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

81–90 of 100 posts

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

#81

Post by mc32 »

meej wrote: post #69
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…

The thing that drove me nuts about curb cuts when I lived in SF were all the people who used them as sidewalk-blocking private parking spaces (which is illegal, not that the city ever did anything about it), forcing pedestrians into the street. It was especially maddening when I was pushing my bike up a steep hill; I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for those in wheelchairs or pushing strollers. Car cultu…

The city owns the fist two squares worth of sidewalk, if there are more those belong to the residence and you're allowed to park there. If your vehicle etc. block or intrude on the city parts you do get cited. Enforcement may vary, however. Plus you're free to call the SFmta to ticket violators.

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

#82

Post by dredmorbius »

cylinder wrote: post #59
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…

Brings me to the broader question: why are Californians so bad at urban planning? LA is a disaster, SF has endless issues and pitfalls, the Bay Area is a sprawling mess. For a people who seem to pride themselves on being progressive, "enlightened" etc they sure are bad at livability, almost as bad as Texas.

Contrasting with where exactly?

Los Angeles is not particularly better or worse than any post-WWII automobile-centric metropolis, except that it's bigger than all others in the U.S. Compare it to Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Atlanta (focusing on downtown and suburbs more than the inner city core), and its primary problem is simply scale, not quality. As in -- it doesn't have a markedly worse quality than any of the other examples, it's simply just larger.

San Francisco is actually pretty well planned, but it's got exceptionally high demand, very limited land (courtesy of geography), and sits in the middle of what's essentially a post-WWII urban sprawl. Not quite so bad as L.A., but at ~1/3 the size, only slightly less so. Washington, D.C., is far worse in many respects.

For livable experiences in the U.S., you've generally got to either look to older cities (New York or Boston, say, not that either's wonderful), or smaller towns: Portland, Oregon, Boise, Idaho, Santa Fe, NM, old-town Wilmington in North Carolina, Knoxville, TN, to name a few examples. Some are older, some simply have managed to retain a smaller-town feel.

And the places which are just plain hellholes ... Industrial pop-up towns and burbclaves across the country. Hardly at all restricted to California.

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

#83

Post by chc »

Kluny wrote: post #79
chc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.

There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.

> There's lots of choices. Bikes

It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there.

> walking

This is even slower than biking.

> public transit

About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits.

> rideshare

Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them.

> And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.

As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.

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

#85

Post by brc »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #18
ngoel36 wrote: post #7

I wish valet parking was more prevalent. Does the additional real estate space from efficient parking lots/structures justify the labor cost of providing free valet to customers? Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)

> Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber) eg bicycles and walking

Try taking 3 kids to a restaurant on a bicycle in a city.

People who think cars are just plain evil need to realize why they are popular.

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

#86

Post by brc »

metaphorm wrote: post #73
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?

why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture? cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive…

How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality?

The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist.

>leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.

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

#87

Post by NeutronBoy »

chc wrote: post #83
Kluny wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.

> There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alt…

Than that's a trade-off you've made between what you don't like (cars) and the place you want to live (which I assume you like).

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

#88

Post by philwelch »

brc wrote: post #85
BrainInAJar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber) eg bicycles and walking

Try taking 3 kids to a restaurant on a bicycle in a city. People who think cars are just plain evil need to realize why they are popular.

Kids can ride bicycles, too. And I see a lot of bicyclists have a covered trailer behind their bike for the smaller children. You just have to have safe, separated bike paths rather than just painting a line on the road.

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

#89

Post by lkbm »

NeutronBoy wrote: post #87
chc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alt…

Than that's a trade-off you've made between what you don't like (cars) and the place you want to live (which I assume you like).

I will say sometimes it's very much the snesible option--living close to where you work is sometimes really expensive, or otherwise unpleasant.

But it is important to realize this is a choice and acknowledge that you're choosing a trade-off, not simply a "I have to drive; I have no choice." Simply recognizing that you have agency in the decision is of value. It allows you to _consciously_ weigh the pros and cons, to become aware of potentially-unnoticed alternatives, and to recognize the costs (and benefits), both to yourself and the broader community.

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

#90

Post by [deleted] »

kansface wrote: post #78
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.

This is basically impossible for two reasons: 1. The city is too expensive for a family. Practically no one can afford a 3 bedroom house or apartment (or one that will allow pets). Even if you can afford a house in the school district you want, it won't matter because ... 2. Living in a school district is not a guarantee for enrollment in that district. Your kids may be shipped on an hour long bus ride one way to a c…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN