6 ms·

I hope people don't take from this that no parking at all is necessary, since that's not what they found. They simply found that you have have a bit less parki

by ars 2y ago

I hope people don't take from this that no parking at all is necessary, since that's not what they found. They simply found that you have have a bit less parking than what the code required if you implement it in a way where you need an exception - presumably to show that in this case you don't need it. The code is a bit of a blunt instrument and giving some flexibility to it seems logical. Getting rid entirely of parking minimums does not. Also nowhere in this do I see a survey of residents to see how they like living in these lower-parking homes. People might be very very annoyed, but just deal with it because they have no other good option.

alistairSH 2y ago
Maybe I’m missing something, but in the context of housing+parking, what is the market failure that requires the excessive minimums? VS letting the market solve the problem? Seems like a developer has an incentive to provide enough (and only just enough) to sell/rent the new units. If there isn’t enough, people will look elsewhere.
- ghaff 2y ago
  The usual theory is that developers would underspec the number of private parking spaces relative to residence requirements (and of course residents and requirements can change over time). Common parking would then be oversubscribed including for residents/visitors in the area who don't have private off-street parking.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Wouldn’t a prospective tenant ask about parking, and if there isn’t enough, look elsewhere? Or find a commercial lot to park?
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Information is often imperfect especially during a quick buying/renting process. A buyer could easily figure they'll use the private spot for one car and they can always use on-street permit parking for the second car even though there are a bunch of houses that depend on that parking for their vehicle. (Or whatever scenario--don't get hung up on the details of that specific one. The general concern is that new construction may lean on a shared resource to keep its own costs down.)
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    So.... They can buy or rent a parking spot, then. Or even build a garage.
    - ars 2y ago
      If every house needs two spots - on off street, one on street right in front of the house, all is well. Then someone says "Why should I pay for a parking spot or a garage? I'll just park on-street by my neighbor!" That only works if a couple people do it. Once too many do it you have unhappy residents - they paid for their off-street spot but the other guy didn't!
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        We probably shouldn’t provide “free” on-street parking everywhere either. Make car users pay for that choice. [yes I realize that’s a change to 70+ years of urban design and can’t happen ovrrnight]
        ghaff 2y ago
        The alternatives are not necessarily free to the neighborhood as a whole. A lot of places would have to build a bunch of garages if they were to eliminate any on-street parking. So now you have more garages everywhere. Maybe that's a good tradeoff. Maybe it's not. But I'm familiar with urban neighborhood with on street (mostly permit or metered) parking that have very few garages or parking lots at all.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        Paid permits and meters are fine - that solves the “stealing all the free spaces” problem mentioned above. The point is a some close to a market solution should be feasible and desirable.
        ghaff 2y ago
        In the cities I’m familiar with essentially all street parking is metered or resident. There’s a cost for resident parking but it’s typically a lot less than a monthly garage spot would be. When a lot of people talk about “free” parking I think they’re mostly lumping those in. Resident parking spots are certainly an oversubscribed common resource in many areas.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    And the usual answer is eliminating free on-street parking. Developers will build whatever parking is cost-effective to build. Residents will need a permit for on-street parking, while visitors pay hourly rates. The prices vary by area, and they are set to a level that ensures a high occupancy rate, while people with a permit can still find a space near their homes. What usually happens is that parking will be cheap enough to make dedicated parking structures commercially unviable. But even that cheap enough price will be too expensive for some people that they decide to get rid of their cars instead.
- ars 2y ago
  I replied to your question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40363387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40363387
- jjav 2y ago
  > VS letting the market solve the problem? The market can't solve this because the housing developer wants to maximize profit. Building less parking allows them to squeeze in more units, thus more profit. So that's what they will do. In an idealized world people would be entirely rational and not go live there if they need a car and can't park. But us people tend to push off problems, so it is common to think we'll move in and just park on the street somewhere, we'll figure it out. Except everyone in that development was thinking the same thing and when everyone moves in after the units get built, there's a big problem. Having lived in such an area, it is obvious how unpleasant it becomes for everyone. Fistfights over parking, keyed cars, etc. But the builder took their profit so it was a win for them. Parking minimums are a reaction to this problem.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Why not get rid of parking minimums and let the market sort it out?
- ars 2y ago
  Because people park on the street by their neighbors. So if most houses provide parking, but some don't, they end up free-riding on the neighbors. It's a tragedy of the commons issue, which is something the free market is known not to be able to handle.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Pricing parking appropriately addresses this.
    - ars 2y ago
      Not really. Near me that added meters so you pay for parking in front of the commercial areas. So people just drive up the block and park in the resedential areas which have no meters. Paying for parking only works in places where you park temporarily and then move elsewhere, you can't exactly add meters in front of people's homes, unless, I suppose every house had off street parking? I guess that's one way to have a city. Something similar is done by making overnight street parking illegal - I've seen that a lot, and then yes, the free market will make sure every house has its own parking area. It's hard on visitors though. Parking minimums are actually the least bad option from all of those.
      - bkettle 2y ago
        Most places I've lived (not many) use zones for residential parking so a residential parking permit gives you no right to park a car in residential spaces outside your neighborhood. Regardless, the consideration needs to take into account that requiring parking minimums increases cost to develop and decreases density, making it harder to live without a car. If it were a given that everyone has a car and drives it everywhere, I think indeed it probably does make sense to have (reasonable) parking minimums and I think it's clear that parking minimums do certainly make for ample parking. But in today's world where we are trying to shift away from car primacy in cities because they are dangerous and polluting and scale poorly, the goal shifts from "make there be enough parking" to "make it easy to get around the city" and for that goal, parking minimums have proven to be ineffective.

by ars 2y ago

alistairSH 2y ago

Maybe I’m missing something, but in the context of housing+parking, what is the market failure that requires the excessive minimums? VS letting the market solve the problem? Seems like a developer has an incentive to provide enough (and only just enough) to sell/rent the new units. If there isn’t enough, people will look elsewhere.

ghaff 2y ago
The usual theory is that developers would underspec the number of private parking spaces relative to residence requirements (and of course residents and requirements can change over time). Common parking would then be oversubscribed including for residents/visitors in the area who don't have private off-street parking.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Wouldn’t a prospective tenant ask about parking, and if there isn’t enough, look elsewhere? Or find a commercial lot to park?
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Information is often imperfect especially during a quick buying/renting process. A buyer could easily figure they'll use the private spot for one car and they can always use on-street permit parking for the second car even though there are a bunch of houses that depend on that parking for their vehicle. (Or whatever scenario--don't get hung up on the details of that specific one. The general concern is that new construction may lean on a shared resource to keep its own costs down.)
- CalRobert 2y ago
  So.... They can buy or rent a parking spot, then. Or even build a garage.
  - ars 2y ago
    If every house needs two spots - on off street, one on street right in front of the house, all is well. Then someone says "Why should I pay for a parking spot or a garage? I'll just park on-street by my neighbor!" That only works if a couple people do it. Once too many do it you have unhappy residents - they paid for their off-street spot but the other guy didn't!
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      We probably shouldn’t provide “free” on-street parking everywhere either. Make car users pay for that choice. [yes I realize that’s a change to 70+ years of urban design and can’t happen ovrrnight]
      - ghaff 2y ago
        The alternatives are not necessarily free to the neighborhood as a whole. A lot of places would have to build a bunch of garages if they were to eliminate any on-street parking. So now you have more garages everywhere. Maybe that's a good tradeoff. Maybe it's not. But I'm familiar with urban neighborhood with on street (mostly permit or metered) parking that have very few garages or parking lots at all.
        alistairSH 2y ago
        Paid permits and meters are fine - that solves the “stealing all the free spaces” problem mentioned above. The point is a some close to a market solution should be feasible and desirable.
        ghaff 2y ago
        In the cities I’m familiar with essentially all street parking is metered or resident. There’s a cost for resident parking but it’s typically a lot less than a monthly garage spot would be. When a lot of people talk about “free” parking I think they’re mostly lumping those in. Resident parking spots are certainly an oversubscribed common resource in many areas.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  And the usual answer is eliminating free on-street parking. Developers will build whatever parking is cost-effective to build. Residents will need a permit for on-street parking, while visitors pay hourly rates. The prices vary by area, and they are set to a level that ensures a high occupancy rate, while people with a permit can still find a space near their homes. What usually happens is that parking will be cheap enough to make dedicated parking structures commercially unviable. But even that cheap enough price will be too expensive for some people that they decide to get rid of their cars instead.
ars 2y ago
I replied to your question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40363387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40363387
jjav 2y ago
> VS letting the market solve the problem? The market can't solve this because the housing developer wants to maximize profit. Building less parking allows them to squeeze in more units, thus more profit. So that's what they will do. In an idealized world people would be entirely rational and not go live there if they need a car and can't park. But us people tend to push off problems, so it is common to think we'll move in and just park on the street somewhere, we'll figure it out. Except everyone in that development was thinking the same thing and when everyone moves in after the units get built, there's a big problem. Having lived in such an area, it is obvious how unpleasant it becomes for everyone. Fistfights over parking, keyed cars, etc. But the builder took their profit so it was a win for them. Parking minimums are a reaction to this problem.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

Why not get rid of parking minimums and let the market sort it out?

ars 2y ago
Because people park on the street by their neighbors. So if most houses provide parking, but some don't, they end up free-riding on the neighbors. It's a tragedy of the commons issue, which is something the free market is known not to be able to handle.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Pricing parking appropriately addresses this.
  - ars 2y ago
    Not really. Near me that added meters so you pay for parking in front of the commercial areas. So people just drive up the block and park in the resedential areas which have no meters. Paying for parking only works in places where you park temporarily and then move elsewhere, you can't exactly add meters in front of people's homes, unless, I suppose every house had off street parking? I guess that's one way to have a city. Something similar is done by making overnight street parking illegal - I've seen that a lot, and then yes, the free market will make sure every house has its own parking area. It's hard on visitors though. Parking minimums are actually the least bad option from all of those.
    - bkettle 2y ago
      Most places I've lived (not many) use zones for residential parking so a residential parking permit gives you no right to park a car in residential spaces outside your neighborhood. Regardless, the consideration needs to take into account that requiring parking minimums increases cost to develop and decreases density, making it harder to live without a car. If it were a given that everyone has a car and drives it everywhere, I think indeed it probably does make sense to have (reasonable) parking minimums and I think it's clear that parking minimums do certainly make for ample parking. But in today's world where we are trying to shift away from car primacy in cities because they are dangerous and polluting and scale poorly, the goal shifts from "make there be enough parking" to "make it easy to get around the city" and for that goal, parking minimums have proven to be ineffective.