4 ms·

Perhaps the same reasoning applies to the developer who can't afford to build suitable parking for the residents of their new building? Can't afford to build su

by Klinky 10y ago

Perhaps the same reasoning applies to the developer who can't afford to build suitable parking for the residents of their new building? Can't afford to build suitable parking? Then you really can't afford to build it at all. Business also needs to learn to live within its means, as blunt as that is.

davidw 10y ago
Here's how things would play out in a relatively free market: If you build housing with no parking attached to it, you won't be able to sell it for as much money. If people really care a lot about parking, that housing will have to be a lot cheaper to attract buyers. Perhaps so cheap that the developers won't make a profit on it and no one will build that kind of housing. As elsewhere "what is the correct amount of parking for a given unit of housing" is basically impossible to solve at a citywide level and is a perfect example of this, posted elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem Most likely there are different kinds of people - some who care a lot about parking, and others who ride their bikes all the time or something. By providing diverse amounts of parking, people will sort out into different places that most suit their needs.
- Klinky 10y ago
  People buy shoddy shit and make poor purchasing choices all the time, e.g. fast food leading to obesity and an unhealthy populace. Just because someone will pay for it, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that they've made a fully informed decision, or that a fully informed decision is possible due to information asymmetry. Maybe bathrooms should be optional? Some people may prefer to shit out the window or use the local YMCA to shower? Yeah that's a sanitation concern, but parking is a transit concern, both are major issues in cities. There needs to be some forethought into how the new residents are going to get into and out of the city. Simply leaving it up to profit seeking businesses to sort out doesn't mean a functional solution will actually be found.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > There needs to be some forethought into how the new residents are going to get into and out of the city Build your city in a grid, and adapt. 150 years ago, that forethought would have created good infrastructure for horses. Now, that might not be so much of a concern. As much as possible, people should be free to choose. See also: The High Cost of Free Parking: http://amzn.to/2dRbceN http://amzn.to/2dRbceN
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Everyone poops. Not everyone drives. Forcing everyone to buy parking even if they don't need it makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to have a helipad. Or bidet.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
twblalock 10y ago
Lack of parking is not a problem for the developer unless it makes it harder to rent out the units. There is nothing about living within one's means involved here.
- Klinky 10y ago
  So long as the developer makes a profit, that's all that matters? Who cares if it results in a transit nightmare, that's someone else's problem. Sounds like a great way to plan a city.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    It is, actually. Car-centric cities are pretty bad, but people are willing to live with them because they like their cars, and they often don't know any better because they haven't lived somewhere with good public transit. If it was hard to park or drive a car in a city, past a certain point, people would vote for more mass transit. They would end up with walkable cities with good transit, instead of the car-centric messes we have now. Every time you mandate parking spaces in new developments, you mandate the continuation of the car-centric city model that is simply unsustainable once the population grows past a certain point. Cars are effectively being subsidized by the government in most cities. That money should be spend on transit instead.
    - superuser2 10y ago
      > people would vote for more mass transit Serious rail projects take on the order of 30 years. I think it's much more likely that people would go somewhere else, rather than endure an entire adult life without acceptable transportation options so that maybe the grandchildren would have it better.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        Serious rail projects take a lot less time than that in many first world countries.
      - 10y ago
Kalium 10y ago
Sure! You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in every way, shape, form, and manner. Fortunately, in city centers well-served by public transit the real parking requirements are low. Perhaps you're thinking of arbitrary legislative minimums? The other answer is that if you're asking me to weigh a place for someone to live against someone else's privileged ability to conveniently have everyone else pay for them to park a car, I'm going to favor living space every time. I think cities favor cars too strongly.

by Klinky 10y ago

davidw 10y ago

Here's how things would play out in a relatively free market: If you build housing with no parking attached to it, you won't be able to sell it for as much money. If people really care a lot about parking, that housing will have to be a lot cheaper to attract buyers. Perhaps so cheap that the developers won't make a profit on it and no one will build that kind of housing. As elsewhere "what is the correct amount of parking for a given unit of housing" is basically impossible to solve at a citywide level and is a perfect example of this, posted elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem Most likely there are different kinds of people - some who care a lot about parking, and others who ride their bikes all the time or something. By providing diverse amounts of parking, people will sort out into different places that most suit their needs.

Klinky 10y ago
People buy shoddy shit and make poor purchasing choices all the time, e.g. fast food leading to obesity and an unhealthy populace. Just because someone will pay for it, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that they've made a fully informed decision, or that a fully informed decision is possible due to information asymmetry. Maybe bathrooms should be optional? Some people may prefer to shit out the window or use the local YMCA to shower? Yeah that's a sanitation concern, but parking is a transit concern, both are major issues in cities. There needs to be some forethought into how the new residents are going to get into and out of the city. Simply leaving it up to profit seeking businesses to sort out doesn't mean a functional solution will actually be found.
- davidw 10y ago
  > There needs to be some forethought into how the new residents are going to get into and out of the city Build your city in a grid, and adapt. 150 years ago, that forethought would have created good infrastructure for horses. Now, that might not be so much of a concern. As much as possible, people should be free to choose. See also: The High Cost of Free Parking: http://amzn.to/2dRbceN http://amzn.to/2dRbceN
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Everyone poops. Not everyone drives. Forcing everyone to buy parking even if they don't need it makes about as much sense as forcing everyone to have a helipad. Or bidet.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

twblalock 10y ago

Lack of parking is not a problem for the developer unless it makes it harder to rent out the units. There is nothing about living within one's means involved here.

Klinky 10y ago
So long as the developer makes a profit, that's all that matters? Who cares if it results in a transit nightmare, that's someone else's problem. Sounds like a great way to plan a city.
- twblalock 10y ago
  It is, actually. Car-centric cities are pretty bad, but people are willing to live with them because they like their cars, and they often don't know any better because they haven't lived somewhere with good public transit. If it was hard to park or drive a car in a city, past a certain point, people would vote for more mass transit. They would end up with walkable cities with good transit, instead of the car-centric messes we have now. Every time you mandate parking spaces in new developments, you mandate the continuation of the car-centric city model that is simply unsustainable once the population grows past a certain point. Cars are effectively being subsidized by the government in most cities. That money should be spend on transit instead.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    > people would vote for more mass transit Serious rail projects take on the order of 30 years. I think it's much more likely that people would go somewhere else, rather than endure an entire adult life without acceptable transportation options so that maybe the grandchildren would have it better.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Serious rail projects take a lot less time than that in many first world countries.
    - 10y ago

Kalium 10y ago

Sure! You're absolutely, completely, 100% correct in every way, shape, form, and manner. Fortunately, in city centers well-served by public transit the real parking requirements are low. Perhaps you're thinking of arbitrary legislative minimums? The other answer is that if you're asking me to weigh a place for someone to live against someone else's privileged ability to conveniently have everyone else pay for them to park a car, I'm going to favor living space every time. I think cities favor cars too strongly.