4 ms·

>This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we

>This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term. Sure we can. Those regulations are not always binding. Buildings are built with parking capacity in excess of minimums all the time. >Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be at least somewhat concerned that without sufficient regulation short term thinking on the part of builders might result in less parking than would be generally desirable. Why? What's the market failure? For that matter, why is there a "general desire" for the quantity of at-home parking I individually consume? >I'm not at all convinced that urban planning should be done by market forces alone. That's a strawman — removing parking requirements is a far cry from "market forces alone" doing urban planning. (It is, however, a great example of how non-market forces can create worse, environmentally inefficient, undesirable outcomes by submitting what should be private choices to mob rule.)

zjaffee 7y ago
> It is, however, a great example of how non-market forces can create worse, environmentally inefficient, undesirable outcomes by submitting what should be private choices to mob rule. There is no evidence that this is the case though. The vast majority of new construction has always been targeted towards the top of the market, which in the case of Los Angeles means a need for parking spaces. The only clear case where the market would act differently would be in the case of commercial parking requirements, where a one sized fits all approach as exists today doesn't work as each neighborhood in LA drives a different amount.
- rory096 7y ago
  >There is no evidence that this is the case though. The vast majority of new construction has always been targeted towards the top of the market, which in the case of Los Angeles means a need for parking spaces. Changes will more likely happen at the margin. I have no doubt that an apartment building with 1 space per 1br apartment instead of 1.5 would still be marketable at the top end.

zjaffee 7y ago

> It is, however, a great example of how non-market forces can create worse, environmentally inefficient, undesirable outcomes by submitting what should be private choices to mob rule. There is no evidence that this is the case though. The vast majority of new construction has always been targeted towards the top of the market, which in the case of Los Angeles means a need for parking spaces. The only clear case where the market would act differently would be in the case of commercial parking requirements, where a one sized fits all approach as exists today doesn't work as each neighborhood in LA drives a different amount.

rory096 7y ago
>There is no evidence that this is the case though. The vast majority of new construction has always been targeted towards the top of the market, which in the case of Los Angeles means a need for parking spaces. Changes will more likely happen at the margin. I have no doubt that an apartment building with 1 space per 1br apartment instead of 1.5 would still be marketable at the top end.