“It’s not like the government is forcing you to buy a car!”
If you live in a city with parking minimums, yes they fucking are.
One of the funniest things about American car culture is that Americans probably walk the same distance from their parking spot to the store as I walk from my home.
And they’re walking in car infrastructure. Some of the most unpleasant, not made for humans places, not to mention dangerous. Compared to walking in what a city should feel like.
AI slop graphic.
Actually you’re right. Didn’t see that at first.
It still conveys the point pretty effectively regardless
Yeah, I didn’t notice right away, but even after I did, I still think it gets the point across pretty clearly.
I’d probably want it to be human-drawn if it was going to be, for instance, posted up physically outside somewhere, but for something some random person on the internet can do to get a point across, I’d say it’s pretty valid for what it is.
I wonder how accurate it is though.
Something answered by urban planning research papers. Need to read up on them myself.
As a European, this is the first time I ever heard about parking minimums. What a horrible concept.
From Germany: huh? Quite common around here and I am sure in other european countries as well, despite having different city building concepts than the US. Lately it is slowly being replaced by bike infrastructure demands (and there was always the public transport demands), but it still exists.
I’m from Germany too. Is it really?! I had never heard of that. It can’t be a thing inside cities though, can it? I honestly can’t even think of a place where it would make any sense. Surely shops that are located outside dense urban areas would try to make sure they have enough parking space anyway.
It is naturally very complicated in Germany, it is Germany after all. Some Bundesländer have globale Vorgaben, others leave it to the Kommunen. But it is normally part of a Bebauungsplan, also in cities. It is oftentimes a flexible concept though. Here a little start into the toppic.
Yes it’s true. Where I live there is even parking space allocated for storage space. For each 100m² one parking space. Which is truly a ridiculous requirement.
This is most likely for businesses, not sure about your exact communal regulations, but it should really be something like 1 per 100m² or 1 per 3 employees. Not that ridiculous. There’s also minimum bicycle parking requirements BTW.
here in sweden from what i can understand we don’t have parking minimums as such, but we have recommendations for how much parking you should have for cars and bikes, which developers generally follow since that means they can just point to the recommendations if someone complains.
however this also means that they don’t generally have more parking unless they actually see a need for it.
Yeah, no, as I read it, you do have some kind of parking minimum regulations, not just recommendations, developers are not free to do whatever they please.
i never said developers are free to do whatever they please, don’t put words in my mouth.
What i said is that we don’t have strict regulations on exactly what parking you have to build, we have guidelines that are generally to be followed. I was just incorrect about how precisely that works.
According to https://www.boverket.se/sv/pbl-kunskapsbanken/teman/parkering_hallbarhet/pbl/lag it’s a bit stricter than i thought, but the law specifically uses the word “skälig” a lot so as to leave things flexible depending on the precise circumstances.You have to provide a reasonable amount of parking, which by default is specified in the municipal guideline, but there are clearly places here that have very little or even outright no parking so it’s not an absolute minimum. If you can show that your development is designed so people can live without a car then that will most likely be approved.
A while back i saw an apartment listing that specifically noted that there is no parking available for you to rent if you get the apartment, and indeed there are like 6 parking spaces next to the building which contains more in the range of 20 apartments. And this is not some old grandfathered-in thing, this is a fresh new building from like… 2016 or something?If i build a housing complex with a minimum parking rate of, say 0.6 slots per appartment, the people who buy or rent late may end up not having any parking available in the complex. That’s how it goes, but there’d still be minimum parking regulation in place, even if there are no more slots available. That regulation should be reasonable, situational and try to reflect the actual or planned reality, is what one should demand from regulators. Regulating minimum parking requirements is not necessarily a bad thing and it is also being done all around Europe, even if people don’t know about it.
Is it really a horrible concept per se, or do people in reality have cars and need to park them somewher, even in Europe?
If the business chooses to accommodate cars, that should be up to them and to do so at whatever level they feel is optimal. A government mandated requirement only forces it on them without then being able to consider what’s best for their business. Some businesses would do better with no parking, or just less parking. They’re still required to pay for the land to sit empty just because the government forced them to. How is that a reasonable concept?
The problem with this line of thought is that oftentimes cars then will just be parked wildly (or on adjacent areas) and that can lead to large problems. A traffic concept is almost always a basic neccesity. I agree that this must not necessarily be a car optimized one (and in these times probably shouldn’t be).
But leaving it to the business owners is a road to utter chaos and will in most cases lead to very unpleasant and potentially dangerous situations. Also keep in mind that if the public hand takes care of the resulting problems this will come out of tax money and thus will cofinance the business owners profits, taking it from the general public. This is also oftentimes not desirable (unless you are a business owner).
While that does seem to make sense, in my opinion it really just gives people more incentive to use a car. If you ban wild parking completely, that might be a different story. But just creating more and more space for cars is not going to solve the problem. The problem is that there are too many cars in the first place.
You mean if wild parking was banned completely, it would be a different story if you’d still need regulation in those places. There i’d agree. But in general street parking is not banned in Germany, and illegal street parking is widely tolerated by lots of communes. Where i live the street parking capacity is being used at around 150-200% lol (numbers from a few years ago).
As I said before, different concepts are possible. Nowadays e.g. the trend in Germany goes towards central parking (Quartiersgarage) and an otherwise completly car free neighbourhood (the central parking then gets financed over the plots), combined with public transport and bikeways. Even less car-friendly concepts are possible. But you defintly need a concept. Just “let the plot owners decide themselves” will almost always lead to desaster.
huh? if there’s no parking you don’t get to park, not having parking doesn’t lead to chaos what are you on about?
In our city we have shops without parking. People do defintly park where there is no parking, blocking everything wildly. I personally had a car crash into me, because of the resulting chaos (the driver backed up without looking). This is quite common in places without a sound transportation concept (as said above, the concept does not necessarily have to be, and imo shouldn’t be, car focused). Yes, the driver is responsible, but as a city planer this is something that has to be considered unconditionally. (I might also add that I work in public infrastructure planning, though not roadways, but I have meetings with those guys quite often.)
I did not claim that every parking regulation anywhere is reasonable and good.
Yes it is. If you’re travelling by car, go to places that accomodate cars.
Don’t expect all places to accomodate cars. If you want to go to place with no parking, use other means of transport.
You know, it does not need to be a one size fits all regulation, and at least where I live it isn’t. You get all kinds of exceptions for lowering the amount, like how good is the object connected to public transit, you can swap car parking for additional bicycle parking etc the actual location plays a big role in how much car parking is required in the first place.
The regulators rightfully expect a certain amount of people having cars and place the burden of finding the space and money for it on the developer.
people in reality have cars and need to park them somewher
I’ve seen a number of denser developments start burying their parking lots, or stacking them on the roofs. You get denser (and conceivably more walkable) neighborhoods when places are built up this way. But it also drives up the cost of development and is only viable where real estate costs are astronomical. Then you’ve still got these six-to-eight lane Stroads intersecting the city blocks, with relatively little pedestrian infrastructure for crossing safely.
So if I live in a (atrociously overpriced) condo directly next door to a Whole Foods, you’re still stuck hustling across enormous expanses of asphalt in order to make a simple grocery run.
Compare that to a dense urban neighborhood I lived in for a few months in Leeds. Walk downstairs, cross a simple cobbled two lane street, pop into a small grocery / sandwich shop combo, grab lunch plus essentials, then pop home inside 20 minutes. No risk to life or limb and I didn’t even need a bike, much less a car.
You can find spots like this all over Italy, France, and Spain as well. Probably common to the Eastern Bloc, too. I’ve just never been. But the idea that people “need cars” is more predicated on the fact that we’ve created these oceans of asphalt and concrete in the states which are uncross-able without one.
I’ve thought for a while we need to start banning cars in downtown areas. We can use parking structures at the edge to store cars. When you need to take a road trip you just include the mass transit time to your parking structure. With large enough areas designated POV free, and restrictions on commercial vehicles we can reduce road usage to the point of bringing back open air markets and having everything a city dweller needs without leaving the car free area on a daily basis.
@Maggoty @UnderpantsWeevil Melbourne is slowly on it’s journey to banning cars in the CBD. I wish we’d do it with a timeline with less decades in it, but each step towards it is good.
So far 2 of 21 pieces of street have been made car free.
That’s awesome!
The same people who have “emotional support animals” and dick-nosed through mask mandates (if they even wore one) will shop around for doctors who will give them a bogus handicap placard. I guarantee it.
Aren’t those people already doing that though? and they can take mass transit to their car the same as you or me.
This subthread is about europe, people in Europe still have cars that are being parked somewhere. And the number is growing, not shrinking. Seems like this is an unpopular “opinion” to have here though lol.
the number is growing, not shrinking
EU car sales at 3-year low in August, EV sales plunge 44%
From just last month.
Cars are extraordinarily expensive to purchase and maintain. As the European domestic economy struggles under a host of economic headwinds, individuals are finding it more difficult to buy new cars or repair existing ones. This has been complicated by spiking the price of cheaper imports with high tariffs. Also, by the poor funding for domestic infrastructure in Austerity-focused European governments.
Ok, well maybe this year we finally see a downturn for real, there were dips during covid as well, but in general there was still growth, and growth being expected. I would welcome it, that would be great!
But when a developer in my neighbourhood develops new housing, on a previously industrial barren area, they need to build parking space for their expected demand, because there is no space for cars left elsewhere, and people buying appartments usually do have (money for) cars. The fact that there is now a free parking lot wherever the people who move here moved away from, does not help the situation here.
I would guess that the rate right where i live would end up at around 0.6 slots per appartment (including appartments for families with 2-3 kids), as a regulatory requirement. To me this seems to be reasonable regulation, although it is most likely too low for the actual demand, at least if the appartments are being sold. Of course it will be underound parking in a dense area like this.
or do people in reality have cars and need to park them somewher
-
Why not let the business decide how much parking to have then? Surely they know the needs of their customer base better than the city. Even as an anti-capitalist anti-free-market socialist, parking minimums seem like an extreme government overreach. You can still have parking without mandating a parking minimum.
-
Why are you working with the base assumption that people have to drive? If you can’t park somewhere, maybe that place should be set up with good alternatives so people don’t have to drive there in the first place, i.e. good sidewalks, protected bike lanes, frequent public transit. Humans are surprisingly space efficient when they’re not in huge metal cages.
To 1: Where do you have the parking then, without the mandated parking minimum? On the street? Second row in the street? On the little piece of green that is there? On the sidewalk? In the bicycle lane? On the neighbours parking lot? Let’s assume the business wants to provide and pay for parking in good faith, with the minimal reasonable amount of parking for the demand: That should be the number of parking space you are looking at if your municipality sets a reasonable parking minimum! The municipality has no interested in letting developers build some crap that will not work or be an unbearable burden to the neighbourhood. These regulations also incorporate necessary bicycle parking, which i think may become a hotter issue where i live, because the demand is currently absolutely not there in the numbers that some municipalities require, miles away really. But if the municipality has the interest to push the means of transport in that direction, regulating these kinds of things is a way to do that.
To 2: I am not working with that assumption. I am working with the fact that people do have cars and do drive, not all of them, but it’s not a number to just brush under the carpet. If you have a reasonable minimum parking mandate all these alternatives you mention should play a role in what the number actually looks like. Let’s make a quick calculation how it would look like where i live for a business that has “ridiculous” minimum parking requirements (1 slot per 100 m² of storage space), as some other user here deemed. A storage space.
They have 30 employees and 10000 m² of storage space. The minimum car parking required is 1 slot per 100 m² of storage space. 100 parking slots, that is ridiculous! Oh wait, it is 1 slot per 100 m² or 1 slot per 3 employees. 10 parking slots, not that ridiculous anymore. Depending on how well the storage space is connected to public transit you can reduce the parking minimum up to 30%. Let’s say it is not very well connected, just a bus. You claim 10% off. 9 slots. Tell me this is not reasonable, if 78% of households here own at least one car. You can get more reductions if you build extra bicycle parking (bicycle parking would also already be at ten slots already btw), you can buy yourself out of the need to some degree, or have other kinds of ideas (but the municipality has to go along of course).
That would be a parking minimum calculation for a bland situation, where nothing special is going on, just some shitty public transit nearby, a place where you would build a storage space i guess. And my conservative guess would be that at least double the amount of employees will arrive by car, so the business gets to push half of their actual demand into the public space, for which you now pay for and get to look at when you stroll down the sidewalk.
The closer you get to something like “downtown”, the lower the base number for your calculations will become, because it will be more feasible for people to walk, cycle places, public transit is better too, the idea is to have reasonable regulation that tries to reflect (planned) reality.
-
As someone who owns a car and is married to a handicapped person, I’m pretty happy about parking minimums where I live.
It’s not just oppression against “other forms of transport;” it’s literally classist and (to the extent that race corresponds to class, which is a lot and on purpose) racist. A lot of these zoning laws about minimum parking requirements and minimum lot sizes date back to a time when United States government policy was explicitly designed to perpetuate segregation, and forcing every new parcel and development to be large and expensive enough to be unaffordable to most black people (because they were, and still are, poorer on average because of other institutional racism) was a part of that.
lets not forget its also oppression against people with disabilities since they are significantly more likely to use public transport and pedestrian infrastructure.
I was reading about a study that showed how much the climate temperature would rise if every house had solar panels on their roof. I then immediately thought, hey now, what if we had less asphalt everywhere, would that not affect overall temperatures as well?
What was the conclusion? Asphalt shingles and slate shingles are already dark, so I’d imagine it would impact covered lighter roofing more.
You have a good point there. The study was done using simulation models, so I should look into what they took into account and maybe who funded the study. You can read it here
Just to be really clear, too, they’re looking at local effects (they say “urban microclimate”), not overall climate.
Thanks!
I live in a country with a propensity for dark cement tiles, i really doubt panels are causing an uptick in heat
I live in a country with a propensity for dark cement tiles, i really doubt panels are causing an uptick in heat
Of course they are (having an effect) why wouldn’t they?
Any change in albedo modifies how much radiation is absorbed and emitted and the wavelengths it’s emitted at.
Sure one tile doesn’t do much but it does do something by a measurable degree. Even if tiny, it’s still quantifiable.
So you’re telling me if I have a house that’s entirely covered in dark cement tiles but put solar panels up my microclimate temperature would rise?
If anything I’d expect it to be cooler as solar panels also reflect a lot of light
Cities for example have their own microclimate partially because of the change in albedo.
You’re literally talking about something that is well known well documented and well understood and has been for decades.
If you change the albedo of a surface that surface changes it’s absorption of solar radiation. That surface will be warmer or cooler in the Sun. As a fundamental concept (ignoring more exotic materials and concepts). This means that that surface contributes or detracts from the climate in various ways.
I don’t know what’s so difficult about this :/
If you cover the entire country of Australia with black tiles do you really expect that there would be absolutely no change or difference than if you cover the entire country of Australia with white tiles?
Are you actually reading what i am saying?
I mocked the impact of solar panels on “heating the planet” compared to the sheer amount of dark roofing surfaces in my country. It’s a fair call.
The albedo of a solar panel is around 0.1 (90% absorption) BUT not all the sunlight energy absorbed by a panel is converted into heat. Call it 20% efficiency, 10% reflection, 70% left to end up as heat. That’s less than grass or bare soil.
What is the albedo of a black cement roofing tile?
What effect on the surrounding microclimate will having solar panels overshadow these tiles have?
deleted by creator
The horrible AI slop looks so bad if you look at it for longer than a second. Do better yall.
Thing is: you don’t need to look at it longer than a second to understand what is meant to be conveyed. So no, goal achieved, good use of resources instead of overspending on one useless metric (=making it realistic)
@Wrufieotnak @hobovision stock images would have worked fine. Or google earth.
I doubt the AI is getting the proportions right. And none of these look like actual places even for one second
Love how confused it gets with drawing parking spots
I adore how they use mopeds and scooters in Asia
Yeah I love the smell and sound of a million mopeds. Taiwan is known for its urban serenity.
mopeds aren’t the problem, the problem is that they don’t have enough public transport to handle the sheer absurd amount of people wanting to get places.
imagine how these countries would look if everyone drove a car instead of a moped, society would literally fail because no one would be able to get anywhere
As you point out, they’re not the solution either.
no? but they’re hilariously much better than cars
And what about the smell and sound of cars?
Not as bad from my perception. Though I’m not arguing in favour of cars. I just think mopeds are a strange mobility option to adore. Good public transportation + cycling infrastructure is much more adorable. In the Netherlands, the mopeds are a menace to the safety, quiet, and air quality in cities.
For real, a. E-assist bike seems like it solves most of the same problems a moped does, but much more elegantly.
Yes it’s very safe
All I’m getting from this picture is that the biggest danger to scooter riders is in fact cars.
maybe, but scooter drivers are going to lose unfortunately.
It wouldn’t be as much a problem if there we dedicted lanes for mopeds and other similarly sized vehicles.
Those lots are horribly inefficient, aisle-less parking would make more sense for businesses of that size
They may be horribly ineffecient but that seems to be the standard design. Plus compared to pretty much any other land use, even the most optimized surface level parking lot is an ineffecient use of land.
I hate car dependence too but when I see things like this I wonder what your solution is for people like me who can’t really walk much.
Having big parking lots for people to walk across has the same problem. If you can’t walk far it’s better to have density so you don’t have to walk as far.
Handicap parking spots already solve that problem though
Not everyone who can’t really walk much qualify for handicapped status. The majority don’t. The elderly as just one example.
Additionally, on-street parking gets you even closer to where you want to go. In fact, if more people who can walk did walk, it would make it even easier for people who can’t who won’t have as much competition for good parking spots.
I don’t see any comment asking to remove all cars from the roads. Only that viable alternatives to driving be made possible by sensible zoning instead of building everything solely to cater to cars.
What would your solution for a blind peron be in this car dependant world? Having multiple transportation options is the most fair system. Right now in many places the car is the only option.
Would accessibility be a solution here? I am speaking about public transport that has dedicated spaces for wheelchairs, has ramps to get on and off etc., as well as sidewalks that are accesibil by wheelchairs, with a smith surface and ramps to get on and off to. Maybe combine that with lifts to access pedestrian subways and overbrides.
Possibly it could also mean the ability to rent, best case for free and at a place reachable by public transport with very little or no walking, a wheelchair or a simiiular solution that let’s one drive rather then walk.
I’m just thinking loud, but maybe such solutions should be considered in every walkable city.
Would it work for you to drive to a larger parking garage (or even better, use public transport to a larger subway or bus station) and then use some form of battery operated micro-transport type vehicle fit for your type of limitation to move around the sidewalks/bike lanes in what can then be a more compact city center?
uhh, mobility scooters and wheelchairs? i’m a bit confused as to how this isn’t really easy to answer
You’re not wrong in the long term. But in the short term, people will park anywhere possible close to the shop, blocking everywhere near with cars.
@Username @HiddenLayer555 no, the store will just have local customers. And yes there are plenty of those when you can replace the carpark with apartments.
Parking tickets
complete bullshit, but even IF drivers were so fucking brain dead, irresponsible, and incapable of being civil, the solution is not to cede to their entirely unreasonable demand that they be allowed to go to some of the most densest places on earth with a fucking couch 2 arm chairs, big chest for all their loot and a whole ass climate control system, if they cant behave they simply shouldn’t have licenses.
Urban fabric is when everything’s a building, meaning you can’t go anywhere unless they’ve got the door open for you.
“Dark urban alleyways are the scariest parts of a city”, I say as I dart across twelve lanes of traffic on foot.
Are you proposing a society where we never leave our cars and every business is a drive thru? Even if you drive to a wal mart today, they still have to have the door open for you to shop there.
And our current urban fabric is everything is a road, you can’t go anywhere unless you drive a car. Can’t afford a car? Too young to drive? Have a health condition that prevents you from driving? Want to choose a car free life? Too bad.
what the fuck were u even attempting to say
sorry what? I can’t understand what you’re trying to say about the door part
In this thread: A lot of misconceptions and more than a few poorly thought out comments.
Also in this thread: Identifying the need to restructure the current standard before car usage can be realistically reduced by large amounts.
Also in this thread: Identifying the need to restructure the current standard before car usage can be realistically reduced by large amounts.
The best way to reduce car use is to create an environment where driving isn’t the default (or only) way to get around.
deleted by creator
“No parking required”, with 2 cars parked in front of the building. 😂
Places without off-street parking mandates still usually have on-street and even off-street parking
I work in planning. We removed parking requirements in our downtown districts and a bunch of companies came in to buy the old abandoned buildings and expanded them into the old parking areas.
Every single retail business that moved in over the following 3 years failed because there wasn’t anywhere for the customers to park. They just went to businesses that had parking avaialbe.
Well you failed your job then, after removing minimum parking requirements you need to add in public transport, make streets walkable and cyclable, you need to induce the kind of traffic that helps build foot traffic, that way the businesses grow naturally around foot traffic.
You got a spare billion dollars for a city with an annual budget of 50 million?
Edit: And my job is to implement the vision of elected leaders as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. We handle the details, but direction is provided by Council.
If your city is only designed for drivers, it’s no surprise that people will want to drive places. When you remove parking minimums, you also need to prioritize transit and micromobility accessibility, so people are actually incentivized to switch modes. Cities can and are making this shift successfully: here’s one example.
Yes. Let’s spend multiple times our annual city budget to force people to walk in 100-degree heat 4 months out of the year to visit a local restaurant or wait 20 minutes for a shuttle.
They definitely won’t choose to go to the next town over where they can park 50 feet from the door of their destination, and our entire staff definitely won’t be let go in the blowback.
Depending less on car infrastructure will save more tax money long term. Eliminating parking minimums and building denser developments often increases city tax revenue, turns out parking lots don’t generate a lot of taxable revenue, meanwhile more business space does.
Not empty businesses.
And local governments can only develop with the money they have on hand without a bond, and good luck passing a bond that removes parking, increases taxes, and, in the eye of the voters, invites “undesirables.”
Turns out our money is currently being used for things like keeping water flowing, toilets flushing, libraries open, and other civil projects.
We can make a developer build parking through Zoning codes. We can’t make them build public infrastructure that isn’t directly required for their project.
If we can make a devloper build parking, we can make them build transit stops. The car is not the only thing we can force developers to accomadate.
You can’t just decide what’s legal and what isn’t.
A public transit stop serves more than just the property in question, making it a public project and not a private development. We can’t make private developers pay for public projects. It’s illegal.
Whereas a private parking lot is specifically for that exact development, so it can be mandated.
Planning isn’t a videogame where the perfect solution is achievable. We have to work within the confines of the existing legislative and legal environment.
The city could at least communicate with the development plans and purchase the required land for public stops. The city could mandate certain developments require this kind of transit inclusion to the planning process. The city can also mandate for denser zoning around major transit corridors.
The college I went to maintained a roundabout for buses. The college had to fully cover the costs of pavement maintaince and snow removal. It seemed worth it since tons of their students were arriving by bus, because it delivered them to the center of campus.
@chiliedogg @PhoenixAlpha did a car write this?
Seriously, its like you’ve never played Sim City or Cities Skylines. If you are going to rezone or redesign districts and remove parking then you need to, like everyone else is saying, maximize public transit and walkability. Without doing that you are just creating an urban desert.
The actual day to day job of a planner is closer to Papers Please. 80% of my time is spent reviewing meeting with, reviewing plans of, or writing stag reports about private developments.
In fact, we’re so busy dealing with fights over fence height, pool lighting, and screening of HVAC equipment that most cities outsource their Comp Plan development to third party companies that specialize in it.
You gonna pay for it? Our city’s entire annual budget wouldn’t even begin to pay for that.
That’s where parking requirements come from.
If you already have existing transit it likely wouldn’t cost an exreme amount to add a couple stops. If your city doesn’t have any transit then someone should plan some.
Once again, who is gonna pay?
The city can’t afford it without a bond, and voters will never approve an increase in taxes to remove parking and install transit that will increase local (e.g. Voter) commute times and invite the “undesirable elements” from the city they fled to the suburbs to avoid.
We can’t legally force developers to build public infrastructure that isn’t directly required due to their individual business (e.g. traffic signal or wastewater line extension).
Know what we can do? Force developers to build parking for their business through zoning ordinances with minimum parking requirements based on use. So a restaurant needs more parking spaces per square foot than an office building, which needs more than a warehouse.
Most cities cannot afford their extisting road infrastructure maintaince. Once built transit systems and walkability are far cheaper to maintain.
Great.
Your still haven’t offered a solution for how to pay for it.
Our roads are 30 years behind on maintenance, but we can patch them here and there and do one out two major projects a year. And when a street collapses it’s relatively easy to get a bond to fix it because the citizens want their roads back.
We can’t patchwork a public transit system, and the citizens are overwhelmingly against it anyway. We tried buying a single bus to shuttle people around and we had a new city manager following that backlash.
Planners aren’t kings. We’re public servants subject to the will of Council, which is made up of people who represent voters, who overwhelmingly don’t want more density, new people, etc. We have pretty much zero input on the direction of the city.
Shit… we spend way more time reviewing swimming pools for code compliance than actually developing plans. When it does come time to do a new comp plan or transportation study, almost every city outsources that to a third party company.
We pay for it by redeveloping massive multi lane roads into multi transit corridors when their major repair/resurfacing work is due. A few places have used this strategy to redevelop car centric areas into areas with better transit and pedestrian accesses.
Probably would be better off with relatively minor adjustments to overarching standards over time, much akin to parking requirements, but probably that would look more like parking-protected bike lanes downtown, mixed-use zoning, making missing middle housing more available by getting rid of lots of zoning requirements on housing, or, like japan, making them much more comprehensive. None of that costs you anything economically. Parking protected bike lanes just require paint, and you can do that when you need to repave and repaint the main high traffic roads downtown. Eventually you may be able to justify an upgrade to a totally separated bike lane, or you might be able to justify shutting down main street to through traffic and routing things around.
Then you don’t really have to shell out for anything in terms of city transit, you’re just changing some regulations around, and people can walk or bike 2 to 3 minutes to the grocery store on their street corner, from their apartment, which is above a pizza place or whatever the fuck. Bike 3 minutes from the edge of downtown in their rowhome into main downtown where they can pick up groceries. Those people can also have jobs and be economically productive with the higher job density that such a development provides, and this all provides a much healthier and more stable tax base for the city since the utilities cost per person and per business is going to be much less. Course, you’re not gonna get heavy industry like that, but I haven’t really cooked up a solid approach to that sort of commute to a factory or industrial district that doesn’t involve a bus or passenger rail line that just heads straight there, like the USSR did.
The more significant problem with this isn’t so much that it’s some sort of like, totally impossible thing, it’s that any city doing that shit will probably be overrun by a shit ton of annoying gentrifiers, which is a harder problem to solve.
I feel like it’s pretty obvious that the main problem here is with the local NIMBY voters which might not like such a thing, and a significant lack of federal funding. There isn’t really a solid argument against any of the fundamental and somewhat universal planning principles which increase density, walkability, public accessibility, economic efficiency and productivity.
Dude, that’s not gonna happen. As you said, it’s the voters who are the “problem.” Our City Council straight-up banned rezoning any districts to multifamily or 2-family. We have a mixed-use district in the code because we’re required to, but it must be on a plot of land of at least 50 acres along a state highway. The largest single tract of land in the city is 15 acres, and it’s not on a state highway.
We also have a minimum lot size of 1 acre and minimum street frontage for a single-family lot of 150 feet for all newly-platted lots. The citizens super duper don’t want the poor moving in.
But you also have to look at it from a different perspective. Many of these suburban towns are made up of people who actively chose to live a less-urban lifestyle, and as the sprawl approaches them they get very, very hostile. They don’t want new people or more affordable housing. They bought their houses 15 years ago when they cost 80 grand. Now people are buying those same houses for a million dollars and tearing them down to build a 7-million dollar house.
@chiliedogg @daltotron Yes, they have swallowed a lot of lies. A lot needs to change.
