3 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 The reason is that par
by notJim 5y ago
> 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
The reason is that parking requirements massively add to the costs of building new apartments. It works out that everyone in the building has to pay extra, regardless of whether they actually use the parking. Parking minimums also mean that some projects just will never work economically.
> at some point we're going to run out of street parking
Sounds fine! The city doesn't need to provide free car storage to everyone.
- frumper 5y agoThe poster didn't say he wanted the city to provide free car storage. Parking on the street is being put on people because the city isn't putting in the realistic requirement that makes developers deal with the fact that people actually do have cars, especially in LA
- milkytron 5y agoHaving car infrastructure paid for by the users is a much more fiscally responsible way to account for the cost of that infrastructure. If the option of building parking was left up to the developer, they would have to weigh whether the income from parking spaces would be greater than the income for residences. At a certain point, people will try to go from a 2 car household to 1 to save money, or go carless. The city shouldn't mandate how many people should have available parking, it makes more sense for the market to decide and allow people to have some flexibility if they so desire. Making a requirement will just incentivize more people to drive and the costs will be baked in whether they do have a car or not, so they might as well get a car.