What if you ever want to leave the city limits? You're trapped and you're pretending that you're not.
Car owners could (say) use outlying parking towers.
To travel there are buses, trains, aircraft, boats, etc.
Not owning a car is common in many parts of the world.
In case you're being serious, you rent a car or take an Uber. A metropolis might as well be defined by its lack of car ownership.
Even when you're renting or being driven, you go as far as you can via train. (The Metro-North goes to an Appalachian trailhead [1].) It's safer, simpler, cheaper and nobody has the deadweight loss of being unpaid chauffeur.
Not a car that's exclusive to one person though.
You're delibrately overlooking that part and that doesn't reflect well on you.
Straw man. We were debating dedicated parking.
> so you do need a car after all. It's really amusing listening to people from the Bay Area
The Bay Area is car centric--most people have a driver's license. I live in Wyoming and lived in New York. You need a car in Wyoming. You don't in Manhattan. High rises make sense in the latter. They'd be stupid here.
If you're dense enough to make high rises necessary, you're too dense for cars to make sense. Parking for high rises is a dead giveaway the project is being pursued for appearances. (San Francisco's skyscrapers are dominated by commercial buildings that double as advertising.)
Are you claiming that an occasional need for a car dictates that every person needs their own dedicated full time car and that all dwellings need associated parking?
That would be extremely foolish.
You appear to be flopping about in circles here.
Most Seattleites have a driver’s license. Most Manhattanites do not. Residential skyscrapers probably don’t make sense for most of Seattle.