3 ms·

this doesn't eliminate parking spots. they're eliminating parking minimums, which in most cases are not backed by any sort of science or study - parking minimu

this doesn't eliminate parking spots. they're eliminating parking minimums, which in most cases are not backed by any sort of science or study - parking minimums get set mostly randomly, as a roadblock for development that people don't want in their neighbourhood. there's no good reason for most of these parking minimums, and they're not necessarily parking spots in places where there is any demand. steet parking, parking garages, and parking lots will continue to exist. then they get carried forward as precedent because people hear "eliminate parking minimums" as "eliminate parking spots" and fight against it, but they don't make any sense.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Your comment is completely wrong, at least as it applies to Austin as explained in the article. Parking minimums are simply a requirement that if you build an apartment building with N apartments, you need to include a number of parking spots that is a function of N. The idea being that if you're building a number of places for people to live, the vast majority of them (especially in Austin) will need a place to park, and it's not really fair for you to externalize that need onto public streets just so you can make more money by adding more apartments with no parking. That's the argument anyway, and it makes sense. The counter argument is that it also keeps us as a car-dependent city, and makes it harder to build affordable housing. I'm not really convinced of the counter argument, at least in Austin. Public transportation (or, basically any transportation) is notoriously bad in Austin, and for decades we've basically had the stance "if you don't build it, they won't come", but that hasn't quite worked out.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > I'm not really convinced of the counter argument, at least it Austin. Public transportation (or, basically any transportation) is notoriously bad in Austin, and for decades we've basically had the stance "if you don't build it, they won't come", but that hasn't quite worked out. Well, since what you have been doing hasn't worked, maybe let's try the other tactic.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    The other tactic would be to actually build out viable public transportation.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      The other tactic is 'do something to reduce car dependency'.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        That's my whole point. Just getting rid of parking doesn't reduce car dependency if there aren't better alternatives.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        Your whole point is 'make political will and funding for broad public transit building programs appear out of thin air' or else 'do nothing'. Your claim is that 'getting rid of parking' is what is being pushed, when it is getting rid of mandatory, arbitrary parking minimums. If there is needed parking it will be built because developers don't like building tenancies that don't get sold because no one can live there.
        Moldoteck 3y ago
        Getting rid of parking minimums may propell the alternatives. What if businesses discover most ppl get to them by public transport/bike? They will demand authorities to accomodate those ppl so that profits will rise, or they will build themselves more infra(at least good bike parking) for this. Right now businesses are forced to accomodate car drivers even if sometimes it's not the best business decision and this might change. Also, less parking means more space, that can be used for different things like recreation zones or just building a mixed use building that will guarantee more clients to nearby local shops/businesses (depending on what the demand is ofc). In other words getting rid of parking minimums allows ppl/businesses to experiment and see what's the best use for that land, be that a public space like parks, kids playfield, mixed use building, just another business, bike parking or something entirely else. Right now all that space was locked by strange laws with numbers taken from the air
- hnaccount_rng 3y ago
  The comment just said, that the function of N that gives the number of parking spots (really it's just going to be a proportionality factor) is "set nearly randomly". Nothing in your comment counters that assertion. Which I personally don't find implausible (although that is without any exposure to the decision process in Austin in particular)
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    It's not "set nearly randomly". It's a function of the estimated number of adult occupants, based on the number of bedrooms I believe. Besides, the argument isn't "let's look at the calculation for required number of spots and tweak it if necessary", it's "let's get rid of parking altogether and pretend like people won't just still drive and park on the street."
    - hnaccount_rng 3y ago
      It’s also not “abolish all parking” it’s “don’t force parking”. Or rephrased in a libertarian way “if there is a need for parking the market will provide it” (I make no comment on whether to expect a positive or negative outcome of this experiment) I mean, you seem to be adamantly opposed. I assume for good reason (at least in your mind). Why not make an argument that actually relates to the proposal? At least I would give your opinion more weight that way
- jen20 3y ago
  Worse: it was voted for, but the costs have now spiralled while the proposed service has plummeted.
sokoloff 3y ago
Parking minimums either serve no purpose (meaning developers would naturally provision at least that many parking spaces on their own accord, making the minimums a no-op) xor eliminating parking minimums will eliminate some parking spots.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Your comment is completely wrong, at least as it applies to Austin as explained in the article. Parking minimums are simply a requirement that if you build an apartment building with N apartments, you need to include a number of parking spots that is a function of N. The idea being that if you're building a number of places for people to live, the vast majority of them (especially in Austin) will need a place to park, and it's not really fair for you to externalize that need onto public streets just so you can make more money by adding more apartments with no parking. That's the argument anyway, and it makes sense. The counter argument is that it also keeps us as a car-dependent city, and makes it harder to build affordable housing. I'm not really convinced of the counter argument, at least in Austin. Public transportation (or, basically any transportation) is notoriously bad in Austin, and for decades we've basically had the stance "if you don't build it, they won't come", but that hasn't quite worked out.

Eisenstein 3y ago
> I'm not really convinced of the counter argument, at least it Austin. Public transportation (or, basically any transportation) is notoriously bad in Austin, and for decades we've basically had the stance "if you don't build it, they won't come", but that hasn't quite worked out. Well, since what you have been doing hasn't worked, maybe let's try the other tactic.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The other tactic would be to actually build out viable public transportation.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    The other tactic is 'do something to reduce car dependency'.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      That's my whole point. Just getting rid of parking doesn't reduce car dependency if there aren't better alternatives.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        Your whole point is 'make political will and funding for broad public transit building programs appear out of thin air' or else 'do nothing'. Your claim is that 'getting rid of parking' is what is being pushed, when it is getting rid of mandatory, arbitrary parking minimums. If there is needed parking it will be built because developers don't like building tenancies that don't get sold because no one can live there.
      - Moldoteck 3y ago
        Getting rid of parking minimums may propell the alternatives. What if businesses discover most ppl get to them by public transport/bike? They will demand authorities to accomodate those ppl so that profits will rise, or they will build themselves more infra(at least good bike parking) for this. Right now businesses are forced to accomodate car drivers even if sometimes it's not the best business decision and this might change. Also, less parking means more space, that can be used for different things like recreation zones or just building a mixed use building that will guarantee more clients to nearby local shops/businesses (depending on what the demand is ofc). In other words getting rid of parking minimums allows ppl/businesses to experiment and see what's the best use for that land, be that a public space like parks, kids playfield, mixed use building, just another business, bike parking or something entirely else. Right now all that space was locked by strange laws with numbers taken from the air
hnaccount_rng 3y ago
The comment just said, that the function of N that gives the number of parking spots (really it's just going to be a proportionality factor) is "set nearly randomly". Nothing in your comment counters that assertion. Which I personally don't find implausible (although that is without any exposure to the decision process in Austin in particular)
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  It's not "set nearly randomly". It's a function of the estimated number of adult occupants, based on the number of bedrooms I believe. Besides, the argument isn't "let's look at the calculation for required number of spots and tweak it if necessary", it's "let's get rid of parking altogether and pretend like people won't just still drive and park on the street."
  - hnaccount_rng 3y ago
    It’s also not “abolish all parking” it’s “don’t force parking”. Or rephrased in a libertarian way “if there is a need for parking the market will provide it” (I make no comment on whether to expect a positive or negative outcome of this experiment) I mean, you seem to be adamantly opposed. I assume for good reason (at least in your mind). Why not make an argument that actually relates to the proposal? At least I would give your opinion more weight that way
jen20 3y ago
Worse: it was voted for, but the costs have now spiralled while the proposed service has plummeted.

sokoloff 3y ago

Parking minimums either serve no purpose (meaning developers would naturally provision at least that many parking spaces on their own accord, making the minimums a no-op) xor eliminating parking minimums will eliminate some parking spots.