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

Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#41

Post by swang »

sliverstorm wrote: post #19
geebee wrote: post #9

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre... The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening. It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a…

Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

The only place that seems relatively sane (and relatively affordable) for families in SF is Noe Valley. If you have _tons_ of money, probably further north like Pac Heights.

And maybe, _maybe_ the area between Haight/Duboce Triangle near Duboce Park where there is a playground for kids seems to attract families. But even still, you can't go out at night around there as there have been lots of violent crimes in that area.

SF is really weird.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#42

Post by [deleted] »

sliverstorm wrote: post #19
geebee wrote: post #9

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre... The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening. It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a…

Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

[deleted]

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#43

Post by dpeck »

geebee wrote: post #9

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre... The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening. It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a…

Not SF, but I feel exactly the same cars. After having my kid and him getting to the toddler stage I started to actually understand just how hazardous cars can be.

There is nothing I appreciate more these days than a open area with fencing or whatever else to keep cars at bay and let kids run around and be kids without parents having to constantly stay on guard that one of them might make a run for the street.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#44

Post by sbov »

joedrew wrote: post #10
jrells wrote: post #4

> Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned. This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.

It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.

I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking.

Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you.

It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per shop.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#45

Post by windsurfer »

wahsd wrote: post #25

Here we go with privatizing public resources and assets again. It galls me to hear moronic, self-serving corrupt things like "...the growing economic case for deploying our streets differently, for use by more than cars." In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes, especially not for private profit, gain, or benefit of any kind.…

Sorry, could you elaborate on how "parklets" are a privatization of public resources? They seem to me like simply another use by the public. The article even mentions that a study found that not all the people using these mini parks are spending money at local businesses.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#46

Post by avn2109 »

jrells wrote: post #4

> Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned. This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.

>> "This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots."

Yes, that's the point. This is called modal shift and it is how you incentivize people to stop driving.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#47

Post by VintageCool »

chc wrote: post #6

It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are" repurposed into anti-car propaganda?

It's not as simple as "people like to go where parks are". Some parks will thrive while others are abandoned, and it depends largely on the surrounding neighborhood.

If you have a thriving neighborhood with people and businesses and things to do, then introducing a sunny park will make it better.

If you have a cluster of office buildings and parking lots with no one living there and no theatres or recreation, then a park will just mean there is even less to do there.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#48

Post by angdis »

moron4hire wrote: post #13

Philadelphia does not have a very good public transit system. It's fine if all you want to do is get to the center of the city, but to actually travel around the city it sucks. And parts of Philadelphia have a severe parking problem. I'm convinced that the only reason South Philadelphia works is because 1/4 to 1/2 of its population isn't at home at any one point in time. It's like sailors hot-bedding on a submarine.…

South Philly resident here. Philadelphia has "pretty good" public transport compared to many other large cities. It is particularly easy to get around by bicycle and by foot. It is no problem to get to any part of the city proper by subway, bus, taxi, uber, bicycle or foot. There are connections to NJ via bus and PATCO. Much of the outer suburbs are connected via SEPTA. You can get to NYC via NJtransit (cheaply!) or Amtrak (more expensive). It is not perfect, but I have trouble understanding why you're complaining, where do you want the public transit to go that it doesn't already ??? BTW, the lax attitude about parking is true: I own a car and park it on the sidewalk in the alley behind my house.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#49

Post by chc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #39
chc wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use. OK, I'll be more explicit: I don't see any evidence that parking lots are special here. It sounds like you could build a park in the place of just about anything else and get the same benefit. It's not clear that this has anything to do with parking lots per se. > It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of…

>> It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people. > How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars? Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges stra…

> Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis.

No, it doesn't. That's precisely what I've been saying. This article doesn't at all differentiate the benefit of a park from the effect of removing parking, so there is no rational cost/benefit analysis here.

> There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.

I have a hard enough time finding parking in San Diego as it is. I would like to hear a strong argument for preventing me from ever going anywhere.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#50

Post by bronson »

Kalium wrote: post #35
sliverstorm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.

Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.

Which incumbents do you mean? The millionaires or the people being displaced?
Post reply on HN