- •,s�a�sr
c
it •4wr r w'tui rliiii•
it iriir iiinnninru
• ra WM — 1 . 1 . 111.
E, uxri nrc,rlm m �mxrmw
immIt rrnrtxrnnnr ® .mctusennn
r:er:.mu•• 4.•
MB ' U ■ iainafs•u • ®.wlxlun
i If —t
BORER KOERR NICOLAIB ARCHULETA
...11 ....... ••••••••••• 1.• 1 1.. ••••••
.1.111Ill i..11 ALL..
1.1.i. 7 1..•...• •.L..
as a ..L..
111•1•11M s s_ •s__ IN l i MI =► alas
! {!1115
0.177 e1+.a Srxsssery
TRILLIUM
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
on
R
LEASE
SALE
CURB CI M
$ETERIL INPGRMATC4
LL746Ti4 FER • 2 T•'
I/9 CF
maim ETlR 1•A asawcs.
ecryysy AC LIA.L my'
� . �+3• 0.2Lb
LS • EV • 1670 •1 • 3.000
TOTAL- 2.27) SQ. F'f:
0ORE /cciaR1•aR
IC p'4 I44...r 2 •
WAS'• 210.2 • 940
(0.550• • m
7uZ+i_ 2 $s7 . rT.
• a FlCIFT4cr • OA, • IO,C - 2
NGT' 1 ARE& • 20254 92 41:
CAMS • A yJ6L. • 22.500.9 • 2 . 5:70 122,EF6 rr..
1 11111111:1
Da Max
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS
♦11MIT CCTYS1 •••1•1111•IM• STOIC P1!111
Os a.Ls• seas. •.1.41.
. SCOOL•i• ♦.C.•.
r■ . •.CSULST• S..
•Y t•.•1 MUUM& TN MUM. CYCOr NNW /SS O roar
ARCHULETA
•• 1•T•410/1 OC•■••
A. S.41.
•nMr, ar MINIMS*. POUOIM1 .+i•sM1
104 CAPP
.••.M•. Gaa
MOM, VT
on 4 SEPT p03
.cue I /1&
OGPICE g2LCING • TYPICAL FL00R
TRILLIUM
TUKW ILA, WASHINGTON
=MI
5 0 U T N G 6 N T E IC
r A is is w n Y
RI
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
••i.l t /•l.tt•l.•' t.• t 1•11 •••••.
....L.. ..•.• ..t...
.w•i•• •.t.•.
R.M bra alle =MR a.3111131 M1 a R MR MR M MINOR fl N ••
Mw 44GT I1/19
I'•Jo
OEVECAL Nora+ gr pM�
s ' . 1 T/ IA ~
W
k
3 / TL PLAN
TRILLIUM
TUKW ILA, MASHING-10N
,.__wa 10111. __ 1..
ame
r
ora>aa *Stn 1R
H1tl
.RIAS.II PoR10116 SOOLTIRC
11
5G rrI4ff JT R FBRKWAY
.l
(HW[.1
BURKE HOMER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
ASCII 11.•1 I.. 111T.e1.e ...I..
USA.... SOSS• A.R...
. ■ROO.AT. 4.5.4.
r ..I...
001011 0000 115 — 01 t . 01 MT RIM 1141 0110101 a...r r / ..+n
F
R- LWuseis
P00 13000
� U
- 11.1\
.,018. CPS
name 705EM197/
0005 000
WA- Lome*
01. TR
ROSEN GERTKU S STRUCTURE
II
4'
S s- 000
mo
PRASE R MOOIF C TIC1N CF SITE PI-44
TRILLIUM
TUKW ILA, WASHINGTON
____ 1
MAGUIRE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
RICHARD ROTI & ASSOCIATES
SUITE 210,'14542 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403
A
PARKING ANALYSIS
for the
TUKWILA , WASHINGTON
prepared for
THE MAGUIRE PARTNERSHIP
los angeles, california
19, 1973
PARKING CONSULTANTS
(2131 872 -1461 • 986-1494
MAGUIRE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Tukwila, Washington
RICHARD F. ROTI & ASSOCIATES ■ PARKING CONSULTANTS
SUITE 210, 14542 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403 • (2731 072-1481 • 986 -1494
The Maguire Partnership
1800 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Attn: Mr. Pat Collee
Re: Washington Square Development
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen:
We have completed our analysis of subject project per your instructions and
submit herewith our data, findings and recommendations.
Bused on actual need determined by rational analysis and calculation, we
have found the project space demand to be as follows:
Phase 1
1 & 11
I - 111
L - lV
This actual need determined by rational analysis and calculation is pre-
dicated upon maximum occupancy of restaurants, meeting rooms, and ball-
rooms at the same time as the office building, commercial and retail
areas are undergoing maximum usage.
Maximum occupancy is anticipated to occur three to five days a year with
the "probable maximum occupancy" (with 150 unoccupied stalls at peak hour)
occurring five to ten days a year.
The following report outlines your needs for the contemplated phases of
development.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
RICHARD F. ROTI S ASSOCIATES, INC.
Richard F. Roti, President
RFR /kj
727 spaces
1148 spaces.
1573 spaces
2345 spaces
September 19, 1973
11 A.M. - 12 NOON
1 P.M. - 2 P.M.
1 P.M. - 2 P.M.
11 A.M. - 12 NOON
I N D E X
Letter to Maguire Partnership by
Richard F. Roti, dated September 19, 1973
SCOPE OF WORK 1
METHODOLOGY 1
PARKING DEMAND 3
Planned Development • 4
Parking Demand 4
Parking Demand Factors 5
Phase 1 - Parking Demand 6
Phase II - Parking Demand 6
Phase III - Parking Demand 6
Phase IV — Parking Demand 7
DESIGN CRITERIA 11
Parking Design Standards
The Parking Stall
The Consultants Outlook
The Variance in City Parking Standards
A Method for Evaluating City Codes
Parking Standard Comparables
Page
12
12
13
14
15
16
SCOPE Of WORK
The primary purpose of this study was to collect, analyze and
evaluate proposed and uses related to a phased construction
program. The information would be compiled to allow a compre-
hensive and planned program for parking requirements to satis-
fy the needs of the people who shop, work, conduct business and
seek entertainment in the area.
Floor areas were gathered to determine projected parking needs
for the proposed phased development. Based upon these needs
balanced supply /demand locations were determined and provided
in the Architect's layouts.
METHODOLOGY
Most zoning ordinances relate peak parking accumulation and to-
tal daily parkers with gross floor area. This study and subse-
quent recommendations are based on a calculated demand taking
into consideration that unit factors decrease as project size
and multi -land use increases.
The parking demand generated was derived by applying generation
factors to proposed floor areas. The parking generation factors
used are those which have been determined in similar develop-
ments. Adjustments were made for on -site business generation and
persons /vehicle for various land uses.
The parking space demand for each land use in each phase of
development was calculated on the basis of floor area, excepting
public assembly area which is based on persons utilizing given
• areas, using the parking generation factors shown in Table 11 .
The application of these factors to the various buildings and
areas of the proposed project results in a total demand for
parking spaces regardless of time of day. Tabulation of this
data in Table V indicating parking space demand by hour of
day results in a peak hour demand while simultaneously showing
space utilization.
Thus, the parking space demand analysis is based upon that,.
demand which is created during the peak period of an average
weekday, or restated, it is the. maximum peak accumulation of
parked vehicles on the maximum demand weekday.
•
N
m
tn
200'
790.82'
RELOCATED PARKING STRUCTURE
n SERVICE
STATION 1
50' 949.43'
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
P H A S E I, II & III S I T E P.L A N
No Scale •
FIGURE 1
0
302.38'
NORTH
302.42'
50'
200'
RELOCATED
in SERVICE'
STATION
The planned development listed in Table I is illus-
trated in Figures 1 and 2. Phase I consists of office
development with ground floor commercial area;
; Phase II a mix of commercial and retail, Phase III
co a hotel and parking structure and Phase IV an office/
w commercial /retail development with a parking struc-
N
w tune addition.
790.82'
949.43'
PHASE IV
RETAIL
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
PARKING
OFFICE
302.38'
STRUCTURE
1
P H A S E I Thru IV S I T E P L A N NORTH
FIGURE 2 No Scale
OFFICE
302.42'
I I - 7 "
7,5)7;F:,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The planned Maguire Partnership retail /commercial development is
located three miles east of Seattle's SEATAC airport at the
juncture of Interstate 405 and Interstate 5 freeways.
The development will contain a mix of retail and commercial
space as listed in Table 1 . Floor area and land use data
contained in this report were obtained from Burke, Kober,
Nicholais, :Archuleta, Architects, Los Angeles, California.
The complex will contain, as major generators of parking demand,
an office building with banking and brokerage tenants, retail
areas and to a lesser extent, a 308 room hotel with ancillary
activities.
PARKING DEMAND
Parking needs depend on type and intensity of land
use and the social and economic characteristics of
the land users. Existing and planned travel modes
affect, or will affect parking needs.
Where the automobile is the dominant mode of tra-
vel, parking demand reaches maximum peaks in rela-
tionship to per capita auto ownership. Automobile
ownership in the state of Washington, as an example,
increased by 6.9% in 1972 over 1971, as compared
to a national average increase of 3.9 %. This trend,
primarily the result of expanding population and
multiple car ownership, is expected to continue in
the years ahead. Under such conditions, where inad-
equate or minimum public transportation exists or
customer acceptance of same is limited, adequate
parking inventories are essential to the success
of a commercial center founded and based on commerce.
Good public transportation can reduce parking require-
ments by as much as 10 percent.
Hotel parking demands are dictated by proximity to
"airport and rental car station, determining the
customer drive -in /fly-in ratio, and the nature of
hotel, i.e., the number and size of ancillary func-
tions.
Devel.
Phase
• II
Office Building
22,500 s.f. /floor
x 9 upper floors
88% efficiency
Commercial
Bank
Other Financial
Lease around Motor
Core Commercial
Other Commercial
Facing Street
Within Mall
Within Mall
Retail
Retail Area
Restaurants (3 L 5000)
Theatre - 1100 seats
Commercial (Health Club)
Ice Rink
I11 Other Commercial
Under Hotel
Hotel - 308 rooms
Coffee Shop
Dining Room
Cocktail Lounge
.Specialty Restaurant
Ballroom
Meeting Rooms (4)
IV Office Building "A"
Office
Commercial - ground floor
Retail
Office Building "B"
Office
Commercial - ground floor
TABLE I
FACILITY AREAS OR CAPACITIES
202,500
200,000
200,000
178,200
6,500
6,400
1,606
4,400
18,900
2,400
2,100
8
12,715
75,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
25,000
140,000
2,100
308 rooms
110 seats
150 seats
125 seats
180. seats
500 seats
4,000 s.f.
185,000
15,000
30,000
185,000,
15,000
Medical and dental offices, theatres, restaurants,•
cafeterias, specialty shops, drug stores and depart-
ment stores are heavily customer oriented with low
employee density as compared with offices. A pre-
ponderance of customers on multiple purpose trips
and office employees result in lower than normal park-
ing requirements.
Restaurants and theatres in commercial centers need
little daytime parking and utilize vacant spaces
during evening off - peaks, when other commercial devel-
- opments are closed.
PARKING DEMAND FACTORS
The parking demand generated by each land use was
derived by applying generation factors to the classi-
fied floor area tabulations. The parking generation
factors used were those which have been determined in
similar metropolitan areas in the western U.S. Ad-
justments were made as a result of information gained
from City agencies and observations. From the infor-
mation thus obtained, final minor adjustments were .
made to some of the factors and a master list of short
term and long term parking generation factors was
produced. Using these factors, parking space demand
was calculated for the subject Maguire Partnership
Development, using floor areas as a basis for parking
generation.
The projected parking space demand for each land use
within the project area was calculated using the
parking generation factors shown in Table 1I .
The application of these factors to the various land
use categories results in a total demand for parking
space. If this parking demand exceeds the total avail-
able supply of parking spaces, then it is this excess
that determines the need for additional parking faci-
lities.
a.
TABLE II
PARKING DEMAND FACTORS
(Per 1,000 Gross Feet Floor Area)
Est. Unit Parking
Land Use Demand Factor
Finance
General Office
Retail
Professional Office
Travel
Restaurant /Food
Medical Office
Storage
Theatre
Service
Hotel
7.0
3.5
4.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
.25
20.0
3.0
1.0 /Roomc
Typical values determined in comprehensive studies:
(1) Wilbur Smith and Associates, Wilshire Center Parking
Study, Los Angeles, 1970d.
(2) Wilbur Smith and Associates, Highway Research Board,
Special Report No. 125, prepared by Wilbur Smith
and Associates, 1971
(3) Richard F. Roti and Associates, Parking Generation
Factors.
b. Four (4) percent public transit reduction incorporated
for this project.
c. Hotel ratios vary considerably based on drive -in /fly -in or
walk -in type. Assumptions for Tukwila, Washington hotel are
for drive -in domination. Thus 10% reduction allowed based on
10% fly -in combined with primarily night hour operation for
high demand calculations. Average demand is predicated upon
70% drive -in and 40% for low parking demand.
d. Some danger exists in utilizing studies older than two years
in view of rising per capita auto ownership. Referenced values
have been adjusted to account for the state of Washington in-
crease per Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration 1972 auto registration report.
TABLE III
VEHICLE OCCUPANCY FACTORS
Hotel
Coffee Shop
Dining Room
Cocktail Lounge
Specialty Rest.
Ballroom
' Meeting Rooms
General Restaurants
Theatre
Breakfast
1.5
Lunch Dinner
2.2
2.2
1.8
2.2
2.2
1.65
2.2
2.65
1.8
•2.65
2.85
2.4
1.65 2.65
2.9
PHASE I - PARKING DEMAND
General Office: Amongst the facilities within the development, the
proposed office building will be the principal daytime generator of
long term parking demand. General office calculated parking demand
at 3.5 spaces /1000 s.f. G.F.A.; 8% short term, 92% long term with
15% oversell on long term spaces requires 553 long term spaces and
57 short term spaces for a total of 610 spaces.
Banking and Financial: 18,900 s.f. of financial and miscellaneous
lease area is provided in conjunction with the office building.
By practical demand and rational analysis, the bank area of 6500 s.f.
will experience 50% walk -in and 50% drive -in traffic due to on -site
generation. The norm of 7.0 spaces /1000 s.f. of floor area is thus
reduced to 4.5 spaces /1000 s.f. of floor area requiring twenty -nine
spaces. Other financial consisting of 6400 s.f. experiencing same
demand and generation also requires twenty-nine spaces.
Core commercial and lease area around motor court are contemplated
as small shops, travel, etc. Travel area (1600 s.f.) at 2.5 spaces/
1000 s.f. of floor area requires four spaces. Adjustment for on -site
generation reduces requirement below actual need. Two employee
plus one visitor space is considered minimum. The balance - 4400
s.f..of core commercial classified as potential bank area at 4.5
spaces /1000 s.f. requires twenty spaces.
PHASE II PARKING DEMAND
Other Commercial: Intended use of 12,7 s.f. commercial area at 3.5
spaces /1000 s.f. G.F.A. with 30% on-site and 70% drive -in genera-
tion requires 31 spaces. -
Retail: The proposed 75,000 s.f. of retail space will encounter a
reduced parking demand due to multiple purpose trips and generation
from the adjacent commercial and hotel facilities. Actual need of
5.0 spaces /1000 s.f. with 73% drive-in and 27% on -site daytime •
generation requires 273 spaces.
Restaurants: Three restaurants at 5,000 s.f. each, 70% efficiency,
at 1 /person /25 s.f. = 840 persons. Parking demand calculated at
60% walk- in /40% drive- inlfor luncheon crowd at 1.65 persons /car
'requires 102 spaces. Dinner trade 90% drive- in /10% walk-in with
2.653 persons /car requires 143 spaces. Source: Valet Parking
Company.
Theatre: 1100 seats, of primarily night -time generation, with 10%
walk -in and maximum vehicle occupancy of 2.9 persons /car requires
341 spaces for 100% demand.
Commercial: At 3.5/1000 s.f. G.F.A., with 30% on-site and 70% drive -
in generation calculated demand is twenty -five spaces for Health Club
type operation.
PHASE tit PARKING DEMAND
Commercial: 2100 s.f. calculated for practical demand as per previous
commercial area requires 5.145 spaces.
Hotel: In terms of parking demand, the third most significant faci-
lity within the proposed development will be the hotel. The propor-
tioning of drive -in /walk -in clientele is a determining factor in
the amount of parking space required. Since motor hotels cater to
the driving public and usually offer free parking, they exhibit a
high ratio of cars to rooms. Conversely, a facility such'as the
Washington Plaza Tower in Seattle, located in the business district,
is more attractive to the non-driving business man.
A high drive -in demand of 85% of total rooms combined with a room
demand of 1.7 rooms per car results in a peak hour space demand of
150 spaces.
Ballroom: 500 seats. Luncheon - 80% drive -in at 2.2 persons/
vehicle (182). Dinner - 95% drive-in at 2.85 persons /vehicle (167).
Coffee Shop: 110 seats. Breakfast - 20% drive-in at 1.5 persons/
vehicle; lunch - 40% drive -in at 2.2 persons /vehicle; evening - 50%
drive -in at 2.2 persons /vehicle.
Cocktail Lounge: 125 seats. 20% drive -in at 1.8 persons /vehicle.
Specialty Restaurant: 180 seats. Lunch - 50% drive-in at 2.2 persons/
vehicle; dinner - 80% drive -in at 2.65 persons /vehicle.
Dining Room: 150 seats. Lunch - 50% drive -in at 2.2 persons /vehicle;
dinner - 60% drive -in at 2.65 persons /vehicle.
Meeting Rooms: 4000s.f. 90% efficiency, 1 person /25 s.f., 85%
drive -in, 1.65 persons /vehicle at luncheon, 2.4 persons /vehicle
in evening, requires 102 spaces at maximum occupancy. The "pro-
bable maximum occupancy" can be expected to be 82 space demand
(80 %) and "high normal occupancy" to be 51 spaces (50 %).
PHASE IV PARKING DEMAND
Office Buildings: Two towers of 200,000 G.F.A. each @ 3.5 spaces/.
1000 G.F.A. each; 8% short term parkers and 92% long term with
fifteen percent oversell on long term requires the following:
200,000 G.F.A. @ 3.5 700 spaces
less short term spaces 56
644
less 15% oversell 747
Add short term spaces + 56
603 x 2 towers
Spaces Required 1206 spaces
Retail: 30,000 s.f. retail area @'5.5 spaces /1000 s.f. with 75%
drive -in and 25% on -site generation requires 116 spaces.
Ice rink: Little data exists for ice rink parking requirements.
A :survey of needs with Ice Capades established demand figures
aho:m in Table V.
TABLE IV
HOTEL PARKING SPACE DEMAND BY % OF OCCUPANCY
AT PEAK DEMAND HOUR (12 NOON - 2 P.tl.)
Maximum Occupancy
(100 %)
Land Use Persons (Spaces
Probable Maximum High Normal
Occupancy (80 %) Occupancy (60 %)
Persons ,Spaces Persons I Spaces
Hotel Room Demand
Ballroom
Coffee Shop
Cocktail Lounge
Specialty Restaurant
Dining Room
Meeting Rooms
Parking Spaces Required
40 40
500 182 400 146 300
110 20 88 16 66
125 14 100 11 75
180 41 144 33 108
150 34 120 28 90
144 88 115 71 87
40
109
12
9
25
21"
53
419 345 269
Maximum occupancy is anticipated to occur three to five days a
year with the probable maximum occupancy occurring five to ten days
a year. The same factors apply to Phase II retail and commercial
areas, such that approximately 150 spaces will be unoccupied 99%
of the time at peak hour (1 - 2 P.M.) and approximately 270 spaces
vacant 97% of peak hour periods.
The theatre requiring 341 spaces at maximum occupancy will ex-
perience a demand of 273 spaces at probable maximum occupancy and
205 spaces at high normal occupancy.
A.M. NOUN
HOUR OF DAY 6 8 10 11 N
7 9 t
I
I
1
i
it
I I
I)
I II
I I''I t iI II , Iil1 I ; i i' Ii' I�I!II' i
II III.I1 „I illy�,`,i, , ,, �„ ,I,.
PHASE
Office L.T. 117 499 587 587 587 440 557 557 557 411 117 11 3 3
Office S.T. 43 57 57 57 29 57 57 57 42 3
Commercial
Bank _ 5 20 29 29 29 29 29 29 15 15 10
Other Financial 5 20 29 . 29 29 29 29 29 15 15 10
Motor Court 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Core Commercial 4 14 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 4
133 598 727 727 727 552 697 - X669 509 T 11 3 3
PHASE II
Other Commercial
Facing Street
(Within Mall)
(Within Mall) 15 31 31 31 31 31 31 20 20 15
Retail •
Retail Area 27 55 109 180 246 ' 273 273 246 218 136 109 164 246 218
Restaurants 3 8 82 102 102 21 21 29 29 143 143 129
Theatre 34 34 34 34 239 341 341
Comm. (Health Club) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Ice Rink 10 15 20 20 20 • 15 15 40 50 50
27 95 168 244 394 446 451 377 338 259 227 611 805 763
PHASE III
•
Other Commercial
Facing Street 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4
Hotel
Rooms (303) 135 70 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 70 110 135 150 150
Ballroom 36 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 109 167 167 167
Coffee Shop (110) 15 15 10 20 20 20 10 5 25 25 25 25 20
Cocktail Lounge (125) 3 14 14 14 . 10 10 10 14 14 14 14
Specialty Rest. (180) 8 41 41 41 33 25 25 41 55 55 41
Dining Room (150) 7 34 34 34 28 21 21 28 34 34 28
Meeting Rooms 53 53 71 88 88 88 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
135 180 296 327 425 2525 + 5 360 3+ 394 382 481 496 471 '
PHASE IV
Office Bldg. "A” .
Office 109 520 547 547 547 410 520 520 520 410 328 28 10
Comm. Ground Floor 6 45 56 56 56 34 56 56 56 45 6 • 2
Retail 6 12 23 58 93 116 116 93 93 70 70 70 104 93
Office Bldg. "B"
Office 109 520 547 547 547 410 520 520 520 410 328 28 10
Comm. Ground Floor 6 45 56 56 56 34 56 56 56 45 6 2
236 15i2 1229 TI . 1299 15I4 1268 U 12 +1 980 738 130 124 93 •
COMBINED ACCUMULATION 531 2015 2420 2562 2845 2427 2841 2679 2593 2142 1494 1233 1428 1330
PHASES 1, II, III & IV - PARKING ACCUMULATION
s
FIGURE 3
PARKING ACCUMULATION — PHASES I „II, ill & IV
PROJECTED PEAK PARKING DEMANDS ( on' rational analysis) based
MAGUIRE PARTNrRSHIP DEVELOPMENT, TUKWILA, WASH.
NOON
HOUR OF DAY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3400
3200
3000
W 2800
U 2600
2400
F CL
2200
2000
LL
O 1800
1600
1400
W
1200
— 1000
800
Z
600
• 400
200
ICI
i 'I!
'I
( !i !
!
!I
Ili!
Ili;
�I11
i
II
il
il;
I!
( I
i
I
I
i
'
I
I
j
i
li
;
1 I
■
II j
I, j
'
;!
l
!
h
�
,i
I
l;
,
ili.!
i
�
I i
II
'
!
I
Ill
j
�
�
��
i
I !it
I i! j
l iI
i i t
i
I
' ( t
I :
I
I i
/
0)16
N ACCUMULATION
„
i
I
,I!'1!
I
I I;.
''I
!
ill
!
j
2&!t
I
! �III�4�
�,
!
!
!
l i
V
I I I
I
I
� :,
I: '
.,
jj
I
MP
79
iii 26
` 2593
'
�i
Ifj
, ,.:
!� '' !
i I.! ll �(
!
i I
I
j
I I
I
, i
III ! I
I.
1
I i ,,
I)
1
!
2562
f
!
I
IF
1
Ii i
i I
H I
i
! I' I
i ji i) III l
I.
!
! f; .i;
l l`•'I
Ali
i
! I il
i
I
! ;`j,,
1
!
!.
I
1
;
,
I.,' i
Vi i!
�
I
I !
i i
III
�� �
20151
!��!
III
2 20
.
,
i
!
l �
•
!
I
' ii
it
+
I
•HASE
I, II & III
1 573
I
l
►
(
i ! : .'
,
!
i
I
\
_ � 4 �3 x\3
■
14 94
'
t�il
1428
li„
#
•
I I
'jil
I
II II 1
I l
I
1, '
1423
PHASE
I E
11
��347
EA
1
/04
/ 1237
c-,
1 33 0
" I
\I
11
I
' II
!.!
!
Ii
1191
1298 i
�••
1148
• •
1074
7
••.,1007
\ 16
\
\
110
I
\\
'I
t
1121
1
i
II I
,
1 I li I I i
/
971
I
.1111
i I.
!1. f
i 1
11
I
/
8 73
8 45
•.
.
998
PHASE I
\
\ /
776
//
808
\
\
II
I
!
697
•� ...,.. .......
6 97
669
.768
•�
•.
622
.7
\
\
i
!
i
�I I
:6 93
•�:'•
727
�•••e
727
727
••••.
•'
.
••x• 552
•
• '• • 5 0 9
••'
••
\
I
I
� /?
598
I
!
I I
a
!
•
295j,....•
•
\ •
r
'374
�� 147
, • f . •
. _
\
•
• \
is
' '�
! !
I
,
'i
/�
150 •;
.•'133
9
..........—.. FIGURE 4
MAJOR & COMBINED PARKING FUNCTIONS
• PROJECTED PEAK PARKING DEMANDS `onlra tiona 1 d analysis7 e d
MAGUIRE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, TUKWILA, WASH.
NOON
HOUR OF DAY 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3400
3200
3000
W 2800
2600
Q 2400
IL
U) 2200
2000
1800
1600
1 40
W
m 1200
C00
1 000
2
800
• 400
2O',
— —
1 I'
,;
III ,
j�
1
'
I
I
{
I
1
1
1
I
I I
,
t
, ,
!1
i i
li
1,i
!
i ill
i Ili'
I
I IIP .i\sE.s L IjLi
I
�I
Hi
i'I;
'
I
I!
I
�"
-
C OMiILD
ACCUMl1LAT10
—
�
I.
j!,
!
l i l i ji
l
;1111
1
1
1
I
i
i
!
I
I
i
III1I
�I
11
;1
1!
�
1
1
(
1
I.'
�!�
1 �
:
;
1
Pll
i'11.
I ILI
'
I
I
1;
1
v
'I1
I
11
IF
I
I
I
.
J
��
;
,
1
11
1
11 11
jll,ll
I
1
,i
1
1I li I
i
,
I
I
I
11111
'
Th i
�1
II.
1
I
I I
I
;I
I
1
1 1
'9�iir.
.�
I
1
,
I
I
(
i
IIII
l
;
.
1
``
�I:
i11
I`
",il
4 1
1••••
PHASE IV
OFFICE &
COMMERCIAL
f'
••••�•
•
• •••••
i
••_ ••••••
•• •••%
•••••.
I
j
I
III
Iil
1
I
I
•
•
%•
PHASE I
OFFICE
E COMMERCIAL
I
I
I
!I ii
1 1
I I I
,
1
f
•
a• •
•
`
I I 1
•
�/
/
..............
,
OTEL
, �
a.
o�
..... • ..
.......
.....
!Iii
!(t I
i ill
f `
��ll
•
/
i
- •
•
•.
,.....•''�_
��
-'' ���,.,.�.
`
.....
RETAI
.......�
�+.�
....
•
i ........
1
. II
I,
I I I I
ill
,111
_
�" "'���
".
• -
��
.
1 T HEATRE
.. 1
•.•.i
•
.._ •
•tet14.'t2s,s
10
PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
Increasing land values and construction costs in recent years
have emphasized the need for efficient parking solutions. The
most common approach is to achieve design efficiency by tandem
parking and inclusion of compact and sub - standard stalls. This
procedure attempts to follow the principle that parking space
design efficiency is achieved by utilizing the lowest number
of square feet per stall possible while maintaining acceptable
parking flow and operational characteristics. Since parking
facilities are purchased in terms of square feet per stall, the
lowest cost per stall is theoretically obtained with the design
requiring the least number of square feet per stall.
The number of square feet per stall - generally a product of
city code requirements has historically been greater in
suburban and rural areas than in urban centers. Low demand for
land encourages excessive use of space for parking purposes.
On the other hand scarcity and high cost of land for parking
creates pressures dictating more efficient area usage. High
construction costs for subterranean or elevated parking
facilities encourages attempts to achieve higher degrees of
design efficiency.
Most city parking requirements were established during periods
of low motor vehicle density, on a non - technical base, and are
wasteful of space. There is, however, a growing awareness that
optimum space usage, with proper parking (self-park) and vehi-
cular flow, can be achieved, through establishment of practical
parking design standards. The move toward realistic land and
structure space utilization for passenger car parking was ini-
tiated by the City of Los Angeles in February, 1972 following
.publication of "A Parking Standards Report" in 1971.
THE PARKING STALL
The width of parking stall is the principal factor involved in
parking design. Two considerations are involved - the door
opening dimension (level of convenience) and the frequency of
door movements. In this manner the width of stall is predicated
upon the convenience provided, the user of the stall and consi-
deration.for the frequency of stall turnover.
Using a uniform bay dimension of 55.40''and
adjusting staZZ width to accommodate the specific
type of user, i.e., the short or Zong -term parker,
efficient Land and improvement usage is achieved.
Parking stalls with high turnover, i.e., for shoppers, banking
patrons and other uses with a high frequency of door opening
movements, require wider than average stall widths. Parking
spaces with low turnover, the all -day parker for example, where
the door openings generally occur once in the morning and once
again in the evening, can be relegated to minimum or near
minimum stall widths.
Recommendations for practical stall width levels of convenience
follow:
TABLE VI
A full size vehicle at the maximum width of 80" parked in a
9'-0" stall allows 28" clearance for the door opening movement.
Subtracting the door thickness of 5}" results in 22/" for the
parking patron movement. An 8'-8" stall allows 24" for the
parking patron to enter or leave the car. These clearances
are predicated upon two full size vehicles parked in adjacent
stalls. Seldom is this the case. The natural averaging system
occurring with sub - compacts, compacts, intermediates, standard
and luxury cars will invariably allow greater door opening
dimension than full size car design calculations indicate.
With properly dimensioned parking bay (4-2) the most favorable
self -park design efficiency is achieved in the 50 - 70 degree
angle of park range.
12
Minimum
Comfortable
Generous
Extravagant
Attendant Park
8' -0"
Self -park - long term
8' -0"
8' -4"
8' -6"
8' -8"
Self -park - short term
8' -4"
_ 8' -8"
9' -0"
Over 9' -0"
Compact stalls
7'-4"
7' -6"
7' -9"
8' -O"
PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
Increasing land values and construction costs in recent years
have emphasized the need for efficient parking solutions. The
most common approach is to achieve design efficiency by tandem
parking and inclusion of compact and sub - standard stalls. This
procedure attempts to follow the principle that parking space
design efficiency is achieved by utilizing the lowest number
of square feet per stall possible while maintaining acceptable
parking flow and operational characteristics. Since parking
facilities are purchased in terms of square feet per stall, the
lowest cost per stall is theoretically obtained with the design
requiring the least number of square feet per stall.
The number of square feet per stall - generally a product of
city code requirements has historically been greater in
suburban and rural areas than in urban centers. Low demand for
land encourages excessive use of space for parking purposes.
On the other hand scarcity and high cost of land for parking
creates pressures dictating more efficient area usage. High
construction costs for subterranean or elevated parking
facilities encourages attempts to achieve higher degrees of
design efficiency.
Most city parking requirements were established during periods
of low motor vehicle density, on a non - technical base, and are
wasteful of space. There is, however, a growing awareness that
optimum space usage, with proper parking (self-park) and vehi-
cular flow, can be achieved, through establishment of practical
parking design standards. The move toward realistic land and
structure space utilization for passenger car parking was ini-
tiated by the City of Los Angeles in February, 1972 following
.publication of "A Parking Standards Report" in 1971.
THE PARKING STALL
The width of parking stall is the principal factor involved in
parking design. Two considerations are involved - the door
opening dimension (level of convenience) and the frequency of
door movements. In this manner the width of stall is predicated
upon the convenience provided, the user of the stall and consi-
deration.for the frequency of stall turnover.
Using a uniform bay dimension of 55.40''and
adjusting staZZ width to accommodate the specific
type of user, i.e., the short or Zong -term parker,
efficient Land and improvement usage is achieved.
Parking stalls with high turnover, i.e., for shoppers, banking
patrons and other uses with a high frequency of door opening
movements, require wider than average stall widths. Parking
spaces with low turnover, the all -day parker for example, where
the door openings generally occur once in the morning and once
again in the evening, can be relegated to minimum or near
minimum stall widths.
Recommendations for practical stall width levels of convenience
follow:
TABLE VI
A full size vehicle at the maximum width of 80" parked in a
9'-0" stall allows 28" clearance for the door opening movement.
Subtracting the door thickness of 5}" results in 22/" for the
parking patron movement. An 8'-8" stall allows 24" for the
parking patron to enter or leave the car. These clearances
are predicated upon two full size vehicles parked in adjacent
stalls. Seldom is this the case. The natural averaging system
occurring with sub - compacts, compacts, intermediates, standard
and luxury cars will invariably allow greater door opening
dimension than full size car design calculations indicate.
With properly dimensioned parking bay (4-2) the most favorable
self -park design efficiency is achieved in the 50 - 70 degree
angle of park range.
12
^ I
• 0
0
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
}
< 50
Z 49
.
ii 4 8
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
30 32f 35 37f 40 42f 45 47f 50 52f 55 57f 60 62f 65 67f 70 72f 75 77f 80 82f 85 87f 90
PARKING ANGLE DEGREES
. FIGURE 5
8' -6" LONG -TERM
STALLS
The Consultants Outlook
PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS
FIGURE 6
8' -8" SHORT -TERM
STALLS
Parking Consultants and published data have varied widely in
opinions as to what stall, aisle'and bay dimensions constitute
reasonable and workable design standards, particularly prior to
1970. The majority have, in recent years, evolved to standards
patterned by George Devlin of National Garages by employing
efficient design standards. Today, Devlin and Rich out of De-
troit, Walker from Kalamazoo, Young in Dallas, Boldon, Lins-
cott and Roti on the West Coast and other consultants across,
the country vary only slightly from each other. Others, how-
ever, maintain comfortable parking can be achieved only with
much greater dimensions.
The fact remains that recovery of parking investments are most
frequently subsidized by the generator it serves. Design eff-
iciency becomes paramount and is accomplished thru use of eff-
icient design standards. 4 ^
-, ". , �.•
u.
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
w 5
5
5
I-
5
•
5
3 51
a 50
m
• CD 49
.
d 48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
El Segued** +
30 32} 35 37f 40 42+ 45 47f 50 52f 55 57} 60 62} 65 67k 70 72} 75 77+ 80 82} 85 87+ 90
PARKING ANGLE DEGREES
FIGURE 7
dards
RICHARD F.
Associates, March 1971
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
w 56
U-
1
55
54
53
2
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
30 32} 35 371- 40 42} 45 47} 50 524- 55 57} 60 62} 65 67} 70 72} 75 774- 80 82} 85 874- 90
PARKING ANGLE DEGREES
FIGURE 8
RICHARD F. ROTI AND ASSOCIATES
A METHOD FOR EVALUATING CITY CODES
Most city parking requirements were estab-
lished during periods of low motor vehicle
density, on a non-technical base, and are
wasteful of space. There is, however, a grow-
ing awareness amongst municipalities and the
private sector that optimum land and improve-
ment usage can be obtained with realistic
parking standards based on type of parking
stall user (i.e., short or long term parker),
the level of convenience provided the parking
patron and the ratio of small to full size
cars currently in use and projected for the
near future.
Optimum design standards are seldom encoun-
tered amongst City standards. Santa Monica,
Burbank and Santa Barbara on the West Coast,
are several cities with realistic approaches
to land and improvement investments. Other
cities, through recognition of short and long
term parking usage, have adopted dual stall
width standards, i.e., a narrower stall
width requirement for the long -term parker.
Small car production, sales and registrations
are also increasingly being recognized by
many cities in code changes.
Illustrated in Figure "A" is the 8' -6"
Parking Design Standards long -term design
curve related to City of Pasadena long-term
parking standards. Note that parking bay
requirements, i.e., wall-to -wall dimensions,
for the City standards are excessive by
approximately 3'-0" for 45° angle of park,
4' -4" for 60 3'-0" for 70 and no penalty
.for 90° angle of park.
in such cases, City Standards encourage use
of 90° angle of park, whereas, proper design
standards would result in preferred angle
park facilities in the 50 - 70 degree range
at no premium to parking investments.
1. A Parking Standards Report, Volume I, prepared b YI
Parking Standards Design Associates, March 1971
PARKING BAY WIDTH Mall To Wall)
.
ill
1 fl
1
II
Ulm
W Un
O
7• aG
v u
il
0
IA4111
1111111
1111111111
Plmr111111;11111
ti•.
w
A
f
ft
I
Clads
..
I
lir
e . i — • ta da (IS
I
-
.
ill
I 0 AI
Parking
Angle
•
•
K2
4-A,,
IIIN
%- .
.51
FY
8'-6" Long-term Stall Wijth
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
w 56
U-
1
55
54
53
2
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
30 32} 35 371- 40 42} 45 47} 50 524- 55 57} 60 62} 65 67} 70 72} 75 774- 80 82} 85 874- 90
PARKING ANGLE DEGREES
FIGURE 8
RICHARD F. ROTI AND ASSOCIATES
A METHOD FOR EVALUATING CITY CODES
Most city parking requirements were estab-
lished during periods of low motor vehicle
density, on a non-technical base, and are
wasteful of space. There is, however, a grow-
ing awareness amongst municipalities and the
private sector that optimum land and improve-
ment usage can be obtained with realistic
parking standards based on type of parking
stall user (i.e., short or long term parker),
the level of convenience provided the parking
patron and the ratio of small to full size
cars currently in use and projected for the
near future.
Optimum design standards are seldom encoun-
tered amongst City standards. Santa Monica,
Burbank and Santa Barbara on the West Coast,
are several cities with realistic approaches
to land and improvement investments. Other
cities, through recognition of short and long
term parking usage, have adopted dual stall
width standards, i.e., a narrower stall
width requirement for the long -term parker.
Small car production, sales and registrations
are also increasingly being recognized by
many cities in code changes.
Illustrated in Figure "A" is the 8' -6"
Parking Design Standards long -term design
curve related to City of Pasadena long-term
parking standards. Note that parking bay
requirements, i.e., wall-to -wall dimensions,
for the City standards are excessive by
approximately 3'-0" for 45° angle of park,
4' -4" for 60 3'-0" for 70 and no penalty
.for 90° angle of park.
in such cases, City Standards encourage use
of 90° angle of park, whereas, proper design
standards would result in preferred angle
park facilities in the 50 - 70 degree range
at no premium to parking investments.
1. A Parking Standards Report, Volume I, prepared b YI
Parking Standards Design Associates, March 1971
PARKING BAY WIDTH Mall To Wall)
1
. MAY COMPANY
West Los Angeles, California.
FIGURE 9
FAMOUS BARR COMPANY
St. Louis, Missouri
FIGURE 10
ST IX, BAER & FULLER
. St. Louis, Missouri
FIGURE 11
PARKING STANDARD
COMPARABLES
16
SWIFTSURE PARKING STRUCTURE
Seattle, Washington
FIGURE 12
t
•
------ .
52
DAYTON'S RADISSON RAMP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
• FIGURE 1
PARKING
AUTHORITY STRUCTURES NO's
Santa Monica, California
FIGURE 14
1 THRU 6
PARKING STANDARD
COMPARABIES
11
THE COMING SMALL CAR BOOM
The small car boom continues to appear a certainty in the
mid-seventies, according to Robert Brooks, industrial
management consultant to the automobile industry.
Reporting to Automotive News, an automotive trade jour-
nal, Brooks claimed the Wankel will boom the small -car
market for the same reasons that the smooth and powerful
V -8 caused the larger -car market to reach sales heights.
"Largely for lack of a suitable engine, many small cars
made by Crosley, Hudson, Kaiser, Nash, Studebaker and
Willys faded away in this country," Brooks said.
"The original Falcon -Chevy II- Valiant small cars introduced
in 1960 -62 have also faded away as they were replaced with
cars a size larger so that the superior V -8 engines -
demanded by the public could be squeezed under the hood."
Brooks noted that the small Corvair died for reasons
other than normal market forces.
"The Vega and Pinto are the latest iri the long history
of attempts by U.S. auto makers to satisfy the small -
car market. But the consumer tolerates, at best, the
roughness and poor performance of these four - cylinder
cars in exchange for much lower prices."
This has meant reduced profits to the
"
February
"
Automotive News 2/5/73