4 ms·

I'm with them all the way until the /parking/ thing. Cars aren't going away. At /best/ we'll get self driving cars, but we aren't there yet, and even when we

I'm with them all the way until the /parking/ thing. Cars aren't going away. At /best/ we'll get self driving cars, but we aren't there yet, and even when we get there it'll probably be a bit before they fully kill the dedicated car. It is reasonable to assume 1 car for EVERY ADULT that MIGHT live someplace, and to then add an additional 0.2 cars for any adult that might thus visit someplace. THAT is how much parking should be accommodated, not on the street or in front, but probably in a shared community parking garage (with some slots assigned by unit, and others for guests). The community garage should also have a loading dock and staging area for deliveries and movers; with egress paths that make sense given use for both that and light/mid level construction activities. - In a separate point, the building codes should be such that when I shut my windows and doors, I don't hear or smell anyone near by me in any way. Even if they're doing something noisy but normal. (Watching a film, the laundry, a shower, etc.) They should also require /specific/ areas for smoking, and anyone smoking outside of those areas (particularly in rented units) should see //HEAVY// fines. I am so sick of opening a window or door and being unable to breath.

jvm 9y ago
Why would we not just let the market for parking determine how much parking to build? My wife and I live in San Francisco, don't have a car, don't have a garage. Are you saying I should be forced to pay for not just one, but actually two spots? Square footage in San Francisco is extremely precious. If people aren't willing to pay for parking I don't see why it should exist, or why people without cars should be forced to pay for it. To be clear, I'm against parking maximums as well. If people are willing to pay for a spot, let them do so!
- mjevans 9y ago
  I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable storage container in the spot. The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct layer from pedestrian areas. It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above such a garage. In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground, aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such. (Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.) Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Meh, people who want Cara can park outside the urban core like we do in Manhattan.
    - mjevans 9y ago
      I'd be more amenable to living in such an area if there were a dedicated sub-level(s) for services (water, sewer, power, data; and transport; especially of packages) and free public transit /within/ the core and out to the parking structures (preferably with some form of real security).
  - jvm 9y ago
    I can see you have a lot of interesting ideas, and I think people should be allowed to make developments like what you're describing, but I can't imagine how you justify requiring it, and you don't seem to attempt to do so when you respond here. A requirement is a very expensive way of foisting a certain lifestyle on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not. You can't just say "oh it would be nice," you have to actually justify why it's okay to force people to do things this way, and making housing much more expensive.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Mandating minimum parking is part of how America got so damn fat. America has a brazenly stupid and counterproductive car culture. Cars are fine and good in moderation, but the way we promote them to the exclusion of all else is ridiculous. For a country that supposedly cares about freedom and choice, it's a bit odd that our transportation system forces everyone into one mode.
- mjevans 9y ago
  Not having enough parking only makes it more painful to own a car; it's //punitive// in limiting social interactions to areas that have not yet... Actually solving the issue of making it human scale to walk around from place to place. Of having a shops and //far range transit links// within that walkable distance that actually allows someone to make a journey to a relative's house or another town/city. Particularly on the west coast of the US, we are nowhere NEAR being able to remove a car from someone's life and expect them to maintain interactions with those not fortunate enough to be able to live within the overpriced city cores. MAYBE in heavy urban areas like the east coast metro sprawl, which are old enough to have inherited a rail transit interlink system that isn't completely broken and which have grand-fathered-in layouts and zoning that are more human scale. Maybe there such an elimination of parking could work.
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    > Not having enough parking only makes it more painful to own a car; it's //punitive// in limiting social interactions to areas that have not yet... Okay, but mandating tons of parking everywhere makes every other mode worse. It's not "should we make driving better or worse" in a vacuum, it's "how much resources do we allocate to each mode". Right now the usual answer to that is "put nearly everything into cars", and most Americans think that's the natural state of things, as if the universe has decreed that other forms of transport are unworthy.

jvm 9y ago

Why would we not just let the market for parking determine how much parking to build? My wife and I live in San Francisco, don't have a car, don't have a garage. Are you saying I should be forced to pay for not just one, but actually two spots? Square footage in San Francisco is extremely precious. If people aren't willing to pay for parking I don't see why it should exist, or why people without cars should be forced to pay for it. To be clear, I'm against parking maximums as well. If people are willing to pay for a spot, let them do so!

mjevans 9y ago
I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable storage container in the spot. The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct layer from pedestrian areas. It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above such a garage. In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground, aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such. (Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.) Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Meh, people who want Cara can park outside the urban core like we do in Manhattan.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    I'd be more amenable to living in such an area if there were a dedicated sub-level(s) for services (water, sewer, power, data; and transport; especially of packages) and free public transit /within/ the core and out to the parking structures (preferably with some form of real security).
- jvm 9y ago
  I can see you have a lot of interesting ideas, and I think people should be allowed to make developments like what you're describing, but I can't imagine how you justify requiring it, and you don't seem to attempt to do so when you respond here. A requirement is a very expensive way of foisting a certain lifestyle on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not. You can't just say "oh it would be nice," you have to actually justify why it's okay to force people to do things this way, and making housing much more expensive.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

Mandating minimum parking is part of how America got so damn fat. America has a brazenly stupid and counterproductive car culture. Cars are fine and good in moderation, but the way we promote them to the exclusion of all else is ridiculous. For a country that supposedly cares about freedom and choice, it's a bit odd that our transportation system forces everyone into one mode.

mjevans 9y ago
Not having enough parking only makes it more painful to own a car; it's //punitive// in limiting social interactions to areas that have not yet... Actually solving the issue of making it human scale to walk around from place to place. Of having a shops and //far range transit links// within that walkable distance that actually allows someone to make a journey to a relative's house or another town/city. Particularly on the west coast of the US, we are nowhere NEAR being able to remove a car from someone's life and expect them to maintain interactions with those not fortunate enough to be able to live within the overpriced city cores. MAYBE in heavy urban areas like the east coast metro sprawl, which are old enough to have inherited a rail transit interlink system that isn't completely broken and which have grand-fathered-in layouts and zoning that are more human scale. Maybe there such an elimination of parking could work.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  > Not having enough parking only makes it more painful to own a car; it's //punitive// in limiting social interactions to areas that have not yet... Okay, but mandating tons of parking everywhere makes every other mode worse. It's not "should we make driving better or worse" in a vacuum, it's "how much resources do we allocate to each mode". Right now the usual answer to that is "put nearly everything into cars", and most Americans think that's the natural state of things, as if the universe has decreed that other forms of transport are unworthy.