4 ms·

The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to e

by varjag 8y ago

The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to ensure that the vehicles don't bog down the city. Which means both reducing the through traffic and making homeowners arrange their parking on private property. The latter part apparently is very disturbing to many here.

TomMarius 8y ago
Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?
bluGill 8y ago
You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)
- varjag 8y ago
  > By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. This whole branch came about after mention of pushing the trend towards underground garages. They are neither take land nor occupy liveable space.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Underground area could be used for apartments, so it does take away usable living space. (though admittedly underground is a bad place to live). The costs of underground are high enough that the lost opportunity costs mean something else could be done with that money which might be better for quality of life.
CalRobert 8y ago
"making homeowners arrange their parking on private property" So just stop giving them the public street for free! Nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to buy half an acre of land and park all your cars on it if that's what you want to do. What's disturbing to many here is making us buy parking we don't need so that _you_ can continue to get parking welfare for free from the state (aka taxpayers).
- varjag 8y ago
  > So just stop giving them the public street for free! Yes, did I argue otherwise? > What's disturbing to many here is making us buy parking we don't need so that _you_ can continue to get parking welfare for free from the state (aka taxpayers). What are you on about? What "parking welfare" is requiring garages/spots on private property? Are you trying to dispute that people do own cars in real life? For every X apartments there are Y vehicles, and build codes attempt to balance real life needs by requiring developers ensure certain amount of parking available. Not building the parking garage under the building won't make people car free, they'll just park it on public property.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    If currently there are Y vehicles for every X apartments, and you want (and expect) there to be Y/2 vehicles for every X apartments, then having developers build Y parking spaces is both wasteful (since in the long run that building won't need Y parking spaces) and counterproductive. You want to build an amount of parking spaces that's in line with your goals, not what's needed to enable things you're trying to change.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Yes, you did inasmuch as you said people should be required to build parking. Person A lives in a nice old house in a quaint neighborhood built before cars. They park their car on the street. Time goes by. More people buy cars, and more people move in. The street parking becomes full. Person A is outraged that their ability to park on the street is gone. They demand all new homes have off-street parking. Newcomer to the neighborhood, say some weird hippie cyclist who doesn't own a car (like me), has to pay more for their home because the land that could have held 8 homes now holds 5. Their property taxes help pay for person A's parking. Of course, it doesn't work that well. Off-street parking _still_ takes up street space for access. If people want parking they will demand it and pay more for it. Some people want helipads but we don't force everyone to have a private helipad in case they run out of space on the street for your helicopter. Why do people demand parking minimums? Because the street parking is full.

by varjag 8y ago

TomMarius 8y ago

Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?

bluGill 8y ago

You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)

varjag 8y ago
> By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. This whole branch came about after mention of pushing the trend towards underground garages. They are neither take land nor occupy liveable space.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Underground area could be used for apartments, so it does take away usable living space. (though admittedly underground is a bad place to live). The costs of underground are high enough that the lost opportunity costs mean something else could be done with that money which might be better for quality of life.

CalRobert 8y ago

"making homeowners arrange their parking on private property" So just stop giving them the public street for free! Nobody's saying you shouldn't be able to buy half an acre of land and park all your cars on it if that's what you want to do. What's disturbing to many here is making us buy parking we don't need so that _you_ can continue to get parking welfare for free from the state (aka taxpayers).

varjag 8y ago
> So just stop giving them the public street for free! Yes, did I argue otherwise? > What's disturbing to many here is making us buy parking we don't need so that _you_ can continue to get parking welfare for free from the state (aka taxpayers). What are you on about? What "parking welfare" is requiring garages/spots on private property? Are you trying to dispute that people do own cars in real life? For every X apartments there are Y vehicles, and build codes attempt to balance real life needs by requiring developers ensure certain amount of parking available. Not building the parking garage under the building won't make people car free, they'll just park it on public property.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  If currently there are Y vehicles for every X apartments, and you want (and expect) there to be Y/2 vehicles for every X apartments, then having developers build Y parking spaces is both wasteful (since in the long run that building won't need Y parking spaces) and counterproductive. You want to build an amount of parking spaces that's in line with your goals, not what's needed to enable things you're trying to change.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Yes, you did inasmuch as you said people should be required to build parking. Person A lives in a nice old house in a quaint neighborhood built before cars. They park their car on the street. Time goes by. More people buy cars, and more people move in. The street parking becomes full. Person A is outraged that their ability to park on the street is gone. They demand all new homes have off-street parking. Newcomer to the neighborhood, say some weird hippie cyclist who doesn't own a car (like me), has to pay more for their home because the land that could have held 8 homes now holds 5. Their property taxes help pay for person A's parking. Of course, it doesn't work that well. Off-street parking _still_ takes up street space for access. If people want parking they will demand it and pay more for it. Some people want helipads but we don't force everyone to have a private helipad in case they run out of space on the street for your helicopter. Why do people demand parking minimums? Because the street parking is full.