Hacker News Reader

Comment by HWR_14 | Hacker News Reader

Neither of your statements is true. Mixed use developments are extremely popular and are growing, at least in urbanish areas. And NYC famously has them mixed, with restaurants/shops in the bottom and housing on top. A lot of tv shows were filmed around that. Heck, a former president lived in a tower with his name on it where the lowest floors were all ssholping and restaurants

In fact, I'm trying to remember the last proposed development I saw that wasn't mixed use, unless it was a 5 minute walk from a shopping district. Well, except for the suburbs.

View on HN

"Mixed use developments" as I see them in the DC metro region are only a single, limited form of truly mixed development.

Yes, we're building apartment blocks with retail on the ground level.

No, we aren't re-zoning single-family home zones into something else. At least not with any regularity.

No, we aren't dropping minimum parking requirements in favor of market forces.

Yes, we still subsidize driving through "free" on-street parking.

Looking at my neighborhood, I'm about 1.5 miles from the subway and 2 miles from the closet grocer. Not bad by suburban standards, but it sure would be nice to have a market/bodega down the block. But, it can't happen because between me and the grocer is ALL residential. You couldn't buy a corner lot and build a shop if you wanted. At least not without spending mega-$$$ on buying off politicians to update planning maps.

Parking requirements are there to prevent businesses subsidizing themselves by snapping up all the free street parking. Market forces would lead to a tragedy of the commons.

And it doesn't take mega $$$. If your community wants a corner store you can probably get a variance. The reason people say it takes mega $$$ is because they are asking the zoning commission to do some thing unpopular, and bribes cost money. The reason you don't have a corner store is your neighbors don't want it. And who the hell are you to move in and tell them they're wrong?

There are advantages and disadvantages of being in a residential only area.

> Parking requirements are there to prevent businesses subsidizing themselves by snapping up all the free street parking.

This really shouldn't be a suprise, but the "market forces" solution would involve charging for street parking. That works perfectly fine.

> The reason you don't have a corner store is your neighbors don't want it.

You're sort-of right, but the reality is that walkable & dense mixed use neighborhoods are in high demand in North America, that's why they're so filthy expensive. Ultimately, this needs to get handled by local politics. People need to be able to talk about what they want their spaces to look like and go out and vote.

> but the "market forces" solution would involve charging for street parking

Street parking isn't governed by market forces. At least how most people use them. I've rarely heard "market forces" used to refer to monopolies or government services that can operate with a subsidy.

And who the hell are you to move in and tell them they're wrong?

I somebody who paid for his house, pays his taxes, and votes, just like everybody else. I'm well within my rights to advocate for urban planning that meets my needs and desires.

Neighborhoods aren't static and there's ample evidence that current planning models are broken.

As for parking, consumers of the parking should be paying for it directly. "Free" street parking is not free and takes up considerable space. Parking minimums for many building types require an excess of parking that leaves vast asphalt pads empty most of the time.

Yes, if you can convince your neighbors to change zoning laws, you should. I thought I was pretty clear about that. But the reason it takes a lot of money is because it's unpopular.

Parking is either on street (and therefore a subsidy to the business) or in parking lots. Either parking minimums or street parking requires vast asphalt pads empty most of the time, because you have to account for peak capacity.

Current local parking example is a new apartment block - ~500 units, ~800 spaces required, developer thinks ~600 is enough because the building is adjacent to a subway stop and across the street from a massive mixed development. This is an area with almost zero on-street parking - there's no risk of tragedy of the commons here because there's no street parking to "steal".

Why is the county requiring more parking than the market value? The developer has no incentive to under-build parking - nobody would rent in the building if there wasn't enough parking available.

Edit - Des Moines has 19.4 parking spaces per household. Seattle has >5 per household. Other stats about parking density in the article...

https://www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-...

> The developer has no incentive to under-build parking - nobody would rent in the building if there wasn't enough parking available.

The very existence of slums/slumlords suggests that selling substandard housing to desperate people suggests both that there are people willing to accept substandard housing and that it is profitable. If it can work with rat and mold infestations, etc, it can work with an uncomfortably small amount of parking.

I have no idea what the right amount is, but I certainly don't believe your reasoning provides more information.

Your "the suburbs" dismisses most small cities and large towns in the US.

I mean, it holds true in small cities I've seen too. As for towns with tons of space, they'll probably spread out. You need a certainly density to support a mixed use development, and people who decide to live in lower density areas are making a choice to trade certain advantages (job density, walkability) for living space and/or lawns. So they're not going to opt into mixed use living.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com