Hacker News Reader

Comment by twblalock | Hacker News Reader

If there hadn’t been minimum parking requirements in the past, cities would have been forced to develop better transit. These requirements were a direct subsidy to car owners, which most people were not conscious of.

This will be a painful transition for people who depend on the status quo. But you have to pull the band-aid off sometime, and waiting longer won’t make it any better.

View on HN

Considering that “cars owners” in America represent 88%, maybe it’s just an alignment of interests. Maybe alternatives are rejected not because of these subtle systemic issues, but rather because a supermajority of Americans own cars and don’t want the alternatives? Talking about “car owners” like that isn’t synonymous with “most Americans” is a very particular way to frame the issue that makes it seem like a top-down structure when it isn’t.

The problem is, everyone driving and parking a car in dense urban areas is not sustainable past a certain level of density. This results in heavy traffic and a large amount of land dedicated to parking which could be better used as anything else.

This is a top-down structure that was intentionally designed by urban planners after WWII and it is reaching its scalability limit.

It’s a giant country, and despite what people in the Silicon Valley bubble think, there are a lot of cities with a lot of space. This is an insoluble problem if everyone demands acces to a spot in one or two major cities, because that’s where VC money is concentrated. That’s not a problem for most people though, who frankly don’t care about housing problems or traffic problems for techies. They’ll switch over to EV’s, but good luck trying to get them to embrace trains and busses.

The article is about Cincinnati, not Silicon Valley. And clearly there is a problem in Cincinnati or steps to roll back mandatory parking minimums would not have been taken.

Limitations on density are put there by popular demand. Most American's don't want that level of density either. I think they're wrong, but they're the majority.

By their actions, Americans show they want density. Otherwise, why are more Americans moving into big cities than moving out of them? Why do they clog up the freeways by driving to work in the same cities at the same time?

People might say they don't want density, but every current trend is toward more density, because of the actions people are taking.

Someone migrating to a big city generally wants to the last one in the door. People are much more interested in consuming density personally than in in allowing developers to produce more of it.

I own a car, a bike, shoes, and a transit card. Most people where I live have at least 3 of these. Saying that "car owners" are 88% is exactly the kind of superficial statistic that got us to where we are today. How about having an appropriate policy for each area according to local circumstances?

Many of the people I work with own cars but will choose to cycle, walk, or take the bus (researchers who have money and are well educated). Just because they drive frequently, doesn't mean they are doing it to commute to work. They probably don't benefit much from more parking spaces.

The funny thing in Palo Alto is that new buildings near the train station end up with permanently empty parking spaces, thanks to the parking minimum & employees taking the train.

I own two cars, have worked downtown in a major city for the last 7 years and have never driven myself to work in that time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com