5 ms·

Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. But the resource stays just as limited. If you have 200 cars and 5

Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. But the resource stays just as limited. If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200 cars can park simultaneously. The overflow ends up clogging the surrounding neighborhoods, on top of the outcome described by OP. Edit. @pc86, both points you make are valid but neither addresses or fixes the problem being discussed. They are an interesting, albeit completely parallel discussion.

pc86 3y ago
> Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. Yes. If you own a limited resource it's your right to make money from that. I know we like to pretend people making money from things they own is somehow evil but it's how all of civilization has been built and is an objectively good thing. > If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200 cars can park simultaneously. No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability.
- close04 3y ago
  Both points you made are valid but neither fixes or even touches on the problem being discussed: there are more cars than parking spots and this causes problems. The economic theory is an interesting, albeit completely parallel discussion. Price is just about who gets to have one. Effectively you'll still have 150 cars that cannot be parked next to the owners' residence, that get dumped on the street elsewhere probably in the next lower cost neighborhood, and with the additional issues OP mentioned. Put it another way, if you want to solve the housing crisis and I tell you "owners can set whatever price they want for the house to extract maximum value and nobody who can afford that will be denied the house" am I wrong? But did I solve the problem?
- autoexec 3y ago
  > No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability. That sucks for the people who are denied the ability to park there because they can't afford it though. Telling people that they need to walk miles to get to a doctor or a grocery store and that only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city There parking minimums drive up housing costs. They’re why that person has to drive longer to get to that place. Perhaps why they need to make a car payment at all.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Not true, at least not for most people anyway. People need cars to get to where they need to go. When the developer of an apartment complex has to provide parking for its residents everyone has a place to put the cars they need. When those developers don't have to provide parking space anymore, people will still need cars, but will now have no place to put them at night. This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars. You can't solve the problem of "I need a car" just by taking away the places people put them at night. The problem we have is built into the design of our cities from the ground up and it impacts every aspect of how they are structured and used. Eliminating parking spaces while the absolute need for cars continues to exist doesn't solve the problem at all. This is the kind of move that should be done selectively, and only after alternative options are created, if it's done at all.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars There is zero evidence for this. There is evidence for parking minimums raising housing prices. I’m curious about the overlap between off-street parking minimum requirement advocates and anti-development NIMBYs who don’t believe in supply and demand.
        autoexec 3y ago
        > There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. That's basically self-evident. If you have evidence that shows otherwise please feel free to provide it. I suspect that if examples showing otherwise exist at all they won't be remotely representative of the situation these cities will face.
- jjav 3y ago
  > and can afford to Right, so now only the most rich can go visit the area (shops, friends). I know a lot of people have the opinion that only the rich should get to do things but I don't subscribe to that. At least with public street parking the misery is egalitarian, both the Yugo and the Ferrari can circle for hours looking for parking. Although having enough parking for everyone would be even better.
medvezhenok 3y ago
This is the approach Singapore (and in some ways, Hong Kong) takes; you can own a car, but you must purchase a 10-year use permit, which costs in some cases much more than a car itself (something like $80,000 over 10 years). So if you're buying a Toyota Corolla ($20K car), you'd still need a $80K operating permit to use it. That's why 90%+ of the people in Singapore use public transportation or carpool. Granted, you would need the public infrastructure for that to be possible. But if you make cars unaffordable for the average person, suddenly there would be A LOT more pressure on local government to get public infrastructure done.
- breezeTrowel 3y ago
  Sure but public infrastructure doesn't magically appear overnight. It takes years, decades even, and costs a ton of money. I think the solutions may come laterally from developments in autonomous construction robots. They're being developed in Japan due to negative population growth reducing the available construction workforce.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Here in Tokyo, you're not allowed to buy a car unless you can prove to the police that you have a place to park it (and that it actually fits: they'll come measure).

pc86 3y ago

> Raising the price would just extract more value for the owners from a very limited resource. Yes. If you own a limited resource it's your right to make money from that. I know we like to pretend people making money from things they own is somehow evil but it's how all of civilization has been built and is an objectively good thing. > If you have 200 cars and 50 parking spaces there's no price point at which the 200 cars can park simultaneously. No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability.

close04 3y ago
Both points you made are valid but neither fixes or even touches on the problem being discussed: there are more cars than parking spots and this causes problems. The economic theory is an interesting, albeit completely parallel discussion. Price is just about who gets to have one. Effectively you'll still have 150 cars that cannot be parked next to the owners' residence, that get dumped on the street elsewhere probably in the next lower cost neighborhood, and with the additional issues OP mentioned. Put it another way, if you want to solve the housing crisis and I tell you "owners can set whatever price they want for the house to extract maximum value and nobody who can afford that will be denied the house" am I wrong? But did I solve the problem?
autoexec 3y ago
> No, but is a point where 50 can park simultaneously and nobody who wants to park there and can afford to is denied that ability. That sucks for the people who are denied the ability to park there because they can't afford it though. Telling people that they need to walk miles to get to a doctor or a grocery store and that only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > only the wealthy deserve to have access to 90% of the city There parking minimums drive up housing costs. They’re why that person has to drive longer to get to that place. Perhaps why they need to make a car payment at all.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Not true, at least not for most people anyway. People need cars to get to where they need to go. When the developer of an apartment complex has to provide parking for its residents everyone has a place to put the cars they need. When those developers don't have to provide parking space anymore, people will still need cars, but will now have no place to put them at night. This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars. You can't solve the problem of "I need a car" just by taking away the places people put them at night. The problem we have is built into the design of our cities from the ground up and it impacts every aspect of how they are structured and used. Eliminating parking spaces while the absolute need for cars continues to exist doesn't solve the problem at all. This is the kind of move that should be done selectively, and only after alternative options are created, if it's done at all.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > This will drive up the price of apartment complexes that provide parking, pricing many people out, while doing nothing to eliminate the need for their cars There is zero evidence for this. There is evidence for parking minimums raising housing prices. I’m curious about the overlap between off-street parking minimum requirement advocates and anti-development NIMBYs who don’t believe in supply and demand.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > There is zero evidence for this. When most people need something, and there is suddenly a much smaller supply of that thing, prices for the now scarce but still needed thing tend to increase. That's basically self-evident. If you have evidence that shows otherwise please feel free to provide it. I suspect that if examples showing otherwise exist at all they won't be remotely representative of the situation these cities will face.
jjav 3y ago
> and can afford to Right, so now only the most rich can go visit the area (shops, friends). I know a lot of people have the opinion that only the rich should get to do things but I don't subscribe to that. At least with public street parking the misery is egalitarian, both the Yugo and the Ferrari can circle for hours looking for parking. Although having enough parking for everyone would be even better.

medvezhenok 3y ago

This is the approach Singapore (and in some ways, Hong Kong) takes; you can own a car, but you must purchase a 10-year use permit, which costs in some cases much more than a car itself (something like $80,000 over 10 years). So if you're buying a Toyota Corolla ($20K car), you'd still need a $80K operating permit to use it. That's why 90%+ of the people in Singapore use public transportation or carpool. Granted, you would need the public infrastructure for that to be possible. But if you make cars unaffordable for the average person, suddenly there would be A LOT more pressure on local government to get public infrastructure done.

breezeTrowel 3y ago
Sure but public infrastructure doesn't magically appear overnight. It takes years, decades even, and costs a ton of money. I think the solutions may come laterally from developments in autonomous construction robots. They're being developed in Japan due to negative population growth reducing the available construction workforce.
shiroiuma 3y ago
Here in Tokyo, you're not allowed to buy a car unless you can prove to the police that you have a place to park it (and that it actually fits: they'll come measure).