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

421–430 of 432 posts

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

#421

Post by jjav »

throw0101d wrote: post #81
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.go…

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

Those are suburbs. There's a park even, and no highrises in sight based on streetview.

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

#422

Post by jjav »

coldpie wrote: post #8
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.

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.

> Now: If you build a building of this size, you MAY build as many parking spaces as you think you need.

Remember who is doing the planning and building. It is a developer who only has a short-term interest in the site. They want to build something, extract the maximum profit per sqft they can, sell it off and move on. They won't be involved by the time everyone moves in and starts living in that area.

You could blame the people moving in that they should've thought of parking before buying, and that's true. But people can be too optimistic when they like a place and just hope it works out. It doesn't work out, then they spend a lot of time driving around hoping to park somewhere. Early in my adult life I lived in an area like that, it was a nightmare.

The developer who decided to build a 6 story (24 apartment) building with just 8 parking spots? Long gone, not their problem.

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

#423

Post by jjav »

lukas099 wrote: post #240
pavon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without other rules or planning to compensate, it creates a tragedy of the commons where every builder wants to offload their parking needs onto the rest of the neighborhood in order to save money. I lived near a neighborhood that had older denser development, that originally served just that neighborhood, but later became a hip place for people to go, thus exceeding existing parking. It was very frustrating that res…

> Without other rules or planning to compensate, it creates a tragedy of the commons where every builder wants to offload their parking needs onto the rest of the neighborhood in order to save money. Good. Then more people will choose different forms of transportation or internalize their costs. If parking becomes scarce, providing parking will become more profitable and people will pay the actual (enormous) cost of…

> Good. Then more people will choose different forms of transportation or internalize their costs.

That's not really how it goes. This assumes that if you make it painful for people to do what you don't like (park), they'll stay and live the way you want.

But no, people will simply abandon the area due to inconvenience. The area I mentioned above (previous post) went from a nice affluent residential area to a dilapidated area where only the poor and university students (also poor) lived. Everyone who could afford to leave, left.

Humans will always look for a better solution for themselves unless you impose a complete dictatorship. It is not possible to advance a cause (whether it be less cars or more public transit or better EV support or better bike paths, etc) by simply making the status quo inconvenient. People will simply avoid it.

You advance a cause by making the new alternative actually more attractive, then the majority of people will happily adopt it.

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

#424

Post by jjav »

alumnumn wrote: post #205
pavon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without other rules or planning to compensate, it creates a tragedy of the commons where every builder wants to offload their parking needs onto the rest of the neighborhood in order to save money. I lived near a neighborhood that had older denser development, that originally served just that neighborhood, but later became a hip place for people to go, thus exceeding existing parking. It was very frustrating that res…

> It was very frustrating that residents could never find a place to park This is the original tragedy of the commons though: a bunch of people assuming they can just park on the street. The frustration is the solution. Either build yourself private parking, pay for private parking, or ditch the car. Or enjoy the frustration.

> The frustration is the solution. Either build yourself private parking, pay for private parking, or ditch the car.

The vast majority of people will choose "(D) None of the above". They'll move out, causing the neighborhood to decay.

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

#425

Post by jjav »

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.

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

Alice is a smart capitalist and will build two apartment buildings instead, maximizing profit from selling the units.

By the time the buildings are completed, the mortgages signed and the people start moving in and fighting for parking, Alice is long gone, moved on to the next project in some other city.

This is the problem parking minimums were intended to help reduce.

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

#426

Post by jjav »

bombcar wrote: post #337
Modified3019 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the local college planners in our city wanted to “discourage” vehicle use, and deliberately had only a few parking lots put in, mostly reserved for faculty of course. What has actually happened is every residential street within 4-5 blocks absolutely choked with vehicles parking on the curbside during the semesters. It’s a shitshow.

The local residents need to retaliate with requiring permits for street parking. Fight fire with fire.

> The local residents need to retaliate with requiring permits for street parking. Fight fire with fire.

This is what happens, and exactly what happened near here. All neighborhoods within a mile or so of the university require permits for street parking.

But here's the thing, fighting fire with fire does not lead to a nice society. Now it's a huge pain to visit any friends within that zone because they have to shuffle their cars (with resident permits) to the street so guests can park on their driveway to avoid being ticketed. When you fight fire with fire you also get burned. Lose-lose.

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

#427

Post by jjav »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102
busterarm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to property development, anything that you leave to optionality in code enforcement ends up being a thing that never happens ever. For something to be available it has to be required by building codes.

> anything that you leave to optionality in code enforcement ends up being a thing that never happens ever No code requires marble countertops. Yet they get installed because buyers want them. Cities like Austin have regulated themselves into a housing-cost crisis. It’s almost a miracle that rational economic policy is being given space by voters.

> No code requires marble countertops. Yet they get installed because buyers want them.

"Follow the money" always works.

Builders want (reasonably enough) to increase profit. Marble countertops add a few thousand in cost but now you can sell these as luxury units for tens of thousands more! So it's profitable, so it happens.

Building parking space instead of additional units is not profitable, so it won't happen unless required.

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

#428

Post by jjav »

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…

> and can afford to

Right, so now only the most rich can go visit the area (shops, friends).

I know a lot of people have the opinion that only the rich should get to do things but I don't subscribe to that. At least with public street parking the misery is egalitarian, both the Yugo and the Ferrari can circle for hours looking for parking.

Although having enough parking for everyone would be even better.

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

#429

Post by junofan »

jjav wrote: post #423
lukas099 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without other rules or planning to compensate, it creates a tragedy of the commons where every builder wants to offload their parking needs onto the rest of the neighborhood in order to save money. Good. Then more people will choose different forms of transportation or internalize their costs. If parking becomes scarce, providing parking will become more profitable and people will pay the actual (enormous) cost of…

> Good. Then more people will choose different forms of transportation or internalize their costs. That's not really how it goes. This assumes that if you make it painful for people to do what you don't like (park), they'll stay and live the way you want. But no, people will simply abandon the area due to inconvenience. The area I mentioned above (previous post) went from a nice affluent residential area to a dilapid…

They’re basically what Soviet intelligence classified as “the shiteaters.” People with money and a good life who inexplicably want to eat shit.

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

#430

Post by jjav »

dragonwriter wrote: post #168
autoexec wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true, at least not for most people anyway. People need cars to get to where they need to go. When the developer of an apartment complex has to provide parking for its residents everyone has a place to put the cars they need. When those developers don't have to provide parking space anymore, people will still need cars, but will now have no place to put them at night. This will drive up the price of apartment comp…

> When those developers don't have to providing parking space anymore, people will still need cars but now have no place to put them at night. If they have no place to put them, they won't have them, and if they don't have them, then either (1) they won't live there at all, or (2) they don't actually need them. > This is the kind of move that should be done selectively No, having parking requirements should be done s…

> If they have no place to put them, they won't have them

That's not how it works. Have you ever lived in an area developed without any parking planning? I have, it's miserable.

People will still have the cars because they are necessary for every aspect of life. Making parking difficult does not change that, so they'll still have the car, now it just becomes a neighborhood warzone on where to park and everyone suffers.

The way you change this is not by removing parking, but by removing the need to have a car. Build excellent and affordable public transit first and then.. well there is no step two.

Most people don't really like to drive and don't like car expenses, so if you build excellent public transit a lot of people will give up their cars and the parking problem disappears as a side-effect.

Post reply on HN