4 ms·

More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Hous

More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.

lostlogin 1y ago
There was a comment on an anti-car HN thread a few weeks back suggesting city centres get larger, pushing housing further out. Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car. What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination. > The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections. The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out. But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.
- bmicraft 1y ago
  > The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere Not true where I live.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Wouldn't that imply that there should be less traffic there, and therefore it shouldn't take an hour to travel 5 miles by car?
    - bmicraft 1y ago
      That's correct and it doesn't.

lostlogin 1y ago

There was a comment on an anti-car HN thread a few weeks back suggesting city centres get larger, pushing housing further out. Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> More housing in _that_ model is more people with more cars on the road and needing parking spaces. The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car. What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination. > The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections. The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out. But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.

bmicraft 1y ago
> The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere Not true where I live.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Wouldn't that imply that there should be less traffic there, and therefore it shouldn't take an hour to travel 5 miles by car?
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    That's correct and it doesn't.