Changing rules for parking generally serves only to create local parking shortages (and subsequent emotional discussions) as rhetoric underlying problem is not addresssed. This is a bit chicken-and-egg, but consider what happens if a standard subdivision is built without driveways, parking lots, or garage space. A 2 mile walk to the grocery store doesn’t really work. Instead, the regulations should be for higher density, space for bicycles (and transit), and space for essential amenities like small, local grocery stores and restaurants. ETA - with current conditions creating unplanned multigenerational housing, dad, mom, kid1, kid2, and partners makes for tight parking even with 3 spots.
You know, like they used to build before it was about maximizing the revenue per square mile of land?
The issue here is that for those things you suggested to exist we would inherently need to reduce parking as part of the change in regulation. Parking spaces are currently taking up the spaces that those amenities would be built, just as you described.
Unfortunately, NIMBY fools hear “reduce parking” and completely turn their brains off to screech about it, without ever considering the rest of the proposal and what it would do to benefit the community, simply because it makes them change their habits and they don’t want to.
Like, yes, there will be parking shortages, but that’s kinda the point so that people have to utilize alternatives instead.
Are you conflating the idea of banning parking with repealing mandatory parking? These are two very different policies. Developers will still build parking infrastructure when the market demands it and it makes sense for the neighborhood and project. They just won’t be universally required to even when literally no one wants it.
It’s not always the case that builders provide parking. The market demands shareholder profits, and if you don’t build a driveway, that’s more units you can fit on a given plot of land.
This is the trend I’m observing, but I’m certain it is not universal. 
Parking is for residents. If they want more parking, they can pay for a property that has that, which will usually cost more. If not, they can pay less and go without. This is a good thing and it’s not something the government needs to involve itself in. Right now the vast majority of places (in the US at least) have a really excessive amount of parking, so it may be that segment of the market is temporarily saturated, and they’re building for a market that wants less, which has gone unserved for a long time due to these pointless laws.
Changing rules for parking generally serves only to create local parking shortages (and subsequent emotional discussions) as rhetoric underlying problem is not addresssed. This is a bit chicken-and-egg, but consider what happens if a standard subdivision is built without driveways, parking lots, or garage space. A 2 mile walk to the grocery store doesn’t really work. Instead, the regulations should be for higher density, space for bicycles (and transit), and space for essential amenities like small, local grocery stores and restaurants. ETA - with current conditions creating unplanned multigenerational housing, dad, mom, kid1, kid2, and partners makes for tight parking even with 3 spots.
You know, like they used to build before it was about maximizing the revenue per square mile of land?
An apartment building in a walkable area with a parking garage is more walkable than a regular suburb without the cars.
The issue here is that for those things you suggested to exist we would inherently need to reduce parking as part of the change in regulation. Parking spaces are currently taking up the spaces that those amenities would be built, just as you described.
Unfortunately, NIMBY fools hear “reduce parking” and completely turn their brains off to screech about it, without ever considering the rest of the proposal and what it would do to benefit the community, simply because it makes them change their habits and they don’t want to.
Like, yes, there will be parking shortages, but that’s kinda the point so that people have to utilize alternatives instead.
Are you conflating the idea of banning parking with repealing mandatory parking? These are two very different policies. Developers will still build parking infrastructure when the market demands it and it makes sense for the neighborhood and project. They just won’t be universally required to even when literally no one wants it.
It’s not always the case that builders provide parking. The market demands shareholder profits, and if you don’t build a driveway, that’s more units you can fit on a given plot of land.
This is the trend I’m observing, but I’m certain it is not universal. 
Parking is for residents. If they want more parking, they can pay for a property that has that, which will usually cost more. If not, they can pay less and go without. This is a good thing and it’s not something the government needs to involve itself in. Right now the vast majority of places (in the US at least) have a really excessive amount of parking, so it may be that segment of the market is temporarily saturated, and they’re building for a market that wants less, which has gone unserved for a long time due to these pointless laws.