4 ms·

Yes, it is crazy. That's the point. It illustrates the utterly absurd cities that braindead minimum parking requirements create. Free parking is a scourge.

joshstrange 4y ago
I haven't said that minimum parking requirements are good, I'm saying that using bad data and apples/oranges comparisons is just bad reporting/journalism/etc. Responding to people saying you are using bad/outdated data with "Yeah but that's what this non-official website said" or "yeah but it's still a problem" is just a diversion from screwing up.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  What bad data, and what apples/oranges comparisons? That city design was created by minimum parking requirements, that's not disputed. The fact that the requirements were recently lifted is great, but irrelevant to the point being made. Also, it's an analogy, and analogies are intended to illustrate a point, not be a perfect likeness.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    How is the fact that something is no longer true "irrelevant"? Also it's apple and oranges to take a rule from Louisville, KY and apply it to NYC, they are very different places. IF this person's point could have stood on it's own then they should have used a rule from Louisville, a building from Louisville, and a map showing the space from Louisville. Taking a rule that doesn't exist anymore, transplanting it to a different city and building is disingenuous at best.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      The recent rule change is irrelevant because the city was developed when the rule was still in place. Cities don't change overnight. The point is that minimum parking requirements create terrible cities. Louisville is primarily different from NYC in that it is highly dependant on cars, massive roads, and massive parking lots, while NYC is not. If NYC was developed in the age of cars when off-street parking minimums began to be widely adopted by cities everywhere across the continent, it would be very similar to Louisville. But it wasn't, and it isn't. That's the entire point of the comparison.

joshstrange 4y ago

I haven't said that minimum parking requirements are good, I'm saying that using bad data and apples/oranges comparisons is just bad reporting/journalism/etc. Responding to people saying you are using bad/outdated data with "Yeah but that's what this non-official website said" or "yeah but it's still a problem" is just a diversion from screwing up.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
What bad data, and what apples/oranges comparisons? That city design was created by minimum parking requirements, that's not disputed. The fact that the requirements were recently lifted is great, but irrelevant to the point being made. Also, it's an analogy, and analogies are intended to illustrate a point, not be a perfect likeness.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  How is the fact that something is no longer true "irrelevant"? Also it's apple and oranges to take a rule from Louisville, KY and apply it to NYC, they are very different places. IF this person's point could have stood on it's own then they should have used a rule from Louisville, a building from Louisville, and a map showing the space from Louisville. Taking a rule that doesn't exist anymore, transplanting it to a different city and building is disingenuous at best.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    The recent rule change is irrelevant because the city was developed when the rule was still in place. Cities don't change overnight. The point is that minimum parking requirements create terrible cities. Louisville is primarily different from NYC in that it is highly dependant on cars, massive roads, and massive parking lots, while NYC is not. If NYC was developed in the age of cars when off-street parking minimums began to be widely adopted by cities everywhere across the continent, it would be very similar to Louisville. But it wasn't, and it isn't. That's the entire point of the comparison.