6 ms·

I suspect that they are counting the parking surface nationwide to living space surface nationwide, not just domestic parking. For example this would include a

by afiori 3y ago

I suspect that they are counting the parking surface nationwide to living space surface nationwide, not just domestic parking. For example this would include all the parking spaces at schools, offices, walmarts, etc.

josephcsible 3y ago
So when you go to work, they count the parking space there towards the square footage for your car, but not your office there towards the square footage for you? And when you stay at a hotel, they're counting the hotel's parking space towards the square footage for your car but not the hotel room towards the square footage for you? It's unfair and absurd to only count the square footage for you where you live, but to count the square footage for your car everywhere you ever drive it to.
- mym1990 3y ago
  That is the whole POINT. You don't pick up your house and move it every time you need to go to a grocery store(unless you live in your car, which many do), but that is exactly what you do with a vehicle. This means that the infrastructure needed to support the vehicle is actually massively more extensive than just the vehicle, leaving a footprint that is much bigger than just the car, and impacts almost all facets of day to day life.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > You don't pick up your house and move it every time you need to go to a grocery store You are to your house as your car is to your driveway. You don't dig up your driveway and bring it with you every time you drive somewhere.
    - mym1990 3y ago
      You just argued against yourself though, because in a theoretical sense that is exactly what you do. If you don't have a parking space available at the location you are going to, a "public driveway" so to speak, you are not able to leave the car there. Now you could make a similar point about short term living situations like hotels, but I would imagine that the number of people who regularly stay in hotels is much lower than the number of people who own and operate a vehicle regularly.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The point is that it's not any different than the living space itself. If you go from home to work, you need an office to be in while you're there in addition to a parking space, and for that time both your home and the parking space at your home are empty. But they're counting the parking space at the office and not the office space there.
        orwin 3y ago
        I don't need a parking space at my office. Never needed one.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        So either you park your car at the train station, and then the train station needs a parking space for you and according to this math it still counts as another one even if it's outside the city. Or you live within walking distance of mass transit, which most people can't because there isn't enough relevant land zoned for that kind of high density development for everyone to live in even if they wanted to. But I'll do you one better. If you work from home you don't need the parking space or the office space.
        mym1990 3y ago
        I don't know where you work, but I haven't had an office all to myself ever, a desk is pretty much all I have ever been allotted, and it has usually been an open one at that. I have one place to go to work(usually). But I have almost countless places I could go for shopping or experiences...and that is where the parking problem arises. ...If I did have a house, my driveway would not be open to others, so either you have an empty plot of driveway, or a car that is not being used in it...both of those things are not productive. My "empty" house still has utility. My family could be using it. It is storing all of my possessions. It is a source of comfort for knowing I have a place to go to rest. Anyways, the productivity footprint of shared spaces is very different from those that are exclusively mine, and spaces that are exclusively mine are very limited...essentially my home and my car. I'm not arguing that everyone ditch their cars and start biking to work, American infrastructure is not there, but the time I have spent in cities that do have this infrastructure have been absolutely wonderful.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "This means that the infrastructure needed to support..." ... the offices, schools, stores, etc is much larger than just a house. All the heating cooling, plumbing, etc and it sits empty most of the time (and you have to walk/drive past those regardless of their parking infrastructure). I fully get the point they are making. The thing the grandparent was talking about is that the argument could just as easily apply to the building spaces themselves rather than only the parking. Given this and the host of other categorical differences in parking vs occupied structures does in my view make the comparison "absurd". In general, this article is using a lot of numbers to make arguments that are really emotionally based.
    - mym1990 3y ago
      Certainly the notion that parking could just be replaced by housing(or anything else) in the snap of a finger is a stretch. The initial idea of the American dream and the single family home almost has to lead to a reliance on cars, especially in the suburbs(or did the advent of the car lead to the single family home dream?). Anyways, my point is that the buildings are productive, whether it be a school or a store or a home, but a parking space less so. Many communities have been able to use mass transportation alongside infra for bicycles/mopeds/scooters to make living in a city/town very enjoyable(but this isn't really what the article is getting at).
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Not only that, the total nationwide is essentially meaningless because of how many parking spaces there are in suburban areas where zoning prohibits the land from being used for much else or rural areas where the land isn't that scarce. Converting parking spaces into bigger lawns doesn't get you any more housing.
  - shagmin 3y ago
    It's pretty marginal but there are a couple instances where I'm at that are slowly being addressed, where some really large, poorly located parking lots are making some areas more flood prone and holding up development in their vicinity.
- bena 3y ago
  Even if you were to do that, parking has a larger footprint than habitation. Or whatever you want to call existing in a space. For example, if I go to Chipotle for lunch, I will go and park my car, go inside, get in line, order, blah. My car, and everyone else's car will take up 9x18 units. If it's busy, you could have a line 10 to 15 people deep. That's 1620 sq ft of parking for people who will be occupying about 360 sq ft on the inside. (Assuming 10 people all taking up a 6x6 block).
- afiori 3y ago
  I feel that there is a categoric misunderstanding here: there is no "natural" conversion rate between "parking footage" and "abitable footage", the claim from the book is just saying "There are a lot of parking! More than you think! The parking surface is bigger than the abitable surface", it is about conveying a sense of scale not about "the ratio is 1.2 but should be 0.7". As you have pointed out it could also means "The car in your driveway has 11 theorethical empty parking spots built for it, maybe there is an overallocation of resources" Some relevant resource might be: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... from Not Just Bikes based on research from Strongtowns
stonedge 3y ago
This is what the data is based on. I've read the book and it's totaling all square footage in the country devoted to parking lots vs. housing. Essentially after the math, each car has more than just one space allocated to it.

by afiori 3y ago

josephcsible 3y ago

So when you go to work, they count the parking space there towards the square footage for your car, but not your office there towards the square footage for you? And when you stay at a hotel, they're counting the hotel's parking space towards the square footage for your car but not the hotel room towards the square footage for you? It's unfair and absurd to only count the square footage for you where you live, but to count the square footage for your car everywhere you ever drive it to.

mym1990 3y ago
That is the whole POINT. You don't pick up your house and move it every time you need to go to a grocery store(unless you live in your car, which many do), but that is exactly what you do with a vehicle. This means that the infrastructure needed to support the vehicle is actually massively more extensive than just the vehicle, leaving a footprint that is much bigger than just the car, and impacts almost all facets of day to day life.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > You don't pick up your house and move it every time you need to go to a grocery store You are to your house as your car is to your driveway. You don't dig up your driveway and bring it with you every time you drive somewhere.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    You just argued against yourself though, because in a theoretical sense that is exactly what you do. If you don't have a parking space available at the location you are going to, a "public driveway" so to speak, you are not able to leave the car there. Now you could make a similar point about short term living situations like hotels, but I would imagine that the number of people who regularly stay in hotels is much lower than the number of people who own and operate a vehicle regularly.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The point is that it's not any different than the living space itself. If you go from home to work, you need an office to be in while you're there in addition to a parking space, and for that time both your home and the parking space at your home are empty. But they're counting the parking space at the office and not the office space there.
      - orwin 3y ago
        I don't need a parking space at my office. Never needed one.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        So either you park your car at the train station, and then the train station needs a parking space for you and according to this math it still counts as another one even if it's outside the city. Or you live within walking distance of mass transit, which most people can't because there isn't enough relevant land zoned for that kind of high density development for everyone to live in even if they wanted to. But I'll do you one better. If you work from home you don't need the parking space or the office space.
      - mym1990 3y ago
        I don't know where you work, but I haven't had an office all to myself ever, a desk is pretty much all I have ever been allotted, and it has usually been an open one at that. I have one place to go to work(usually). But I have almost countless places I could go for shopping or experiences...and that is where the parking problem arises. ...If I did have a house, my driveway would not be open to others, so either you have an empty plot of driveway, or a car that is not being used in it...both of those things are not productive. My "empty" house still has utility. My family could be using it. It is storing all of my possessions. It is a source of comfort for knowing I have a place to go to rest. Anyways, the productivity footprint of shared spaces is very different from those that are exclusively mine, and spaces that are exclusively mine are very limited...essentially my home and my car. I'm not arguing that everyone ditch their cars and start biking to work, American infrastructure is not there, but the time I have spent in cities that do have this infrastructure have been absolutely wonderful.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "This means that the infrastructure needed to support..." ... the offices, schools, stores, etc is much larger than just a house. All the heating cooling, plumbing, etc and it sits empty most of the time (and you have to walk/drive past those regardless of their parking infrastructure). I fully get the point they are making. The thing the grandparent was talking about is that the argument could just as easily apply to the building spaces themselves rather than only the parking. Given this and the host of other categorical differences in parking vs occupied structures does in my view make the comparison "absurd". In general, this article is using a lot of numbers to make arguments that are really emotionally based.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    Certainly the notion that parking could just be replaced by housing(or anything else) in the snap of a finger is a stretch. The initial idea of the American dream and the single family home almost has to lead to a reliance on cars, especially in the suburbs(or did the advent of the car lead to the single family home dream?). Anyways, my point is that the buildings are productive, whether it be a school or a store or a home, but a parking space less so. Many communities have been able to use mass transportation alongside infra for bicycles/mopeds/scooters to make living in a city/town very enjoyable(but this isn't really what the article is getting at).
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Not only that, the total nationwide is essentially meaningless because of how many parking spaces there are in suburban areas where zoning prohibits the land from being used for much else or rural areas where the land isn't that scarce. Converting parking spaces into bigger lawns doesn't get you any more housing.
- shagmin 3y ago
  It's pretty marginal but there are a couple instances where I'm at that are slowly being addressed, where some really large, poorly located parking lots are making some areas more flood prone and holding up development in their vicinity.
bena 3y ago
Even if you were to do that, parking has a larger footprint than habitation. Or whatever you want to call existing in a space. For example, if I go to Chipotle for lunch, I will go and park my car, go inside, get in line, order, blah. My car, and everyone else's car will take up 9x18 units. If it's busy, you could have a line 10 to 15 people deep. That's 1620 sq ft of parking for people who will be occupying about 360 sq ft on the inside. (Assuming 10 people all taking up a 6x6 block).
afiori 3y ago
I feel that there is a categoric misunderstanding here: there is no "natural" conversion rate between "parking footage" and "abitable footage", the claim from the book is just saying "There are a lot of parking! More than you think! The parking surface is bigger than the abitable surface", it is about conveying a sense of scale not about "the ratio is 1.2 but should be 0.7". As you have pointed out it could also means "The car in your driveway has 11 theorethical empty parking spots built for it, maybe there is an overallocation of resources" Some relevant resource might be: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... from Not Just Bikes based on research from Strongtowns

stonedge 3y ago

This is what the data is based on. I've read the book and it's totaling all square footage in the country devoted to parking lots vs. housing. Essentially after the math, each car has more than just one space allocated to it.