Cities should be designed like theme parks. Ample free parking on the outskirts for commuters, with mass transit and paths within. It’s just common sense.
Wr can add the rollercoasters and water slides too. I’m all for it.
Why do you want car brains in your city at all?
Entrance by ytain, boat, and rocket, maybe pedestrian.
entry by dirigible only
No. Train has to be on the list.
One way I have seen some buildings smartly handle this requirement was making most of the bottom floor of the building a parking area. I have seen both garage and open-air versions of this. It definitely has to cost more to build the building this way, but at least you’re using the existing space and building upward to add more units instead of wasting space around the building.
While it is indeed stupid, it’s also valid because, well… when there isn’t any public transit to speak of, these low income people are sadly going to be forced into needing a car.
That used to be a common design in Southern California called a dingbat. Unfortunately the local authorities considered them to be eyesores and now they’re becoming very rare. The few that are still around are an excellent source of affordable housing to its tenants.
Normal looking house with a parking spot under it is an eyesore yet strip malls and walmart parking swathes are okay…
Eyesore wouldn’t be how I describe them. Lots of TV shows and movies take place in them and always look cool as fuck. I never knew what they were called, thanks.
Yeah but it’s myopic to treat both sides of that coin (the lack of public transit and the parking minimums) as if they are separate and unrelated matters. Both are policy decisions supported by the auto industry.
Ugh. I feel complicated about that one but a lot of it probably has to do with my own lifestyle and living situation. Short version is whether we actively drive or not the majority of the domestic workers in this area drove a car here and need a place to put it, occasionally proving a problem in the winter as there’s less parking than residents. In a city I can see replacing parking with housing working better, especially when the parking is being used less for storage and more of a daily in and out traffic sort of thing. Not to say I don’t love the idea of a better fleshed out bus network for not only the state but country that could get rid of that but it simply isn’t there now.
Removing parking minimums does not stop people building parking if they want it.
Landlords suck and won’t do things unless a larger force twists their arm.
But it does allow people to build without meeting a minimum parking standard. Progress and change is a slow process. If removing parking minimums makes 3 developments make small apartments buildings with no parking, a few years down the line there may be more support for an entire neighborhood without parking after seeing the success of the first few developments.
The average studio apartment in my area is 600 square feet. That is way too small of a space for a 2 bedroom.
600 omg what i wouod give…
Can’t afford a car? That’s ok, you don’t have to buy one.
Better make sure you can afford a spot to park one if you want a place to live tho.
You don’t have to buy one, but in North America your mobility will be severely limited unless your are able to live in a select few places, many of which are expensive because despite popilar american beliefs, it is quite desireable to be able to live car free.
I know it’s common in my city, Sydney, for apartment complexes to build enough car spaces for the occupants. Part of the issue is that of they didn’t have that requirement, none would be built, I steady putting extra pressure on street parking and public parking facilities. Residents of those complexes also have no entitlement to a parking permit, which older houses without spots do have.
Nowadays, in inner city with less car need, the spaces required is reduced, with some spots reserved for car share schemes instead.
So, like everything, blanket rules aren’t great but rules are needed for a reason.
Part of the issue is that of they didn’t have that requirement, none would be built
Good. Ban car parking.
putting extra pressure on street parking and public parking facilities
Don’t build those either. Put the money that would have been spent on parking spaces into towtrucks.
As a non car owner, I’d love to agree. Banning car spots and cars is not yet feasible for most people. So, not having those spots available would make those kind of developments harmful for the rest of the community, further marginalizing them.
What is more likely to work is to make the regulation more flexible. So community cars count as 2 or 3 private cars. Then the complex needs less spaces.
Banning car spots and cars is not yet feasible for most people
Necessity is the mother of invention. “Destroy it and they will leave.”
We could be like Japan where in order to own a car, you have to prove you have somewhere private to park it instead of just putting it on the street.
Which is the point of the requirement we’re talking about, lol!
Im ok with it in my city if it had two modifications. They must never be seperated from units and besides any vehicle also storage pods can be parked there. For example where I live bike parking is restricted. Im not really complaining about my own place as we at least got specific rulings to allow bike hangers to be allowed (but the number is limited) on top of having some community bike parking racks. Which is much better than other places. To many places only allow cars to be parked/stored in the parking space.
