That's pretty excellent. San Francisco, unfortunately, occupies a pretty dismal place in the parking hierarchy. It's just dense enough that having a car is ge

That's pretty excellent. San Francisco, unfortunately, occupies a pretty dismal place in the parking hierarchy. It's just dense enough that having a car is generally a hassle, just sparse enough that about half the city is very car dependent. The fascinating thing is that SF actually made a decision to become this way, although it was a long time ago. We actually added driveways and garages to buildings that didn't originally have them, along with curb cuts that ironically take away almost as much parking as they add! This is a pipe dream, but I'd actually support the removal of driveways and garages. People are doing this anyway - they use their garage as a workshop, for storage, or even illegal living space, and they just park on the driveway, and/or on the sidewalk in front of their house, and/or on the street in front of their house, using the curb cut as a "reserved" parking space. Here's an interesting read about curb cuts in SF (vs NY), and what they do to street live. The sad thing is that we actually legislated this situation into existence with various parking minimums and so forth. http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2008-06-01/eye-street http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2008-06-01...