5 ms·

A parking minimum is good for you, because it creates excess spaces, making prices go below market rates. Since I live downtown, I'd prefer severely limiting p

A parking minimum is good for you, because it creates excess spaces, making prices go below market rates. Since I live downtown, I'd prefer severely limiting parking. Call it a "parking maximum", reducing congestion at commute times, as parking costs would shoot way above a market price. The fair solution is to have neither parking minimums nor maximums. Then parking is developed in proportion to expected demand, competing for space against offices and homes, neither subsidized nor penalized. Yes it would cost more than you prefer, and less than I prefer, but probably a fairer situation.

finaliteration 8y ago
I guess my ideal solution would be housing that’s more affordable downtown so that I and other commuters could live there. If I could eliminate my commute or make it much shorter then it would be one of the best changes in my life. Unfortunately even with my decent salary that’s not possible because housing is 3-4x more expensive than where I’m at now.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  One thing that makes new housing downtown more expensive is parking minimums. Food for thought.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
The naive free market analysis doesn't work here, because it's not typically possible for a real estate developer to purchase a random building and convert it to a parking structure if more parking is demanded. Even when it is possible, that kind of project ends up taking years and years to complete.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I didn't see a naive free market analysis in progress, but anyway, I have noticed that people build new parking structures around my urban area on a regular basis. It does take a while, but it happens.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Why isn't it possible? More likely it's just not profitable, because most people are only willing to spend so much money paying for parking, and often "downtown" land is quite expensive.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    It would have to get past zoning/etc. when many cities are fighting to get more people to move into downtown removing buildings and putting up parking may be seen as a problem/eyesore. I think basic profitability is probably the #1 and #2 answers.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    Sometimes it's completely forbidden for zoning reasons. Sometimes it's a regulatory risk. If the local residents decide they don't want a parking structure, they won't offer you a fair market price to stop it; they'll just try and get city officials to deny or obstruct all the permits you need. (And a large construction project needs a lot of permits in most jurisdictions.) Sometimes it's just prohibitively expensive to convert. In order to tear down a typical commercial building, you'd have to either buy out everyone's leases or wait for up to a decade for them to expire. This imposes a huge deadweight cost that wouldn't be there if enough parking had been built in the first place.
    - paulsutter 8y ago
      Your reflexive concern that parking wont get built is well-founded. Parking is just plain shitty. Let's have less of it.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        Only a tiny portion of most metro area populations can live in the zoned housing capacity of central business districts. Only a handful of cities have remotely passable public transit systems. Everyone else needs parking.
        8y ago
ghaff 8y ago
You can strictly limit parking. That's got some congestion benefits. It also makes driving into the city, especially for work during the day (evening parking is usually not a scarce resource), less attractive. Which in turn makes many employees prefer employers located in industrial parks outside of cities. Not everyone of course. The (often young) people would often prefer urban living. But your urban office building is going to be unattractive for anyone who needs to drive in.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Strictly limiting parking is unnecessary. Market-oriented policies for parking and traffic (congestion charges) combined with solid support of alternatives (protected bike lanes, protected intersections, bus lanes, light rail/subways) are sufficient to encourage a balanced transportation distribution.
  - thebooktocome 8y ago
    Neither of those things are what American conservatives refer to as "market-oriented". Congestion charges are taxes, and therefore abominable; alternative transport is socialist, ditto. Since conservatives control the majority of state governments, neither policy can make progress in the current environment.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Subsidizing the use of roads by letting people use them for free after spending a great deal of money on building and maintaining them is not "market-oriented". Charging people to use them is the closest you can get to market-oriented if you are already stuck with the roads. The most market-oriented solution would be not to build public roads in the first place, but it's too late for that.
      - 8y ago

finaliteration 8y ago

I guess my ideal solution would be housing that’s more affordable downtown so that I and other commuters could live there. If I could eliminate my commute or make it much shorter then it would be one of the best changes in my life. Unfortunately even with my decent salary that’s not possible because housing is 3-4x more expensive than where I’m at now.

greglindahl 8y ago
One thing that makes new housing downtown more expensive is parking minimums. Food for thought.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago

The naive free market analysis doesn't work here, because it's not typically possible for a real estate developer to purchase a random building and convert it to a parking structure if more parking is demanded. Even when it is possible, that kind of project ends up taking years and years to complete.

greglindahl 8y ago
I didn't see a naive free market analysis in progress, but anyway, I have noticed that people build new parking structures around my urban area on a regular basis. It does take a while, but it happens.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Why isn't it possible? More likely it's just not profitable, because most people are only willing to spend so much money paying for parking, and often "downtown" land is quite expensive.
- MBCook 8y ago
  It would have to get past zoning/etc. when many cities are fighting to get more people to move into downtown removing buildings and putting up parking may be seen as a problem/eyesore. I think basic profitability is probably the #1 and #2 answers.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  Sometimes it's completely forbidden for zoning reasons. Sometimes it's a regulatory risk. If the local residents decide they don't want a parking structure, they won't offer you a fair market price to stop it; they'll just try and get city officials to deny or obstruct all the permits you need. (And a large construction project needs a lot of permits in most jurisdictions.) Sometimes it's just prohibitively expensive to convert. In order to tear down a typical commercial building, you'd have to either buy out everyone's leases or wait for up to a decade for them to expire. This imposes a huge deadweight cost that wouldn't be there if enough parking had been built in the first place.
  - paulsutter 8y ago
    Your reflexive concern that parking wont get built is well-founded. Parking is just plain shitty. Let's have less of it.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Only a tiny portion of most metro area populations can live in the zoned housing capacity of central business districts. Only a handful of cities have remotely passable public transit systems. Everyone else needs parking.
      - 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

You can strictly limit parking. That's got some congestion benefits. It also makes driving into the city, especially for work during the day (evening parking is usually not a scarce resource), less attractive. Which in turn makes many employees prefer employers located in industrial parks outside of cities. Not everyone of course. The (often young) people would often prefer urban living. But your urban office building is going to be unattractive for anyone who needs to drive in.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Strictly limiting parking is unnecessary. Market-oriented policies for parking and traffic (congestion charges) combined with solid support of alternatives (protected bike lanes, protected intersections, bus lanes, light rail/subways) are sufficient to encourage a balanced transportation distribution.
- thebooktocome 8y ago
  Neither of those things are what American conservatives refer to as "market-oriented". Congestion charges are taxes, and therefore abominable; alternative transport is socialist, ditto. Since conservatives control the majority of state governments, neither policy can make progress in the current environment.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    Subsidizing the use of roads by letting people use them for free after spending a great deal of money on building and maintaining them is not "market-oriented". Charging people to use them is the closest you can get to market-oriented if you are already stuck with the roads. The most market-oriented solution would be not to build public roads in the first place, but it's too late for that.
    - 8y ago