4 ms·
at least part of the idea is that the area should become dense enough that foot traffic either from the home or transit should become the lion's share. At the e
by bobthepanda 3y ago
at least part of the idea is that the area should become dense enough that foot traffic either from the home or transit should become the lion's share. At the end of the day parking lots are worth less and generate less tax than developments.
with most of America though, it's hard work because actually getting to that level of density is chicken and egg; and then of course in California the ghost of Prop 13 rears its head and discourages residential densification in particular.
- pandaman 3y agoI can only talk about the observable reality, where a retail shop without parking is a very low revenue enterprise even in an expensive area. E.g. West Los Angeles has plenty of dinky shops with no customer in sight next to busiest places in the city. It's pretty hard to raise money for a business on the hope that Santa Monica will turn into Manhattan, I imagine.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI mean, Los Angeles and other places do not build housing at sufficient scale, hence the state going after cities with SB 9 and whatnot. It’s certainly possible; Seattle and Portland have dense commercial centers outside of downtowns that are lively with little net new parking.