Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 432 posts

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#81

Post by throw0101d »

1-6 wrote: post #21

I thought a generation of remote work would change attitudes about cities. Why are we still trying to cram into small spaces?

> Why are we still trying to cram into small spaces?

Define "small". Here are some examples houses in an urban area with front yards, back yards, and garages (attached to lanes):

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+...

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON

A little less square footage:

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+...

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...

The Oh the Urbanity channel has a video on the (mistaken) idea that "urban living" = Manhattan / Hong Kong apartment blocks, which is certainly not the case:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E

Plenty of that was build pre-WW2 in ways that didn't depend on cars:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s

Suburban design is the worst of both worlds: lacking the density of the urban so infrastructure is inefficient and so is transportation, and basically bulldozing what makes more rural living nice (closeness to nature).

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#82

Post by throw0101d »

pc86 wrote: post #69
AlexandrB wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean. Even with remote work, living in a high-density area offers advantages - the primary one (in my mind) being that you don't have to own a car.

"Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice. More seriously though I do think there are benefits to city living if that's a lifestyle you want, but saving money is almost never one of them unless you have a job where you can make a LOT more living in the city, which sort of by definition means you're not g…

> "Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice.

Try $1000/mo on average:

* https://money.com/owning-new-car-cost-total-2023/

If you're making >$100K that may not sound like that much, but the average/median US salary is lower.

(That probably doesn't include externalities either: health, climate change, commute times when you do have to go into the office, etc.)

Cars can be convenient, but it'd be better if they were option for living your life rather than a necessity.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#83

Post by oceanplexian »

crote wrote: post #66
oceanplexian wrote: post #22

> "I think our country has used its land wastefully, like a drunk lottery winner that's squandered their newfound wealth," said resident Tai Hovanky. This sounds like a comment from someone who lives in a city and doesn’t get out. There is an incredible, vast, mind-boggling amount of empty space in the US. I have flown and driven across the country many times. City dwellers are occupying a fraction of 1% of the space…

I actually agree with that - and I grew up in a rural area. The US has been building a lot of low-quality low-density suburban neighborhoods. They are actively hostile to the people living there, as there are both no amenities within a human distance from your home and there is no space for recreation. Life is constantly being strangled by a forced dependency on car travel. In cities everything is a stone's throw awa…

I lived in Davis, CA for a while and I feel like they had the right balance of suburban and urban development. I felt like it was extremely fair to cars despite being super walkable and one of the most bike friendly cities in the country.

They embrace mixed zoning, where homes and apartments mix with low density commercial, even in the same building. You can own a single family house if you need that, walkable to grocery and restaurants. Portland does this at a greater scale and it’s fantastic, unfortunately zoning and public transit won’t fix the other problems the city has.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#84

Post by pc86 »

throw0101d wrote: post #82
pc86 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice. More seriously though I do think there are benefits to city living if that's a lifestyle you want, but saving money is almost never one of them unless you have a job where you can make a LOT more living in the city, which sort of by definition means you're not g…

> "Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice. Try $1000/mo on average: * https://money.com/owning-new-car-cost-total-2023/ If you're making >$100K that may not sound like that much, but the average/median US salary is lower. (That probably doesn't include externalities either: health, climate change, comm…

$1k/mo is a new car with no down payment, most people aren't doing that. It's literally the most expensive way to get a vehicle! Maybe #2 depending on your views on leasing and how you calculate cost there.

And even using the $1k/mo number, you're still paying thousands more in rent to save that.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#85

Post by autoexec »

ripply wrote: post #74
autoexec wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jacking up the prices for parking spaces due to artificially induced scarcity will mean that cars are still every bit as essential to get around, but now only the wealthy will be able to afford to park them, screwing over the population least able to arrange/afford alternatives. I guess it's somehow better if the increasing number of poors in the US have to park miles away from their jobs (if they're lucky enough) an…

This is step 1 of reversing car centricity in these areas. Believe it or not some people in Europe in their 30s don’t even know how to drive because it’s just not needed. When you require parking spots for housing you increase the distance between everything. Going places requires transport because you have all these god forsaken parking lots you have to traverse to get to your destination.

Step one should be creating adequate public transportation so that the people with the fewest options are still able to get to work, doctors, and grocery stores even after existing parking spaces go away and no new ones are built.

Parking lots aren't what's keeping people in subdivisions from being miles away from those places. Parking spots aren't what's keeping people in cities from being able to walk to where they're going either. Parking lots are extremely walkable spaces even while being hot and unattractive.

You could get rid of every parking lot in your city and you'd still have highways you can't cross or safely walk/bike along side of, you'd still have housing set miles away from city centers, and you'd still have no access to most places by public transportation. Our cities are built from the ground up with the expectation that people will use cars to get around. That was a mistake, but getting rid of parking spots isn't the cure.

I've been in places like Tokyo where public transportation met all of my needs. We can do it, but you need the infrastructure in place first or you're just hurting people by leaving them with zero alternatives to what you're taking from them.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#86

Post by kilotaras »

autoexec wrote: post #80
kilotaras wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> artificially induced scarcity How is *not requiring* parking to be provided inducing scarcity artificially?

Because before developers were required to ensure that when they built something adding parking spaces to handle the demand they were introducing to an area was their responsibility. Now developers can (and will) push that externality onto the public at zero cost to them. The city has a very limited amount of parking spaces it can provide at any cost which means that removing that requirement will suddenly make parki…

But that's not what artificially inducing means.

London for example have buildings which are prohibited of having parking (or getting street permit). Providing an option not pay for parking space when buying an apartment is not that.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#87

Post by pc86 »

coldpie wrote: post #79
pc86 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's pay 3x as much for rent [and other things that more expensive with density] to save $300/mo on a car payment" is certainly an interesting life choice. More seriously though I do think there are benefits to city living if that's a lifestyle you want, but saving money is almost never one of them unless you have a job where you can make a LOT more living in the city, which sort of by definition means you're not g…

Who said anything about money? Owning a car sucks, dude. Without a car, you don't need a place to store it, you don't need to worry about the safety of your $25,000 item every time you want to go somewhere, you don't need to worry (as much) about being turned into hamburger by your own or some other idiot's mistake. When I go somewhere, I hop on the bus, read a book for a while, and then I'm at my destination. It's f…

It's pretty nice in my experience, dude. But I don't live in a city so it's more of a necessity and none of these downsides are really an issue - which is sort the entire point.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#88

Post by comte7092 »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #13
coldpie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before: If you build a building of this size, you MUST also build at least X parking spaces. Now: If you build a building of this size, you MAY build as many parking spaces as you think you need. Seems like a strict improvement to me.

It’s not. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that did this and it was a nightmare. All street parking filling up by 4pm. Half hour walks to your car. Neighbors keying each others cars for taking up a space for too long. Guests basically just being SOL - you’d literally be unable to have guests over because if you left to pick them up there’d be no spot when you got back, and if they drove themselves they’d never find a spot…

> Neighbors keying each others cars for taking up a space for too long.

I don’t know how this is the fault of too little parking. Nothing excuses this type of behavior.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#89

Post by autoexec »

pc86 wrote: post #43
close04 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. But the resource stays just as limited. If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200 cars can park simultaneously. The overflow ends up clogging the surrounding neighborhoods, on top of the outcome described by OP. Edit. @pc86, both points you make are valid but neither addresses or fixes…

> Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. Yes. If you own a limited resource it's your right to make money from that. I know we like to pretend people making money from things they own is somehow evil but it's how all of civilization has been built and is an objectively good thing. > If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200…

> No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability.

That sucks for the people who are denied the ability to park there because they can't afford it though. Telling people that they need to walk miles to get to a doctor or a grocery store and that only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Re: U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums

#90

Post by coldpie »

pc86 wrote: post #87
coldpie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about money? Owning a car sucks, dude. Without a car, you don't need a place to store it, you don't need to worry about the safety of your $25,000 item every time you want to go somewhere, you don't need to worry (as much) about being turned into hamburger by your own or some other idiot's mistake. When I go somewhere, I hop on the bus, read a book for a while, and then I'm at my destination. It's f…

It's pretty nice in my experience, dude. But I don't live in a city so it's more of a necessity and none of these downsides are really an issue - which is sort the entire point.

Ditching cars feels like giving up regular alcohol use did, where the scales fell from my eyes and I see how much better my life is without it, but I can't quite communicate it to others without seeming like a huge judgmental prick :)
Post reply on HN