I agree with the objections about the title, but we don’t currently have a rule to address it. I’m not going to remove the post, but @NomNom@feddit.uk, would you please consider editing it to a less editorialized title?
I know we have to do studies to prove it, but I could’ve told you that during the W admin
Is that because you wouldn’t have been old enough to tell us this during the Nixon administration?
You whippersnappers seem to be forgetting about Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, who set the stage for the 1929 Great Depression and the shanty towns that would follow.
Technically I was ageless back then
The article makes no mention of homelessness and thus I find the title disingenuous/misleading.
It’s a good article though. I think the community would be better served with a title about how this study shows that we would be better off removing parking requirements from building codes.
It’s a worthwhile read about how new parking spaces now cost as much as a new car, but there’s no mention of public opinion polling like the title implies.
Parking spaces don’t ‘cost’ anything. The apartment building already owns the land. Anything after that is just a discussion on what the best use of it is. But they’re not paying more for where they allow cars to park. And they’re not paying less for where they allow people to live.
If the argument is that the space required to park a car is annually as valuable as the car itself then that just seems to promote the idea that we should be using those spaces for housing and not for cars.
The value of the land that the developer bought the land for is in how much money they can make from that. Otherwise, the developer wouldn’t buy the property.
I think I can see the point you’re trying to make… but you’re not.
So you just warped the title into whatever sensationalized garbage you wanted. The Streets Blog headline actually reads:
New UCLA Report Looks into the High Cost to Build Parking
And the UCLA Center for Parking Policy Report is titled:
No Such Thing as Free Parking: Construction Costs in 17 U.S. Cities
It’s grossly disrespectful to overeditorialize a report like this that probably had hundreds of hours of work put into it; you’re actively misrepresenting that work and putting words in the author’s mouth. If you’re going to say “study finds”, then you should say what the study finds according to the author(s) who actually painstakingly analyzed the data. If not, then it’s “I read this study [doubt] and drew these conclusions about it”.
Editorialized title aside… the thing about parking is that in the US, we’re sparse and spread out and need cars in most places.
You want to eliminate cars? Build densely. Replace great swaths of our suburbs with medium to high density housing + commercial spaces where people don’t need cars to go shopping or eat at restaurants or grocery shop. Then you’re also dense enough to be able to support great public transportation. And then you can greatly reduce the number of cars.
It’d be great. I’d love to be able to walk[1] to shopping and restaurants. I’d love to take good public transportation to my doctor visits and elsewhere.
But that requites a radical re-thinking about how we live, and then a radical re-building.
I’d be all for it - the cost savings of not owning a vehicle would be fantastic, and while electric cars wll help, congestion and pollution are even less of a problem with a great public transportation network.
well, roll, as a wheelchair user ↩︎
@daychilde @NomNom What about all the places that have density and public transit but hamstring themselves with parking mandates based on suburban trip generation assumptions? The more you mandate parking, the harder you make it to get around or do business. We have walkable urban neighborhoods that are food deserts and people want to open corner stores in old vacant buildings but are blocked because they don’t have space for off-street parking.
Cities today are orders of magnitude larger (population-wise) than cities in the early 1900s and this is largely due to plumbing and fire codesn Parking is like an afterthought in terms of city planning of any size, usually.
Parking in most US cities is insane because of lobbying and corruption by the car industry. The design challenges aren’t unique.
The problem in the US is not size or distance or density, none of those are in any way unique.
The #1 biggest difference between US and other countries is lobbying by car companies. In the US car companies have created not only a plethora of pseudoscientific parking laws but also import/export, safety, transit, and emission laws. None of which make any sense.
Take a look at aerial photos of cities in the US in the early 1900s vs the same cities today. In every single case, 50% or more of the land had buildings torn down to put in flat level parking lots. Population wise they are larger, but they are also way less dense than we used to build.
That’s exactly the point. Cities in the US have expanded despite insane and arbitrary parking requirements. The affordability crisis and the ‘strip-mall-ification’ of the US are something that are inexorably linked. We don’t build affordable housing anymore, we build parking lots and suburbs.
This fixation on suburbs and parking lots is a major factor in the affordability crisis we face
Across the United States, zoning codes require new developments to provide a minimum number of parking spaces, which carry substantial construction costs.
In this report, we use 2025 construction cost estimates from Rider Levett Bucknall to calculate the cost per space in 17 U.S. cities and combine these data with local minimum parking requirements to estimate how parking mandates increase total construction costs across building types.
We find that parking construction costs have risen substantially faster than inflation since 2012 and that required parking can account for a large share of total project costs—adding tens of thousands of dollars per housing unit and, in some cases, increasing total construction costs by more than 50%
Building an apartment building without parking is dumb. Maybe not have 1 space per unit, maybe have 1 space for every two units. Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other. Have an apartment building with only 50% of the units having a parking spot, is a really big win for a car centric city. It’s a good way of pushing the ball.
Also working class people that need affordable housing, probably also need a car as they can’t work from home.That headline sounds like a false binary…
But yes, I read the article and I understand the logic
Meanwhile we have enough housing for all our homeless, but the owners refuse to help people for free.
My honest issue is the us makes everything so impossible, like I get fussed at for being more than 5 minutes late, and can get written up, I could only imagine what I would get if a bus got delayed. There are places I could reasonable bike to but none of them pay enough to cover rent. So I drive my ass to target, and unfortunately I have a car that takes up space it sucks but the us needs massive retooling everything here is systemically fucked
$50,000 to $100,000 per unit
That seems really high, but it is California. Everything costs way more than it needs to in California. My solution was to leave California.
Is it weird that I’m totally not shocked by this
headlinetitle?Edit: even after reading the beef against it.
The fuck is all the pearl clutching in this thread?? It’s clearly a sardonic title. No one is being deceived, get a grip.
Sardon deez nuts
THANK you, a little bit of rationality.
