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

311–320 of 432 posts

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

#311

Post by dublinben »

dylan604 wrote: post #294
kube-system wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person. Anyway, I don't see many people buying full sheets of plywood in dense cities, but if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be going to my neighborhood hardware store with a Zipcar, because it doesn't have a lumber yard. I'd go to the Home Depot a few miles away, and I'd use their rental truck.

that's yet another reason city dwelling in a multi-tenant building is just not conducive for many people. I couldn't imagine not being able to work on projects. Of course, having the desire/inclination of having that kind of hobby is probably something a city slicker just isn't going to do. I have wood working and machine working tools that I'm just going to lean towards not being allowed by whatever building rules.…

There's nothing inherently incompatible with living an a walkable community and participating in hobbies like woodworking. For example, after just a few minutes of searching, here's the first listing I found of a condo in a building that includes an expansive workshop among other amenities. (See photo 52.) This is in a location with a 92 walk and bike score, and a 78 transit score.[0] If that's not to your liking, here's another with a modest woodworking shop.[1] It seems like practically every luxury tower in the city has workshops among their fitness centers, pools, roof terraces, etc.[2][3] Minneapolis too cold? How about Seattle?[4]

[0] https://www.redfin.com/MN/Minneapolis/1235-Yale-Pl-55403/uni...

[1] https://www.redfin.com/MN/Minneapolis/1920-S-1st-St-55454/un...

[2] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/222-2nd-St...

[3] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/100-3rd-Av...

[4] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1420-E-Pine-St-UNIT-E310-...

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

#312

Post by earthling8118 »

rmbyrro wrote: post #75
georgeecollins wrote: post #48

In Los Angeles there are ~ 3 parking spaces per car, and < 1 housing unit per person. We mandate a bunch of parking for every new building, but no housing. Its no wonder that people live in cars.

In Brazil there are 3 cars per parking space, so people park in illegal places, traffic becomes caos, and no one can get to their homes with sanity. Don't fool yourselves. There are many ways to reduce housing costs and increase housing supply. Reducing parking spots is lame.

Right, it is lame alone. They should consider reducing the number of cars as well.

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

#313

Post by swalling »

aegypti wrote: post #296
swalling wrote: post #194

This isn't really a new trend, Texas is just a laggard because it is an unusually car-dependent state. Most major cities have been trending toward eliminating parking minimums, at least in downtown cores. Here's a map from 2015: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-citi... And one updated as of 2021: https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/

> Austin is the biggest city in the country to eliminate its parking mandates citywide > Austin removed parking requirements for its downtown area a decade ago Here’s an article from 2024 :) https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1221366173/u-s-cities-drop-pa...

That article is technically true but misleading. Most of Manhattan eliminated parking minimums back in 1982. Seattle eliminated or reduced minimums anywhere close to transit (which is a huge part of the city obviously) back in 2012. The entire state of Oregon eliminated parking minimums and single family zoning last year. Austin isn't setting a trend here, they're just catching up because the city has grown so quickly recently.

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

#314

Post by chinchilla2020 »

lukas099 wrote: post #258

I vote we ban all free public parking and let the free market determine how much parking there is and where.

The free market will reward massive retailers with lots of parking space that exist in the suburbs. There is no pre-existing infrastructure to bring customers to these parking-free locations in most cities.

Furthermore, semi-urban neighborhoods and alleys will enter a battlefield between tow trucks and illegally parked cars.

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

#315

Post by earthling8118 »

dylan604 wrote: post #294
kube-system wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person. Anyway, I don't see many people buying full sheets of plywood in dense cities, but if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be going to my neighborhood hardware store with a Zipcar, because it doesn't have a lumber yard. I'd go to the Home Depot a few miles away, and I'd use their rental truck.

that's yet another reason city dwelling in a multi-tenant building is just not conducive for many people. I couldn't imagine not being able to work on projects. Of course, having the desire/inclination of having that kind of hobby is probably something a city slicker just isn't going to do. I have wood working and machine working tools that I'm just going to lean towards not being allowed by whatever building rules.…

I find this kind of false dichotomy to be unimaginative. Nobody said you couldn't work on projects in this circumstance. Other commenters have shown this already.

And if this was true, why would it have to be? We shouldn't lock ourselves into that kind of world. There's no reason that people shouldn't be able to have access to workspaces just because they don't want to live in unsustainable car centric areas.

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

#316

Post by [deleted] »

bluejekyll wrote: post #260
c22 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously more than one person can occupy a housing unit (where each parking space can accomodate only one car), but this report from 2020[0] seems to indicate that LA has more than enough housing to accomodate its residents, it's just distributed unoptimally. It seems somewhat obvious that you may need more parking spaces than cars since they move to different places throughout the day. [0]: https://www.acceinstitut…

> since they move to different places throughout the day. The question people are asking is how can cities make it easier both for people to live in them as well as move around them without needing a car to do so. By removing parking minimums, it implies that people will have a harder time driving, which will entice them to use other means to get around. But, the big issue is that cities also need to invest in those…

[deleted]

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

#317

Post by up2isomorphism »

londons_explore wrote: post #5
voisin wrote: post #3

It’s one thing to ditch parking minimums, but it has to be matched with investment in public transit. Simply eliminating parking spots doesn’t eliminate demand when there are no other options for getting around. And I suspect the public transit investment will be way more controversial and difficult to implement.

Ditch off street parking and buildings will become much more dense, which in turn will make them more valuable (manhattan land is more valuable than suburbia), smaller (because people can't afford much space when land is expensive), which increases density further. End result: Nobody has space for a car, lots of demand for public transit, makes it worth building public transit. Unfortunately, there probably will be t…

" Ditch off street parking and buildings will become much more dense, which in turn will make them more valuable (manhattan land is more valuable than suburbia), smaller (because people can't afford much space when land is expensive), which increases density further."

Not necessarily true. In the situation where infrastructure building is almost impossible, the only net result for this is the pubic transit will become more and more expensive.

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

#318

Post by autoexec »

dragonwriter wrote: post #309
autoexec wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'll concede that with the requirements in place developers have to provide the parking, and although that can mean a lot of things (from lots to underground/rooftop parking) it will increase costs.

Still, I think it's better to have those costs borne by developers and passed to property owners than have everyone else suffer the negative externalities caused by not having those necessary parking spaces available.

I think we'd agree that ideally, the parking spaces wouldn't be necessary because of good public transportation and city planning, and I think that once those things are in place those parking spaces could be reclaimed and repurposed, I just feel that for as long as the parking spots are needed it's better for the developer to provide for them in their plans.

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

#319

Post by up2isomorphism »

georgeecollins wrote: post #48

In Los Angeles there are ~ 3 parking spaces per car, and < 1 housing unit per person. We mandate a bunch of parking for every new building, but no housing. Its no wonder that people live in cars.

The problem is that the current people generally find the statement like the above convincing because it is "simple and straightforward" even in fact it is boldly misleading. The common daily pain + political language above makes poor people suffer even more as a consequence of being misled.

Although it should be unnecessary to point it out, I would nevertheless say this "3 park space for car" is equal to "there are 3 spot for you to stand".

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

#320

Post by sokoloff »

dylan604 wrote: post #294
kube-system wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I replied to the wrong person. Anyway, I don't see many people buying full sheets of plywood in dense cities, but if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be going to my neighborhood hardware store with a Zipcar, because it doesn't have a lumber yard. I'd go to the Home Depot a few miles away, and I'd use their rental truck.

that's yet another reason city dwelling in a multi-tenant building is just not conducive for many people. I couldn't imagine not being able to work on projects. Of course, having the desire/inclination of having that kind of hobby is probably something a city slicker just isn't going to do. I have wood working and machine working tools that I'm just going to lean towards not being allowed by whatever building rules.…

Some people love living in dense housing areas in a city. Others love living with more space in the suburbs or even rural areas. Often members of each group have a difficult time understanding why the other group has the preferences they do.

I've lived in a high-rise in a city and on acres in a rural area. I vastly prefer the latter. Right now, I live on about 1/5 acre in the edge of a proper city, which is a pretty good compromise to get the kids what will benefit them and still have some space and not have neighbors right up my ass every time I turn around.

Post reply on HN