U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by danaris » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

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?

A generation?

We've had about 3 years of (ubiquitous) remote work; that's nowhere near enough to call "a generation", nor to bring about a sea change in attitudes. Even then, this entire time there's been a steady chorus of voices admonishing us that if we think remote work is better, it's just because we're slacking off; we don't recognize the real, important benefits of ad-hoc in-person communication; this is just a fad that will end any day now. Aaaaany day now...

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

#302

Post by BillTheDuck » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 9:41 PM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #217

njarboe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um... Just US healthcare spending is 17.3% of GDP. $4.5 Trillion per year. No way this works.

Cut out the middle man (insurance companies and their profits) and you can get this number dramatically lower.

Simple solutions do NOT exist.

There is a litany of "middlemen"; Drs, Corporations, Hospitals, Insurance, Pharmacies, Drug Companies, marketing, Lawyers ... ALL have a stake in something.

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

#303

Post by enobrev » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 9:41 PM UTC

rcpt wrote: post #269

chung8123 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need all of that to have every amenity at a walking distance. I live in the suburbs and I still have almost every amenity walking distance. Do I need 20 restaurants and coffee shops? Having space for your hobbies is nice so if your priority is hobbies that need space living out of the city is nice. If your priority is going out for things it is probably better to live in the city.

> live in the suburbs and I still have almost every amenity walking distance Are you sure you live in a suburb?

One that comes to mind is Arlington Heights, IL, a suburb to Chicago. It's very walkable and the places you can walk to are work walking to. My wife and I had to spend a week there and had lots of great meals throughout the day at various places, with lots of amenities for day-to-day life.

I was born, raised, lived in many, and will likely die in a city - but I just wanted to chime in to say that not all suburbs are awful.

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

#304

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:03 PM UTC

thex10 wrote: post #272

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't help that the urbanism activists in our area seem to consider parking garages to be a tool of the devil and protested any plans to build one in the area. So Alice wants to build a high-density housing tower without having to build a ten-story parking structure beneath it, and we prohibit Alice from doing that, even though Bob wants to build a ten-story parking structure right next to it, because we prohib…

No one is prohibiting Alice from building the 10-story parking structure. The change is she's no longer required to build it.

Alice doesn't want to build it because if she doesn't she can afford to build twice as many housing units on the same lot, which is worth more money even without parking spaces, and the building doesn't need such an expensive foundation if it doesn't have to support a multi-story parking structure in addition to the housing units.

Bob wants to build it on the next lot over once he sees these new buildings going up and is willing to bet that the new residents will generate demand for parking, and can choose how many stories to make it based on the local demand for parking, which is based on numerous hyper-local conditions that are best evaluated by the owner of that specific lot and not just based on how many housing units are in each building.

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

#305

Post by brewdad » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:03 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #113

londons_explore wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for Europe. Everyone there lives in houses perhaps only half the size of a typical US home, and they're happy with it. Most people have the option to go live in the countryside, have a big house and drive a car, all for the same money, yet they choose to have a small city apartment and use public transport.

Europe was already built before cars existed whereas most cities west of the Mississippi were designed for automobiles save for a tiny downtown core. This is especially true about Austin.

Paris screwed up their city in the 1970s. They fixed it. The city didn't die.

https://www.unjourdeplusaparis.com/en/paris-insolite/photos-...

There needs to be a will to change.

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

#306

Post by brewdad » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #150

londons_explore wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for Europe. Everyone there lives in houses perhaps only half the size of a typical US home, and they're happy with it. Most people have the option to go live in the countryside, have a big house and drive a car, all for the same money, yet they choose to have a small city apartment and use public transport.

This is false. Europe always had public transit, up-front. If you look at e.g. Paris you see that the peak in car ownership and beginning of the decline coincides with the economic crash of 2008: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/france/motor-vehicle-ownership-p... Overall, the change has been small, and most people still have a car. And the metro network was very advanced by 1939 (unlike some US cities, these lines stayed…

Europe BUILT transit. It's not like the tribes that migrated in from elsewhere found a working subway and decided to build Paris around it.

America needs to CHOOSE to build transit. The carrot approach hasn't worked, so it's time for the stick.

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

#307

Post by autoexec » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:17 PM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #231

autoexec wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't. I'm not even sure what kind of person would have a conflict of interest while supporting that we keep the requirement until actual alternatives are available to everyone. While I have a car, and enjoy having one, and have a nice parking space in a heated underground garage, I also work remotely and don't drive all that much. I'm in a privileged position and could afford to uber (within the city anyway…

Do you pay for that spot? Would you keep the car if it was costing you $150/mo to park it there? If not, then removing parking minimums accomplishes exactly what it is intended to do.

The cost of the spot is factored into the cost of the building so it still costs something, but even if it were a separate bill I'd still be stuck paying for it because I need a car and it has to go somewhere (plus I live in an area where it snows and don't want to get up at 5AM to move it every time that happens or scrape the ice off my windows/mirrors before I can leave).

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

#308

Post by r00fus » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:26 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #76

the_snooze wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're assuming that mass transit is the only lever to improve traffic. Eliminating parking minimums allows businesses to pop up nearer to where people live, where they're accessible by foot or micromobility. If anything, plentiful parking in and of itself causes traffic to be shitty because driving becomes the only safe/comfortable way to get around; housing and businesses come to have huge paved deserts bet…

> Eliminating parking minimums allows businesses to pop up nearer to where people live, where they're accessible by foot or micromobility. This is just fantasyland thinking as it applies to Austin TX. These regulations largely impact downtown, which is already dense and already has services downtown.

You're ignoring emergent alternate modes of travel. Two big ones - electric bikes and app-based ride-sharing (Uber) would greatly benefit from a reduced sea of parking while also allowing transport.

This code change will pretty much be focused on malls / shopping centers that currently have more parking space than store space. So new malls or changes to existing will result in a more rational balance than the ocean of tarmac we have now.

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

#309

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:27 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #298

dragonwriter wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would it? Because it would both enable and incentivize development patterns where people need cars less. > Without alternatives to cars as a means to get people to where they need to go, people will still require cars. Dense mixed-use development puts more of the places people need to go in places that don't require cars to get to them. (It also mass transit to other places more viable.) Your focussed on altern…

> Because it would both enable and incentivize development patterns where people need cars less. As for enabling, nothing stops developers from doing that now. As for incentivizing them, if they can make more money not meeting most people's needs then that's what they'll do. This is also why so many cities have a huge amount of luxury housing available, but a massive lack of affordable housing. What makes developers…

> As for enabling, nothing stops developers from doing that now

Zoning regulations and parking requirements, which in many places exist for for both housing and commercial development, and vastly expabd the footprint of both, often do.

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

#310

Post by QuercusMax » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 10:40 PM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #131

kleiba wrote: post #108

Where I live, politicians are also all for reducing the availability (amount + affordability) of city parking. At the same time, they cry about city centers (with their traditional shopping miles) dying out. Go figure.

Mostly because good transit implementation is so expensive only like a half dozen cities in the US are financially capable of building new rail transit or hiring a lot more bus operators. Also the fact bike lane projects in this country are seemingly done like a half mile at a time to the lowest standards, rather than a one shot whole network wide rollout of lanes that would make suburbanites feel safe to bike to err…

Compared to adding more lanes for cars, buying/leasing buses and hiring drivers has gotta be way cheaper. Road construction is expensive, especially if you have to get additional space in the right-of-way.