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

381–390 of 432 posts

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

#381

Post by sgregnt »

bombcar wrote: post #324
smt88 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA is a disaster for transit and housing, but your numbers aren't a problem on their face. Any car being used will need >1 space at all times: one at home and one wherever it's being parked when its driver has gone somewhere. If you have We need far more parking spaces per car in LA once we consider the millions of people who are driving in the city and live outside of it. As far as housing, we'd have a 100% fully ho…

Parking spaces per car is akin to toilets per person. An interesting metric but not definitive and comparable.

we do not usually spend all our idle time in toilets, though .

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

#382

Post by shaldengeki »

autoexec wrote: post #292
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing Yes. We have rising, elastic house and stable, inelastic paid parking prices [1[2]]. Due to these regulations, we cannot substitute limited space away from off-street parking towards e.g. housing. [1] http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PricingParkingByDemand.pdf [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Funnel-plot-for-the-pric...

The research you link to discusses pricing for parking spaces, but nowhere does it state that eliminating parking spaces doesn't increase the price of what little parking is left. The idea that developers being responsible for providing adequate parking would mean that we can't have adequate space housing is a new argument, but not a compelling one. Clearly jacking up the prices for on-street parking means we'd have…

For whatever it's worth, the person you're replying to took the courtesy of pointing you to some research they're familiar with, and your "it's just one paper" point (or really, any of your points here) would be much more convincing if you responded in kind to that courtesy.

On topics like this you can argue from first principles endlessly and never get any closer to the truth. Better to show us some data, I think.

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

#383

Post by talldatethrow »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #154
pramsey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, good read and wonderful on the vicious cycle that led to the downtowns of most US cities looking like WWII bombed out zones by 1975.

Honestly that would be fixed with expanded immigration. Look at places where the limited immigrants we have had in recent years primarily ended up and have changed the demography, like LA county or Miami-Dade county, and they don’t look like those midwestern or great plains cities. In fact there are almost no vacant parcels anywhere today, with majority latino populations now reflecting the recent waves of immigratio…

There are at least 15 million illegals currently in the US. If they all left, there'd be atleast 3-4 million housing units freed up instantaneously, mostly in areas already with hard to get housing. It should be pretty obvious what that would do to housing prices.

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

#384

Post by HDThoreaun »

stetrain wrote: post #274
adrr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to neighborhoods that don't have parking mandated parking spots? Anything built in the 60s to 80s. Drive around for 1/2 hour trying to find a parking spot every day, pay hundreds/thousands of dollars a year in fines because you forgot to move you car on street cleaning day. Repeat if you work at place in these old neighborhoods, like Venice or West LA where all the tech companies are located. The issue…

Driving and parking my car in a place that was designed in a world where not every household had 2+ cars to drive and park is annoying! To fix this we should bulldoze things and build more room for my car! I have to be able to park my car! What else could I possibly do instead?!

This argument will convince approximately zero people. It only works on people who already agree that we are too car reliant. The vast majority of LA will not give up their car, and circling for a spot fucking sucks so they’ll use their political power to make sure they don’t have to.

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

#385

Post by HDThoreaun »

bombcar wrote: post #329
mint2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s nice to have practically every amenity possible in easy walking distance I.e 5-10 minutes walk. Probably 20 restaurants, 20 small shops, coffee shops, ups, usps, fedex, hardware stores, museums, parks etc etc all within 10 minutes walk. It’s nice not having to drive for everyday errands. driving and parking is soul draining and causes suburbs to be ugly, not to mention freeways. Those are ugly as sin.

A ten minute walk is half to 3/4 of a mile. I doubt you can find all those things in that distance except in the densest of cities. And even then you might be quite restricted as similar stores seem to clump together.

No it’s not. A 10 minute walk is less than half a mile for an above average walker. Most Americans more like a third of a mile.

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

#386

Post by HDThoreaun »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #286
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.

It is hard to replace a vehicle when my primary use case is getting away from the high density area I live in go places with minimal public access.

Turns out there are tons of people that aren’t very interested in this.

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

#387

Post by electrondood »

talldatethrow wrote: post #383
kjkjadksj wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly that would be fixed with expanded immigration. Look at places where the limited immigrants we have had in recent years primarily ended up and have changed the demography, like LA county or Miami-Dade county, and they don’t look like those midwestern or great plains cities. In fact there are almost no vacant parcels anywhere today, with majority latino populations now reflecting the recent waves of immigratio…

There are at least 15 million illegals currently in the US. If they all left, there'd be atleast 3-4 million housing units freed up instantaneously, mostly in areas already with hard to get housing. It should be pretty obvious what that would do to housing prices.

Ah yes, the "this country is full" trope.

Also, "illegal immigrant" is the term. No human being is inherently illegal.

You seriously think each person who is here illegally is renting or owning their own unit of housing?

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

#388

Post by talldatethrow »

electrondood wrote: post #387
talldatethrow wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least 15 million illegals currently in the US. If they all left, there'd be atleast 3-4 million housing units freed up instantaneously, mostly in areas already with hard to get housing. It should be pretty obvious what that would do to housing prices.

Ah yes, the "this country is full" trope. Also, "illegal immigrant" is the term. No human being is inherently illegal. You seriously think each person who is here illegally is renting or owning their own unit of housing?

No, I don't. Which is why I changed 15 million into 3-4M housing units...

The country is not full. But the places with jobs have more renters than rentable units.. which is why a 2br costs $3k a month.

You got 2 out of 3 points completely wrong, and your other was a pedantic point about wording. You should probably slow down and think before discussing this subject.

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

#389

Post by jen20 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #377
jen20 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what about my comment makes you think I believe that anyone will?

If it is a non-issue, why raise it?

To point out that the intended effect of removing the minimums in Austin is highly unlikely to change actual behaviour in practice, other than perhaps in the units designated for low income people who likely will have to make do without parking.

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

#390

Post by forthwall »

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?

Small is relative; I live in a relatively large apartment (1000sqr feet) in a super dense part of a city; everything I can access (gym, food, healthcare) is within less than 5 walk and I have a great community of people I meet with almost every day; almost by accident :) I like the dense space, and 1000sqr feet is not really small. I don't see the value of owning endless nothing, I'd rather go to the forest to be alone, fortunately a bus line takes me there; or I can ride an ebike.
Post reply on HN