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

Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

danrodricks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 389 posts

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#31

Post by stronglikedan »

wtp1saac wrote: post #4

Strong Towns has called a good amount of attention to the mandatory parking requirements in many cities (and shockingly, many downtowns). Thankfully, it seems a fair number of cities are removing such restrictions, but hopefully it becomes more widespread. In general I hope the US can urbanize, the older I get the more I realize it’s not really enjoyable living in this country. I don’t think I want hyper dense, but h…

The US is urbanized...if you want it. There are plenty of places where people that enjoy living in urban areas can do so. However, to me, that sounds like an unenjoyable hellscape. Been there, done that. The beauty of the US is that people have choices, and aren't pigeonholed into someone else's idea of "enjoyable".

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#32

Post by candiddevmike »

xnx wrote: post #27
travoc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking minimums are required by cities because underparked development projects dump their parking problems on the surrounding neighborhoods. These types of externalities shouldn't just be hand-waved away in the name of "urbanization." The lack of parking creates real problems for residents, police and businesses in growing cities every day.

The market is better at solving this problem than central planning.

Not when it comes to ADA requirements...

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#33

Post by ericcumbee »

osigurdson wrote: post #13

You could always put together a group and purchase the land from the current owners. Once you take possession, put the land in trust, tear it up and plant trees. You could potentially recover some costs by donating to the city but there is always a chance that they would decide to change the zoning in the future.

unless they have a purpose in mind for said property, a lot of cities are hesitant to do that. because it takes the property off the tax roll when the city accepts it.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#34

Post by _dain_ »

travoc wrote: post #22
wtp1saac wrote: post #4

Strong Towns has called a good amount of attention to the mandatory parking requirements in many cities (and shockingly, many downtowns). Thankfully, it seems a fair number of cities are removing such restrictions, but hopefully it becomes more widespread. In general I hope the US can urbanize, the older I get the more I realize it’s not really enjoyable living in this country. I don’t think I want hyper dense, but h…

Parking minimums are required by cities because underparked development projects dump their parking problems on the surrounding neighborhoods. These types of externalities shouldn't just be hand-waved away in the name of "urbanization." The lack of parking creates real problems for residents, police and businesses in growing cities every day.

This is the stated justification but it doesn't really correspond with reality. The specific values chosen for parking requirements are based on nothing at all, literally just copypasted from other cities or made up out of thin air. They are overestimates in almost all cases.

Besides, even if you mandate parking, it's an absurdity to mandate free parking.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#35

Post by 7thaccount »

Spivak wrote: post #7
falcolas wrote: post #3

I'd rather they put in an indigenous meadow. Trees are awesome, but so are open green spaces that maintain themselves.

Why not both? Trees in the manner they're describing where it's just helping the forested area expand back out doesn't require human involvement either. The selfish human reason to want trees as a natural heat regulator is I think alone worth the benefit in areas with lots of asphalt where people will be near.

Cities are hot. Cities with lots of mature trees providing shade on the sidewalks make it a lot more bearable.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#36

Post by falcolas »

Spivak wrote: post #7
falcolas wrote: post #3

I'd rather they put in an indigenous meadow. Trees are awesome, but so are open green spaces that maintain themselves.

Why not both? Trees in the manner they're describing where it's just helping the forested area expand back out doesn't require human involvement either. The selfish human reason to want trees as a natural heat regulator is I think alone worth the benefit in areas with lots of asphalt where people will be near.

If the trees are native to the area, sure. But a tree monoculture doesn't seem to do a lot of good.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#37

Post by Comma2976 »

travoc wrote: post #22
wtp1saac wrote: post #4

Strong Towns has called a good amount of attention to the mandatory parking requirements in many cities (and shockingly, many downtowns). Thankfully, it seems a fair number of cities are removing such restrictions, but hopefully it becomes more widespread. In general I hope the US can urbanize, the older I get the more I realize it’s not really enjoyable living in this country. I don’t think I want hyper dense, but h…

Parking minimums are required by cities because underparked development projects dump their parking problems on the surrounding neighborhoods. These types of externalities shouldn't just be hand-waved away in the name of "urbanization." The lack of parking creates real problems for residents, police and businesses in growing cities every day.

I doubt that.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#38

Post by Swizec »

J_Shelby_J wrote: post #26
wtp1saac wrote: post #4

Strong Towns has called a good amount of attention to the mandatory parking requirements in many cities (and shockingly, many downtowns). Thankfully, it seems a fair number of cities are removing such restrictions, but hopefully it becomes more widespread. In general I hope the US can urbanize, the older I get the more I realize it’s not really enjoyable living in this country. I don’t think I want hyper dense, but h…

It should decrease housing costs as well. The rules in my area are two spots per bedroom - mandatory. But my building is in uptown Dallas and the main draw to the area is that people work in the area and walk to work. So many people don't own cars or are only a one home house hold. And because it's a highrise parking spots are expensive. Like $50k+ each. And that goes directly to the price of housing in rents. Meanwh…

> The rules in my area are two spots per bedroom - mandatory

Wait am I reading this right that a 3-bedroom family home would come with space for six cars? How many families have 6 cars that's insane O.O

Sounds like a regulation someone long ago thought would for sure prevent anyone from building anything. No way they actually wanted that much residential parking ...

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#39

Post by UtopiaPunk »

wtp1saac wrote: post #4

Strong Towns has called a good amount of attention to the mandatory parking requirements in many cities (and shockingly, many downtowns). Thankfully, it seems a fair number of cities are removing such restrictions, but hopefully it becomes more widespread. In general I hope the US can urbanize, the older I get the more I realize it’s not really enjoyable living in this country. I don’t think I want hyper dense, but h…

I think urbanizing core metro areas is actually key to protecting rural areas.

I was sitting in a coffee shop in a small town and I overheard a conversation next to me. Two elderly men were talking, and one of them made a comment to the effect of, "I like a rural town, so I try to vote to keep it that way." Two or three decades ago, this town really was a small farming town, but the population is growing and the town is changing. It's not becoming a city, though, not by any means! As the city (somewhat) nearby is becoming more expensive, the suburban sprawl is, well sprawling. The small rural town is transforming into a suburb of the city.

I would agree that this is a negative change for the small town, and I would argue that the solution is to urbanize the nearby city. There should be much more housing, and it should be much more affordable to live in the city. As it stands, many people want to live in that city, but find the housing prices unaffordable. So these people make a compromise between how much they are willing to pay on housing vs how long they are willing to travel (almost always by car) into the city. I count myself in this group.

Urban areas and rural areas complement one another, and there's pros and cons to living in either kind of place. However, post-WWII styled suburbs are, in my opinion, a net negative.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#40

Post by the_snooze »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #18
lgleason wrote: post #14

I like cars and spend a decent amount of time keeping my cars looking pristine. I personally prefer having more than enough parking rather than just enough. Most of the efforts to improve walkability makes it impossible to find parking when you are driving in and forces you to park in dense areas where you either have to pay a fortune to park or park in dense areas where your car is likely to get dinged by some jerk…

> Most of the efforts to improve walkability makes it impossible to find parking when you are driving Most of the efforts to improve driveability make it impossible to walk anywhere.

Exactly. There isn't a place that's simultaneously nice for drivers and nice for everyone else. A space for cars necessarily reduces value, safety, and comfort for humans outside cars.
Post reply on HN