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

181–190 of 389 posts

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#181

Post by specialist »

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.

Most efforts to improve drivability also worsen drivability.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#182

Post by seanmcdirmid »

kelnos wrote: post #174
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you search for Stroads, you inevitably bring up Vancouver. You've just swapped one evil for another. I can't imagine walking along a stroad being very nice. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2014/03/12/metro-vancouver-str...

Stroads aren't inevitable when you get rid of elevated highways. They're just yet another result of poor urban planning.

Yes, they aren't. But my position is that what Vancouver has (world famous stroads) is worse than if they buried a freeway through town instead.

If someone suggests deleting I5 through Seattle and replacing it with Vancouver-like Stroads, I'm going to vote against them as fast as possible.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#183

Post by UtopiaPunk »

bluGill wrote: post #120
datadrivenangel wrote: post #6

They (ought to) unpave the parking lot and put up a paradise! More green spaces are good for cities.

Not really. Some parks/green areas are good. However it is easy to put in more than are needed and make the city less dense which is not good for the city or your ability to do some of the things that make a city great.

I mean, sure, there can be healthy debate around what is the best use for a specific piece of land. But surely anything is better than a free parking lot, right?

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#184

Post by efields »

Baltimore resident. I went to that staples for the first time a week ago and thought the parking lot was strangely huge. I don’t think an urban forest makes sense there tho.

Baltimore actually has a decent amount of forest and park per capita. The Roland park country club is becoming a public/private thing.

Getting around town without a car sucks though. There’s no growth to incentivize bigger transit projects. More busses would be nice.

I don’t think Baltimore and other hollowed out blue collar cities need trees as much as they need to enable entirely different industries. And I don’t know what those industries are! But there’s a lot of talented craftspeople here, and not enough capital to pay them.

Or we go anarcho-collectivism.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#185

Post by djrobstep »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #119
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #67

I'd even go a step further and set a maximum amount of parking in a given area to disincentivize driving. As an extreme example, if a mall is only allowed to have 5 parking spaces then they'll need to design around supporting public transit. So many places in the US are almost impossible to live in without owning a car - you might have bike paths if you're lucky, and in many places there aren't even sidewalks

Shopping centers are a bad example for this, because if you buy stuff, you somehow have to take it home, and carrying a carton of 12 liters of milk, 2 10-packs of toilet paper, a bag of frozen stuff and shower curtain rod, all of that in your hands on a bus, is well.. a pain. Also, at least over here, most shopping centers have underground parking. The "historic city center" and all that crap... that I understand...…

I get most of my grocery shopping delivered, or I go to the supermarket in my cargo bike, dump it all in the front, and ride home. You really don't need a car for this stuff at all.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#188

Post by specialist »

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?

Unmaintained asphalt eventually reverts to gravel. No need to haul anything away.

Were I replacing parking lots, I'd prioritize any abandoned / under utilized lots. Just start mulching and planting.

Plant willows and maples to break up the surface. Or maybe mechanically break things up, if the best-available-science supports doing so, if you're impatient.

Bonus Points: Convert planters, meridians, etc into P-Patch style community gardens. People love to garden. In my city, the wait list to join a P-Patch is years long.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#189

Post by Vegenoid »

brewdad wrote: post #21
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of places would benefit from more housing, too, or new business, or almost anything really. A parking lot is about the worst option possible. We look at a large section of a land and decide that we will destroy all life on it, pave over it with asphalt (so that even the rain cannot drain into the soil), all so that large vehicles can sit there unused. It really is the lowest opinion one can have on a piece of E…

Most surface lots you see in a city are placeholders until the owner finds a project that pencils out. Why not charge people to park there until you are ready to build that new highrise?

From an "I own this land and want to make the most money off of it" standpoint that makes sense.

From an "I live here and want my community to be enjoyable and beautiful" standpoint it makes less sense.

Re: Tear up unused parking lots, plant trees

#190

Post by abdullahkhalids »

verve_rat wrote: post #41
cassepipe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not just energy and CO2. Roads and spread out human development disrupts ecosystems and natural water flows. They result in the death of species, plants, animals, insects. Mining the material required to build cars and infrastructure also has significant ecological impact.

Please note that less than 18% (likely around 10%) of the world's population own cars [1]. 5-10x the number of the current cars in the world, even if they are EVs, will have more than a 5-10x impact on the environment since ecological systems are non-linear in nature.

[1] https://www.motorbiscuit.com/number-car-owners-world-less-th...

Post reply on HN