4 ms·

> I can't wait, I just can't wait until Uber-like on-demand ride tech + self driving cars means we can massively reduce our vehicle stock. Think of all the thin

> I can't wait, I just can't wait until Uber-like on-demand ride tech + self driving cars means we can massively reduce our vehicle stock. Think of all the things that could be more awesome First, get rid of the zoning laws that require those spots, then they'll disappear. You can cram (depending on building height restrictions) dozens of apartments in to the same 2 dimensional plane as those 3 parking spots.

Crito 12y ago
Perhaps all hard limits on building height could be removed, but with the addition of a new rule that requires every new residential building to have 1 level of parking garage for every 3 stories it has (or some other similar ratio). Then, if you wanted to build a 15 story apartment building you would be allowed to, but you'd have to provide enough parking garage to satisfy all of those people. The problem then is parking in commercial districts. Street parking is good for businesses on that street, but a better solution could be more city-run parking garages in good locations, and city streets in commercial areas that are optimized for pedestrians. The best example of this I have ever seen is down-town Silver Spring in Maryland. That was several years ago, I hear they tore a bunch of it up, but it at least used to be great.
- lmm 12y ago
  If you build more parking space then you bring new more cars onto the street. Here in London new residential buildings are built with zero parking spaces (just a small a shared drop-off/deliveries area). There are already too many cars in the city, and public transport is good enough for most people (of course there are people who for good reasons need cars, but they're the exception rather than the rule).
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  That kind of defeats the purpose of removing the parking requirements. If you require every 3 units to have one parking spot, you raise the price of each unit by 30%. Additionally since tenants are paying for the spot anyway, it incentivizes them to buy a car that they might otherwise do without. If there turns out to be a market need for parking spots, I'm sure someone will step in and build a long term parking garage in the neighbourhood, but you aren't mandating every tenant regardless of car ownership desire subsidize the others.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  Minimum parking requirements subsidize car users at the expense on non-car users.
- MBlume 12y ago
  Why have a requirement? If the people want garages, let them demand garages, let the market price garages so that they're an efficient use of space and construction resources on the margin.
- obi-nine 12y ago
  You're close but miss the mark. The solution is simply to change the existing _minimum_ parking requirements to a _maximum_ and then simply let market forces take care of it.
- math0ne 12y ago
  I believe the city of austin has similar limits on new building downtown, parking must be integrated vertically.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Minimum parking requirements already exist in many (most?) cases. In fact they may be the problem, not the solution. Read: The High Cost of Free Parking http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    A lot of the cost comes from dedicating acreage to parking. If there were more parking garages, there would be less asphalt sprawl. Mandatory parking garages inside apartments is a bad method, but the goal is admirable. No surface parking, no matter how many cars.
- PinguTS 12y ago
  Actually, that is law in Germany. For every amount of building space (residential, business, ...) you are required to provide a number of parking space (depending on the type of building). If you can not provide the required amount of parking space, then you have to pay a fee to the city. All the numbers like required parking space and amount for the fee is decided by the city. So in high density cities the fee is more expansive than in the country side.

Crito 12y ago

Perhaps all hard limits on building height could be removed, but with the addition of a new rule that requires every new residential building to have 1 level of parking garage for every 3 stories it has (or some other similar ratio). Then, if you wanted to build a 15 story apartment building you would be allowed to, but you'd have to provide enough parking garage to satisfy all of those people. The problem then is parking in commercial districts. Street parking is good for businesses on that street, but a better solution could be more city-run parking garages in good locations, and city streets in commercial areas that are optimized for pedestrians. The best example of this I have ever seen is down-town Silver Spring in Maryland. That was several years ago, I hear they tore a bunch of it up, but it at least used to be great.

lmm 12y ago
If you build more parking space then you bring new more cars onto the street. Here in London new residential buildings are built with zero parking spaces (just a small a shared drop-off/deliveries area). There are already too many cars in the city, and public transport is good enough for most people (of course there are people who for good reasons need cars, but they're the exception rather than the rule).
BrainInAJar 12y ago
That kind of defeats the purpose of removing the parking requirements. If you require every 3 units to have one parking spot, you raise the price of each unit by 30%. Additionally since tenants are paying for the spot anyway, it incentivizes them to buy a car that they might otherwise do without. If there turns out to be a market need for parking spots, I'm sure someone will step in and build a long term parking garage in the neighbourhood, but you aren't mandating every tenant regardless of car ownership desire subsidize the others.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
Minimum parking requirements subsidize car users at the expense on non-car users.
MBlume 12y ago
Why have a requirement? If the people want garages, let them demand garages, let the market price garages so that they're an efficient use of space and construction resources on the margin.
obi-nine 12y ago
You're close but miss the mark. The solution is simply to change the existing _minimum_ parking requirements to a _maximum_ and then simply let market forces take care of it.
math0ne 12y ago
I believe the city of austin has similar limits on new building downtown, parking must be integrated vertically.
kalleboo 12y ago
Minimum parking requirements already exist in many (most?) cases. In fact they may be the problem, not the solution. Read: The High Cost of Free Parking http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  A lot of the cost comes from dedicating acreage to parking. If there were more parking garages, there would be less asphalt sprawl. Mandatory parking garages inside apartments is a bad method, but the goal is admirable. No surface parking, no matter how many cars.
PinguTS 12y ago
Actually, that is law in Germany. For every amount of building space (residential, business, ...) you are required to provide a number of parking space (depending on the type of building). If you can not provide the required amount of parking space, then you have to pay a fee to the city. All the numbers like required parking space and amount for the fee is decided by the city. So in high density cities the fee is more expansive than in the country side.