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

41–50 of 389 posts

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#41

Post by verve_rat »

cassepipe wrote: post #24
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…

I get that you like your way of life (and that you are probably not given credible alternatives in your city) but please do consider the environmental and social costs of such a way of life: A car centric life is not sustainable for the planet. You've probably seen that propaganda around here but in case you missed it, here is some documentation : https://www.strongtowns.org/

>A car centric life is not sustainable for the planet.

How so? If we waved a magic wand and all cars became EVs powered by renewable energy, what would be unsustainable?

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#42

Post by pengaru »

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…

IME there's usually a paid option where demand for parking exists where there are no/few free options.

Your complaint is usually implicitly about a lack of free parking. Folks who insist on bringing their cars to town for dinner can foot the storage bill at a lot/garage down the street IMHO.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#43

Post by falcolas »

7thaccount wrote: post #35
Spivak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Merely eliminating a lot of the black heat sinks (i.e. parking lots) and replacing them with native grasses would do a lot to help keep city temperatures a touch more reasonable.

Asphalt both absorbs and radiates heat like mad.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#44

Post by mikeyouse »

2024throwaway wrote: post #17
uudecoded wrote: post #5

How long does it take to break even on the carbon output of asphalt demolition and haul-away vs carbon input of optimal density trees planted in the same space?

I don't think it's fair to look at carbon output in isolation here. This would greatly help with a variety of issues such as mitigating urban heat islands, providing wildlife habitat, aiding pollinators, and just generally making the world we live in less hellish.

It's probably a pretty favorable comparison anyway. Asphalt is almost 100% recyclable. The demolition often just involves a single bobcat and a dump truck that hauls it to the recycling plant. A commonly used number is 10kg/tree/year for the first 20 years of a tree's growth so a plot with 25 trees would remove ~250kg/year. A gallon of gas releases about 10kg of CO2, so in that 20 year period, the little plot would capture about 5,000kg of CO2 or ~500 gallons equivalent.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#45

Post by wirrbel »

underlipton wrote: post #30
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…

Good. America has over-invested in cars and car infrastructure, to the detriment of many other more deserving investments. We're upside down on our priorities when it costs a few bucks to park on land worth a few million dollars and when skilled laborers are living off of insurance payouts to fix superficial dings and dents (instead of, say, fixing failing bridges).

That investment was done to a degree that upkeep is to expensive nowadays.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#46

Post by jrockway »

Swizec wrote: post #38
J_Shelby_J wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

I don't think there's a good one-size-fits-all rule. A 3 bedroom unit could be 3 couples living together and splitting the rent, or it could be 1 family, or it could just be 1 person who wants an office and a gym. The rule should probably be "1 space for car owned", like when you go to buy a car, you have to prove that you have a place to park it.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#47

Post by coldpie »

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…

> having more places to walk, bike, and explore that aren’t just cookie-cutter boilerplate-esque suburbs and freeways would be really nice.

We're at a critical juncture here in the Twin Cities. The state DOT needs to re-build the interstate that cuts right through the entire metro area (I-94) for the first time since it was first built 50 years ago. There is a serious proposal to remove the interstate entirely and replace it with a street. This would be amazing, the area around I-94 is, as you'd expect, quite unpleasant to be in. It's noisy, dirty, and dangerous. The interstate is infamous for being one of those roads that was planned to run through and destroy working class and Black neighborhoods in the 50s and 60s[1], and removing it would go some way to regaining what had been room for people to live. I think it's a bit of a longshot, but dang, I would love to see the cities recover that space for the people who actually live here, not just those who are driving through it. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I'm really hoping we don't blow it by just rebuilding the stupid thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_94_in_Minnesota#His...

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#48

Post by an_ko »

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.

Major European cities with no such minimum parking requirements do fine. They have public transport and bike infrastructure, so many people in dense urban areas don't need cars.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#49

Post by erikaww »

stronglikedan wrote: post #31
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".

I think you got it backwards. Cities now only build these subury sfh highway parking lot hellscapes and ban anything remotely dense

So everyone is pigeonholed into something you want

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#50

Post by matsemann »

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…

> where you either have to pay a fortune to park

That's a good thing. Cheap or free parking is just a subsidy on car usage.

Post reply on HN