Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#91

Post by TheGRS » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 3:44 PM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #87

TheGRS wrote: post #51

I'm sorry but the assumption that robotaxis will make parking spots obsolete in 5 years is the sort of thinking that probably keeps Elon Musk a rich little boy. About 10 years ago we had conversations about autonomous driving coming by 2020 and how it would likely make auto insurance irrelevant. That hasn't materialized yet, and granted we are much further along now, but it seems like we're still a long way away from…

I'm just saying that people should have the choice to build a building without parking if they think that it makes more sense to use the ground floor for other things. Currently, they do not - they are required to build 9 foot wide parking stalls and 16 foot wide parking aisles. And you do not need to have an entire building of self driving cars to make a large dent in the building footprint that is currently dedicat…

Builders will love to do it, which is where the code comes from. Long before robotaxi's were even an idea we would see buildings tout "car-lite" lifestyle buildings, aiming for residents using bicycles and public transport. Residents will (correctly IMO) point out that people grab these apartments and bring their cars anyway.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#92

Post by kevinburke » Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

TheGRS wrote: post #91

kevinburke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just saying that people should have the choice to build a building without parking if they think that it makes more sense to use the ground floor for other things. Currently, they do not - they are required to build 9 foot wide parking stalls and 16 foot wide parking aisles. And you do not need to have an entire building of self driving cars to make a large dent in the building footprint that is currently dedicat…

Builders will love to do it, which is where the code comes from. Long before robotaxi's were even an idea we would see buildings tout "car-lite" lifestyle buildings, aiming for residents using bicycles and public transport. Residents will (correctly IMO) point out that people grab these apartments and bring their cars anyway.

The code is a legal requirement. If the code did not set mandatory minimum widths for parking stalls, builders could still set them at 9 feet wide.

The point is that if you are builder who wants to build a 7 foot wide parking stall (or avoid parking stalls altogether and just have the cars park themselves as efficiently as possible) you are not legally allowed to do this.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#93

Post by fragmede » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 11:59 AM UTC

kevinburke wrote: post #86

fragmede wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that people in Walnut Creek are being dishonest about not liking specific features about housing because they're against housing in general? I'm shocked ! Just utterly shocked, I tell you.

I don't really like being called dishonest, there's a pretty broad literature showing the potential gains of cross ventilation even with a small amount of wind. It's extremely rare to have a day without wind at even 2mph and even if such a day exists, running your hood or bathroom fan are also extremely effective ways to create a pressure differential and draw air into your house. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/ge…

The worst NIMBYs are the ones that have talked themselves into believing their own nonsense. Thankfully the state passed SB 330 builders remedy and extended it too 2030.