8 ms·

> The only issue that I have with this so far is that newer construction denser housing is not required to have parking for some reason, but people living in th

> The only issue that I have with this so far is that newer construction denser housing is not required to have parking for some reason, but people living in them do have cars. I'm hoping that larger projects start to require parking because transit here just isn't good enough to not have a car. Mandatory parking minimums make constructing new housing more difficult, raising the cost of housing. The city is making the tradeoff that affordable housing is more important than free parking. As density increases it will hit a point where you need to pay for parking. I live in Belltown and own a parking spot. Ultimately I think this is the right direction to go, the city shouldn't have to pay to store your car.

ihaveajob 5y ago
I envy the Tokyo system, where you're required to show you have your own parking spot in order to be able to purchase a car. No wonder their public transit is world class.
SmellTheGlove 5y ago
> Mandatory parking minimums make constructing new housing more difficult, raising the cost of housing. The city is making the tradeoff that affordable housing is more important than free parking. As density increases it will hit a point where you need to pay for parking. I live in Belltown and own a parking spot. Ultimately I think this is the right direction to go, the city shouldn't have to pay to store your car. I get it, but Seattle public transportation isn't good enough to just tell people they shouldn't have a car. I have a driveway and a garage, so the problem is solved for me, and in theory means someone could put their car in front of my house on the street. But if they're putting 6 townhouses on a lot, that won't scale, and maybe they should instead build 4 and parking. > the city shouldn't have to pay to store your car. I agree, but that's pretty much what forcing people to park on the street is. I do get that mandating parking raises the cost of housing, which is also counterproductive. But if you drive through Ballard, street parking is pretty tight - I'm not saying people are going to start parking in the median on 8th and 15th, but I'm not sure how much more they can build w/o parking before it starts to look like S. Broad St in Philly!
- Seattle3503 5y ago
  I agree that we should invest in public transit. It is already good enough to get you a lot of places, but it could be better. We aren't New York or Tokyo. In fact, our energy should be spent on expanding transit, not expanding car ownership. > I have a driveway and a garage, so the problem is solved for me, and in theory means someone could put their car in front of my house on the street. I'm not sure what your objection here is then? Density won't impact your parking situation at all. The people moving in (or not moving in) after you can make the decision for themselves. By mandating a specific amount of parking, you are taking that decision from them. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a car. I already said I have a car, but that I pay for a spot. My partner and I share that car and that spot. If couples downsized from two cars to one, thats already a 50% reduction. Enacting parking minimums digs us deeper in the car hole. Building 6 units instead of 4 is preferable. Instead we should invest in expanding public transit.

ihaveajob 5y ago

I envy the Tokyo system, where you're required to show you have your own parking spot in order to be able to purchase a car. No wonder their public transit is world class.

SmellTheGlove 5y ago

> Mandatory parking minimums make constructing new housing more difficult, raising the cost of housing. The city is making the tradeoff that affordable housing is more important than free parking. As density increases it will hit a point where you need to pay for parking. I live in Belltown and own a parking spot. Ultimately I think this is the right direction to go, the city shouldn't have to pay to store your car. I get it, but Seattle public transportation isn't good enough to just tell people they shouldn't have a car. I have a driveway and a garage, so the problem is solved for me, and in theory means someone could put their car in front of my house on the street. But if they're putting 6 townhouses on a lot, that won't scale, and maybe they should instead build 4 and parking. > the city shouldn't have to pay to store your car. I agree, but that's pretty much what forcing people to park on the street is. I do get that mandating parking raises the cost of housing, which is also counterproductive. But if you drive through Ballard, street parking is pretty tight - I'm not saying people are going to start parking in the median on 8th and 15th, but I'm not sure how much more they can build w/o parking before it starts to look like S. Broad St in Philly!

Seattle3503 5y ago
I agree that we should invest in public transit. It is already good enough to get you a lot of places, but it could be better. We aren't New York or Tokyo. In fact, our energy should be spent on expanding transit, not expanding car ownership. > I have a driveway and a garage, so the problem is solved for me, and in theory means someone could put their car in front of my house on the street. I'm not sure what your objection here is then? Density won't impact your parking situation at all. The people moving in (or not moving in) after you can make the decision for themselves. By mandating a specific amount of parking, you are taking that decision from them. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a car. I already said I have a car, but that I pay for a spot. My partner and I share that car and that spot. If couples downsized from two cars to one, thats already a 50% reduction. Enacting parking minimums digs us deeper in the car hole. Building 6 units instead of 4 is preferable. Instead we should invest in expanding public transit.