5 ms·

Even at peak demand many spots are empty. The reason for so much parking is that it is legally required. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of the businesses will

Even at peak demand many spots are empty. The reason for so much parking is that it is legally required. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of the businesses will never make full use of their parking. Places without parking requirement laws develop very differently, and if parking is provided at all, it's usually in far smaller quantities and it's not free. Compare, say, third tier Japanese cities that lack subway systems to American equivalents. Parking exists, but it's not universally free, and there's less of it. You should read up on parking minimum laws.

loeg 10y ago
That might apply in cities, but I don't believe parking spaces at suburban malls are typically regulated.
- ianferrel 10y ago
  You are probably incorrect. Suburbs generally have parking requirements in their zoning laws as well.
  - loeg 10y ago
    I'm talking only about malls.
- Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
  You are actually not correct; suburban areas have more intense and all encompassing parking minimum laws. Manhattan, for instance, has either none or none below 125th Street IIRC. Suburbs look like they do not because of preference but because it is not legal for them to look otherwise. The idea in the 50s was: A) Require cars to live and you will not have to live next to poor people or minorities since cars and maintenance of them are expensive, how great; Jim Crow without the legal challenges and we can co-opt non racist people B) Cars are the future and no one needs to walk, except maybe in parks C) Since this glorious future has yet to arrive naturally despite decades of mass produced automobiles, we'll need to legislate it into existence and massively fund highways D) Cities are the source of all ills Other than the racist motivations, it's really just poor planning that is copy and pasted from one place to another. A lot of cities are realizing it's stupid and removing or relaxing these laws.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    In the 1950s vehicle ownership wasn't the significant financial hurdle you seem to think it was.
    - Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
      Car ownership today, as then, is actually a pretty big financial hurdle for the poor. Cars are probably the most expensive way of getting to work. Let's count how they are expensive: 1) Large initial capital outlay; back in 1950 this might be $1500 but your earnings might be $3300 a year. You'd either need to get a loan, save up a significant portion of your salary, or get a used car (which were less plentiful as car ownership was much lower and earlier cars were less reliable) 2) You need to pay for ongoing maintenance. Oil changes, tires, etc. all add up. In the 50s the cars were more mechanically simple, so probably the labor costs were much lower (you'd probably do at least a portion of it) but there was more work to be done. Oil changes were more frequent, things like points had to be adjusted, etc. 3) Gas is not free. In the 50s this was in the $2.00 per gallon range in 2016 dollars. Cheap, but again not free 4) Parking costs money, then and now Compare that to the previous costs: 1) Buy bus / train / subway / streetcar ticket 2) Shoes It's much easier to afford a single trip as there is no capital outlay involved. You're thinking like a well off software engineer. Think like a poor person. Several of my family members have trouble getting to work because of unreliable and expensive car based transportation. They work just above minimum wage. Their town has no real public transit to speak of, except in one or two unreliable bus lines, so getting to work is an actual hurdle.
      - iamatworknow 10y ago
        And unfortunately, related to all of the points you mentioned, this need of the poorer suburban/rural people to own their own cars is what spurs on the subprime auto finance market. If you're making minimum wage there's a good chance you have bad credit, and your only option to get to work is getting a vehicle financed at a smaller, less reliable dealership who charges huge markups on decade old vehicles with 100k+ miles, and exorbitant amounts of interest, and they won't hesitate to repossess if you miss a payment. In the past couple of years in the US the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FTC have started working to help these types of car buyers and protect them against deceptive practices in advertising and unruly markups, much to the chagrin of the so-called "Buy Here-Pay Here" dealerships. The recent election and the deregulation culture surrounding it, however, does may not bode well for the consumers. I wouldn't be surprised if the CFPB is dissolved entirely.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

loeg 10y ago

That might apply in cities, but I don't believe parking spaces at suburban malls are typically regulated.

ianferrel 10y ago
You are probably incorrect. Suburbs generally have parking requirements in their zoning laws as well.
- loeg 10y ago
  I'm talking only about malls.
Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
You are actually not correct; suburban areas have more intense and all encompassing parking minimum laws. Manhattan, for instance, has either none or none below 125th Street IIRC. Suburbs look like they do not because of preference but because it is not legal for them to look otherwise. The idea in the 50s was: A) Require cars to live and you will not have to live next to poor people or minorities since cars and maintenance of them are expensive, how great; Jim Crow without the legal challenges and we can co-opt non racist people B) Cars are the future and no one needs to walk, except maybe in parks C) Since this glorious future has yet to arrive naturally despite decades of mass produced automobiles, we'll need to legislate it into existence and massively fund highways D) Cities are the source of all ills Other than the racist motivations, it's really just poor planning that is copy and pasted from one place to another. A lot of cities are realizing it's stupid and removing or relaxing these laws.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  In the 1950s vehicle ownership wasn't the significant financial hurdle you seem to think it was.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
    Car ownership today, as then, is actually a pretty big financial hurdle for the poor. Cars are probably the most expensive way of getting to work. Let's count how they are expensive: 1) Large initial capital outlay; back in 1950 this might be $1500 but your earnings might be $3300 a year. You'd either need to get a loan, save up a significant portion of your salary, or get a used car (which were less plentiful as car ownership was much lower and earlier cars were less reliable) 2) You need to pay for ongoing maintenance. Oil changes, tires, etc. all add up. In the 50s the cars were more mechanically simple, so probably the labor costs were much lower (you'd probably do at least a portion of it) but there was more work to be done. Oil changes were more frequent, things like points had to be adjusted, etc. 3) Gas is not free. In the 50s this was in the $2.00 per gallon range in 2016 dollars. Cheap, but again not free 4) Parking costs money, then and now Compare that to the previous costs: 1) Buy bus / train / subway / streetcar ticket 2) Shoes It's much easier to afford a single trip as there is no capital outlay involved. You're thinking like a well off software engineer. Think like a poor person. Several of my family members have trouble getting to work because of unreliable and expensive car based transportation. They work just above minimum wage. Their town has no real public transit to speak of, except in one or two unreliable bus lines, so getting to work is an actual hurdle.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      And unfortunately, related to all of the points you mentioned, this need of the poorer suburban/rural people to own their own cars is what spurs on the subprime auto finance market. If you're making minimum wage there's a good chance you have bad credit, and your only option to get to work is getting a vehicle financed at a smaller, less reliable dealership who charges huge markups on decade old vehicles with 100k+ miles, and exorbitant amounts of interest, and they won't hesitate to repossess if you miss a payment. In the past couple of years in the US the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FTC have started working to help these types of car buyers and protect them against deceptive practices in advertising and unruly markups, much to the chagrin of the so-called "Buy Here-Pay Here" dealerships. The recent election and the deregulation culture surrounding it, however, does may not bode well for the consumers. I wouldn't be surprised if the CFPB is dissolved entirely.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]