Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.
So eliminating parking minimums by themselves will create nasty side effects.
But of course the correct answer to tragedy of the commons is pricing -- price the street parking appropriately and it won't be abused so you won't need worse solutions like parking minimums.
Just a note - the parking minimums that are set themselves don’t necessarily correspond to the number of units built in the best way. So by artificially setting them you can windup with, as often seems the case, an oversupply of parking or in more rare cases an undersupply.
But in addition to pricing street parking more appropriately, and some cities are doing so, shifting the load on to the common spaces is kind of what you want to see as a transit user because if it continues to be set at a minimum you just wind up building more parking lots, highways, and cars. But if “the market” decides the market can actually signal to government entities that we do indeed need and want more options.
Like you actually want to see new apartments in urban cores built without parking garages. Theoretically (and perhaps in practice) these new developments should also be cheaper and less theoretically they give sidewalks and bus routes and tram routes more users and thus more funding and support. That then alleviates pressure on existing highways and everybody wins except the obnoxious highway lobby and the revolving door that it operates with existing state departments of highways.
Or just do what the Japanese do - remove unlimited (and overnight) on-street parking in urban areas and require anyone owning a car to prove they have a private parking spot to house it
That would be a good idea, but one of the main impediments is the fact that heavy regulations make underground concrete structures (and hence underground parking lots) very expensive, a lot more than in Europe or Asia, where it's often economical for even 3-5 story residential buildings to have underground parking space. That's the reason why developers push for on-street parking.
Most of Japan doesn't have excellent public transport.
Car ownership is less common in most of the places in Japan with excellent public transport.
But I do like that each car legally requires its own parking spot. It is tricky to go to people's homes, because often extra parking is extremely limited or non-existent. It requires specific planning.
Price parking appropriately and make people pay for it. If land is cheap, parking is cheap, so not a big deal. If land is expensive, then no freeloading on the streets, which can be put to better use anyways (sidewalks, bike lanes, outdoor cafes etc...)
The car registration and gas taxes don't even pay for a quarter of all road-infrastructure-related costs. It boggles the mind to see free street parking in places like NYC, where a more reasonable cost structure would be something like other cities around the world (and Canada) do: divide the territory in parking districts. Locals can buy a discounted annual pass for the district where their main residence is located (should not cost less than $400/month in a place like Manhattan), while elsewhere the rate should be at least $10-12/hour.
> probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island
So Manhattan or the San Francisco Peninsula?
I suspect the refusal to kowtow to car owners and the density are interrelated. Tokyo is more dense, in (small?) part, because there is far less space consumed by inanimate appliances.
No, it's in very, very large part due to this. You can see it not just walking around, but especially when you go up in one of the tall buildings or in SkyTree tower and look at the city from above: you can't see any parking lots anywhere, and most of the roads are pretty small (there's some large boulevards, but not that many). Compare to any American city that was built up after the rise of the automobile and it's staggering how much space is wasted on cars in those cities.
And those cost money. That is the crux here. Free parking is frankly insane. It became untenable in Amsterdam as early as the 1960s when most people could afford a car.
If you want trees, a sidewalk and bike lanes something has got to give.
> Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.
Another way of looking at it: parking minimums require developers to encroach upon a commons, that commons being land that could otherwise be used for more productive things than free parking.
Of course it is — unproductive land use creates negative externalities that affect the entire surrounding community. It's like saying "a factory dumping waste into a river doesn't pollute the commons if the river runs through their property".
The article explains this well:
> The office, filled with workers and transactions, generates far more in economic activity and value creation than its land value and, therefore, rises the highest. The apartment, where dozens of residents live, stands nearly as high. The rowhomes add steady, smaller value. But the parking lot does something different. It dips below the surface, shown as a red bar sinking into the ground.
> Why below ground? Because in economic terms, a parking lot doesn’t simply fail to add value; it actively subtracts value. Every year it sits idle, it consumes some of the most valuable land in the city.
> When valuable downtown land lies idle, it blocks the housing, jobs, and amenities that could exist there. The costs ripple outward: higher rents, longer commutes, fewer opportunities nearby. What could have been a productive part of the community instead becomes a hole in its fabric.
The LVT focus on profit above all else is why it is an unsatisfactory solution.
If the most important goal for every plot of land is to maximize its economic activity & tax revenue, that's going to be a miserable place to live.
All of the space uses that make a town nice to live in, are also underutilizing the land if the sole goal is to maximize economic activity.
Open space with native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, sports fields of all kinds like soccer fields, community pools, hiking trails.. all of that is wasted land if viewed through the lens of LVT maximization. All that space should be crammed full of high rise offices and apartments.
LVTs focus is on maximizing land value, not profit. It just so happens that when a landowner maximizes the value a piece of their land provides, higher profits are almost guaranteed.
It's also a bit of a mistake to view LVT solely through an economic lense. Sure, we quantify it through a dollar amount or a difference in profits, but the value in LVT comes from how individuals value the land as a whole. So you are absolutely correct that a place without native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, etc. is going to be valued less than a place with those amenities by a lot of people. But only if people value greenspace and amenities more than pure economic output, which is mostly the case when it comes to residential spaces.
If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace. Instead of would (likely) be to densify housing, or convert existing buildings to mixed-use spaces.
> If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace.
This is where I believe LVT breaks down when faced with greedy reality.
In a perfect world, I totally agree with the above. That would be pretty awesome.
Could that ever happen in the real world of greedy corrupt politicians who never look further in time than the next election?
How do we assign monetary value to pleasant and beautiful things that provide quality of life? Like the parks and playgrounds and sports fields, etc etc. I'm sure there are studies, but the numbers are not as clear-cut and not as immediate as tax revenue this quarter, so they get ignored.
Each individual lot gets evaluated in isolation and the most profitable choice, individually, is to maximize revenue on that lot, so every lot ends up being a high rise concrete box, either offices or apartments. It would take a very brave politician to say let's look at the big picture long term, sacrifice some tax revenue today and build for a better quality of life because long term that will raise values more.
LVT is uncommon so a lot of it is argued in theory, but I suggest looking at a somewhat similar decision process happening in cities today, which relates to the homeless.
How are cities reacting to homeless? They fence off all the open green space and parks, rip out benches and bus stop roofs, eliminate all public bathrooms and so on. Making the area miserabe for everyone, destroying quality of life. Oh but it is difficult to measure quality of life, so they don't.
It would be much wiser for society as a whole to attend to the homeless and let us all have the open parks and benches and bathrooms, city life would be far more pleasant and long term also more profitable if cities can thrive instead of decay.
But that's not how politicians think or act, so I'm fairly sure it would be the same with LVT.
Well I can't speak to the notion of corrupt politicians, but it's worth noting that if it's in the interests of the landowners, then they'd likely fight to keep anything that they feel would keep their value high. And especially if they started developing/investing in their land to maximize the potential return of the land. Anecdotally, I've seen individual homeowners stir up enough support in my major Canadian city to stop city councils from starting somewhat major development projects, so I don't think that it'd be as inevitable as you're making it out to be.
It's also a mistake to say that a lot of land gets evaluated in isolation, because that's not even true with a the current property tax. You absolutely factor in the surrounding community and external factors when valuing a piece of land. Land in a downtown area is going to be inherently worth more than land on the periphery of a city due to the activity and potential of the land to generate economic activity.
To your point though, would you say that an apartment building next to a park (or even within several blocks of a park) is worth more than an apartment building with no park in proximity? I think most people would as well, therefore the apartment building with the park in proximity would have a higher value (which would extend to all land in proximity of the park), and thus the local government would be able to collect a higher tax dollar amount because of the park being there. Whereas maybe they could get a similar total amount by building another building, but why would a local government purposefully lower the amount of tax they'd collect on each plot of land? It's in the interest of the local government to maximize the value of the land within their jurisdiction to collect the highest amount of tax possible. Just like it's in the landowners interest to develop and invest in their land to get the highest return on their investment possible.
Re: homelessness, it would seem to me like a large group of people without housing would benefit from a system that incentivizes building more housing. Which LVT does. It would also encourage public spaces to be as ammenible as possible, so that the park is as appealing as possible in order to maximize the value for surrounding lots of land. At this point though we're talking second or even third order effects of LVT, which like you mentioned aren't super clear or even assured because LVT mostly remains in the theoretical. But if we have a sound theory, at this point why not try it and see what happens? Our current systems are very clearly failing us, so if we have ideas with sound reasoning, can things really get so much worse than they already are?
> It's also a mistake to say that a lot of land gets evaluated in isolation, because that's not even true with a the current property tax.
Sorry, my sentence may have been confusingly worded. I don't mean for tax computation (which certainly uses neighborhood comparables), but I mean that every lot owner will evaluate the maximum profit for their own pocket only, without any regard to greater good of the town. So every lot owner will sell to the developer who'll make a highrise building. Let "someone else" sell a lot to build a library or a tennis court! But there is no "someone else", everyone will seek to maximize personal profit which means no nice places will exist, only tightly packed concrete highrises.
> To your point though, would you say that an apartment building next to a park (or even within several blocks of a park) is worth more than an apartment building with no park in proximity?
Absolutely! But to actually sacrifice short-term tax revenue for longer-term benefit would require forward-thinking politicians. You mention being in Canada so those might exist there, but here in the US, there are none.
> homelessness, it would seem to me like a large group of people without housing would benefit from a system that incentivizes building more housing
I hesitated to mention homeless because my comment has nothing to do with the homeless issue per se. Only using it as a very real example where we can see that town governments are completely willing to ruin quality of life for everyone (fencing off parks, etc) just to save a few dollars short term. Even though it would be immensely better to spend a bit more upfront, to raise the quality of life for the whole town, which will bring in more prosperity and more property value and more tax later on.
> Open space with native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, sports fields of all kinds like soccer fields, community pools, hiking trails.. all of that is wasted land if viewed through the lens of LVT maximization.
No, because all of that would be open to the community. The waste is only if it was locked up for use by certain people.
>Of course it is — unproductive land use creates negative externalities that affect the entire surrounding community. It's like saying "a factory dumping waste into a river doesn't pollute the commons if the river runs through their property".
Pretty damn rich to say such a thing when exactly this sort of hand wringing that brought this whole crap about.
"oh no, think about how the commons will be polluted if we don't compel people to build parking space". -some karen in 1970, probably
The right thing go do is back off the regulation. Let land owners do what they please. If that's a parking space (it almost certainly won't be in the overwhelming majority of cases) so be it. And then when there's enough demand parking garages will go up.
>The right thing go do is back off the regulation. Let land owners do what they please. If that's a parking space (it almost certainly won't be in the overwhelming majority of cases) so be it.
This is exactly how it is here in Tokyo. People are free to build parking lots (or parking garages even) if they want. But they don't, except in rare cases, because it's far more profitable to build an apartment building or shop or some other building there. Though for apartments, they'll usually build a small parking lot (or garage for a big apartment building) and charge very high rent for residents who want to park their car there, which is a small minority of residents.
Once a city gets to the density of Tokyo with the transit of Tokyo, there's little reason to build parking. I would expect that in smaller cities around Tokyo, plenty of building owners choose to build parking.
I mean, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying? End mandatory parking minimums, institute a land value tax and then let the market decide whether parking is truly a valuable use of space.
The river dumping analogy is so bad it's laughable. Obviously you don't own the entire river when the river merely runs through your property nor do you own the ocean or the watershed, and property values surrounding yours go down by a measurable amount when you dump things in the river. What negative externalities does a parking lot create that an empty lot does not? Minimal noise from people pulling in and out? Extra walking time between lots that are built up? Some pollution from the cars? These are normal externalities from literally any building that might be there as well. You can see how this is a different class than a polluted river, and is literally immeasurable.
With regards to the argument presented in the article, it's arguable that parking lots create value by making places accessible to more people. As such, a parking lot raises the property values and economic output of neighboring properties. I didn't see anything about that covered in the article, nor did I see any actual data. This is why chambers of commerce and the like support parking mandates, because they actually have positive externalities, not negative ones.
> With regards to the argument presented in the article, it's arguable that parking lots create value by making places accessible to more people.
I think it's arguable, but I think it's not the full picture. Let's look at downtown Columbus, Ohio where I live. With the parking lots that exist, there's less housing, which means that people move further away from where they work, creating traffic, creating highway construction costs, insurance, &c. I'm quite sure that creating a parking lot makes the location of my employer (well not mine literally) more valuable, but it does seem like it creates more costs. If those lots were, say, because it's a downtown location a 10-story building with 300 residents those people would be shopping downtown, going to restaurants and bars downtown, spending more time there, &c.
There are cases where a parking lot does create economic value, though I think those are more nuanced and limited. I'm not sure your point nor the one you were responding to, nor mine for that matter, are able to really calculate the economic costs of surface parking lots without taking into account factors like, well where the hell is the thing?
> As such, a parking lot raises the property values and economic output of neighboring properties.
Cherry-picking this comment. I'd add to what I wrote above, but I'd also add that I'm not sure that there is evidence to support this statement and if you take this to its quasi-logical extreme you wind up with your entire neighborhood just being one gigantic skyscraper with a Costco and doctors office inside surrounded by parking lots or something. And then the increased profit flows to Costco's shareholders which is fine, but for your local economy that's kind of bad versus having a variety of stores that can open and close. It's putting your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Everything about city planning should generally be done in moderation. Including enough parking and enough residential space, but not too much or too little. A city consisting only of residential apartment blocks but no parking, transit, or stores will be a pretty terrible city as well.
I assume that Syracuse or other similar tier-2-to-3 cities would be far worse off if you replaced all the parking with apartment buildings.
Yea I think that's fair. I personally advocate for mixed-use medium level density over skyscrapers or the suburbs which are both not ideal either. Something more like European towns and villages but since it's America we can have a little bit larger homes. I live in that style of neighborhood today, and have a 2.5 story house and detached garage and back yard. Though it's not quite as dense as it should be, but zoning rules have recently changed to allow the main streets on the east and west side to build better density which will be great for everyone here. We can't have a grocery store really because the density isn't there. Tons of good restaurants and coffee shops and such.
I've never been to Syracuse but with the university there and number of employees you may be right, but it really depends I think on the layout. In the US once you get away from college towns or smaller towns like you're describing and get into medium-sized American cities we really lack density and transportation and we pay out the ass for the poor planning and past destruction that took place. It's changing though.
Underutilized surface area of the Earth contributes to more resource, energy, and time consumption for everyone else in society to move around it.
When ranking consumption such as large cars, flights, plastic toys, etc, space on the surface of the Earth, within an urban/suburban metro, is at the very top in terms of impact on others.
Even if on street parking were metered consistently and priced appropriately that's too divorced from the developer & their incentives to solve this. Parking after the building is sold is the definition of not the developer's problem, which is part of the reason we have parking regulations to begin with.
A better solution might be to mandate parking minimums (to ensure the property is actually useful / not encroaching on the street) but not allowing "open air" spots to count to the minimum, meaning an open lot gets you nothing, a 2 level garage counts for half the spots, etc. Maybe tack on some credits for proximity to public transit while we're at it.
It is very much important to the developer - whoever buys the land wants to know that their employees and customers can get there. That means there needs to be enough parking, transit, or pedestrians. If it is in a car centrist area that won't buy if there isn't enough parking. Downtowns can get by with less parking only if there is great transit to bring people in. Developers are not stupid, they know that if there isn't enough parking property values go down.
This is the root of the issue, which people often want to ignore - it's a class chicken'd egg problem.
The "there is no parking at all" wonderlands can exist (even NOT counting artificial ones like Disneyland) - and the "everything is acres of parking and there's no street parking at all" also.
The question is how you get from one extreme to another - in a way that does NOT require you to redevelop the entire city Simcity style, nor puts onerous costs such that all development is stifled.
Part of it might be that if the parking lots/garages are not heavily used, or not used much, they'll "redevelop themselves" - but that likely requires making transit and other options better which is difficult, expensive, and often politically unsound.
Get rid of street parking so drivers can't free load on the commons either, make parking something that you have to buy (with your rent or on your own) because it actually costs something.
Also, you no longer have to worry about kids appearing into the street between parked cars that obscure their presence even near crosswalks (that cars park way too close to because they can't find parking elsewhere). Win-win.
If a developer builds in a way such that the demand for street parking outstrips supply, the street parking still has a cost, that cost is just expressed in time to find a spot, not dollars like you're suggesting. People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car (which is basically the dynamic in my building: people either pay $450 a month for a spot or they spend 10-15 minutes looking for a free street spot).
In practice, of course, existing residents feel entitled to "their" street parking and get mad when a new building with new people contending for those spots is built but there's no logical reason to preference residents who have previously lived there. This is where politics rears its head though.
I completely agree with your comment, but would also like to add that many cities have restricted or stopped permitting the construction of above-surface parkades, further distorting the market.
This is correct which will incentivize the constructions of private lots etc (assuming the people you mentioned value their time more than the $ those lots cost). I don't see any reason you can't trust markets to address the supply of a commodity product.
Exactly, it's not like a Target going up in an area with no parking minimums is going to be like "great our massive big box store won't need any parking!" They're just going to be incentivized to build enough parking to fill their store to levels they expect based on the massive amount of data they have, and not just some gut-feeling BS from the 60s in the parking minimums regulations "department store - 20 spots per 100sqft" or some bullshit.
You also don't want the streets you bike on to be clogged up with cars parking legally, parking illegally and circling the block continuously looking for parking.
Right, which is why the actual solution is mixed use development and a robust public transit system.
Ultimately this is a geometry problem. Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people; eventually your roads just can't accommodate any more traffic. If there's enough demand to visit a given area then anything that doesn't minimize cars will just make things worse.
> Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people
Not true in practice even if true in theory; in many places the average full-size bus contains fewer people than would fit in a minivan.
The problem is you need 5-10 years of reliable public transit in an area before non-transit users begin to convert (or transit users begin to move in).
If you myopically look at the instantaneous usage of infrastructure then you could argue that most roads are pointless because they are, on average, empty.
The bus might have less than 5 people on it at any given moment you observe, but over its >2 hour route it transports dozens or hundreds of people between stops.
Passenger-mile vs vehicle-mile is a useful metric (you can add driver-mile if you want, or cost-mile) but you can probably do something similar with some measurement of storage space, too.
A full minivan ranks surprisingly high on all of them, which is one of the reasons it's disappointing that carpooling and such aren't discussed as much anymore.
Or you can start with minivan buses, and switch to traditional one when minivans stopped being enough
In my city less common routes are still purely minivan because why not. Some seasonal routes (more relevant in summer|winter) are also partially or full minivan.
(sidenote: I'm pretty sure it started because few guys with minivans noticed that some areas were under-connected by buses and just started a business driving those routes back-and-forth on a schedule. Then some regulations were slapped on top. So it looks like public transport have tendency to spontaneously appear in denser areas)
In Mexico it was always a decision of "do I walk a bit further to get the jitney and pay a bit more, but likely go faster (it stops picking up passengers when full and just goes until the first drop-off), or do I get on a bus sooner for cheaper but likely slower?"
Depends on the trip. I've timed many trips bike vs. car in my city. Bike is usually faster (or very similar time) because the average speed through a city is actually pretty slow. There's a lot of "hurry up and wait" with cars (rush to get to the next red light) and on my bike I'm frequently passing long lines of cars stopped at lights.
And parking is a time sink. There's a place in my city that has huge parking garages with lots of parking but you still have to drive through a few levels of the garage, park, and then walk back down a few flights of stairs, then walk to your destination. I just park my bike right outside of my destination with the wheel lock. Street parking is always awful in populated cities, and I never have to worry about it. I always park right at my destination, where ever it is.
In suburbia, cars are faster because the average distance per trip is a lot longer. But it's ironic that the reason why the average distance is longer is BECAUSE it was built for cars so everything gets spread out! Cars are a solution to a problem that they created.
Not the case as density increases: once roads reach their capacity, space inefficiency quickly becomes time inefficiency. That's why some cities have started introducing congestion pricing.
Expensive parking and higher population density might even make pubic transportation commercially viable. Not having to walk a mile from the nearest stop / station could also make it actually convenient to people of all walks of life.
Make it illegal to use private vehicles in urban areas, except for on specific ingress/egress routes. Bolster public transit.
Most drivers are using their car to scoot around 5-10 miles. Make them walk (yes not everyone can; they have friends and family, care workers, etc). Invest in infrastructure to backfill gaps that make walking onerous.
There was measurable improvement in air pollution during Covid lockdown. We'll hate it now but thank ourselves when we're 70 and a little less anxious about environmental collapse.
Cars are great for road trips but a massive pollution and burden on urban infrastructure.
Rip up superfluous sidewalks then (aka heat storage. Plus concrete is worse for joints) and leave the avenues/streets not designated for ingress and egress for bikes, small delivery vehicles, handicap accessibility.
People drive because it is convenient. If there are fewer parks it becomes less convenient and fewer people will drive. Why do we prioritise the convenience of those that want to park a car over those that need a place to live?
> Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.
Yes, and. If you start charging for parking to try to fight against this without also improving public transportation, it just kills cities faster. I avoid going into downtown cores where I will pay $25-$40 to park for an hour or two to eat at a restaurant, which means those restaurants can only support their businesses off captive people during the work day, which means that moving to remote work widely across society devastated downtown cores in a way you would not have expected. All because I can get downtown in 15 minutes from my house in my car but it takes 3 hours and 20 minutes by bus and there is no other public transport in the 7th largest city in the US by population.
Cars are the enemy, sort of, but the biggest enemy is the complete lack of any reasonable public transport in almost every major US city, which needs to exist to fairly ratchet up on parking.
Not in my city. Business is all dying, everyone avoids to go to the centre, everywhere the city fights cars, handy man charge extra just for comings, nah, it's basically gated communities now, well, they can have it, but life happens somewhere else then, where it can expand freely.
Mixed-use developments, walkable neighborhoods. When you make it easy to walk or bike to any place people need to go, parking is not necessary. Plenty of cities do it just fine, just not in the US.
Then invest in public transit (trains, mainly) for whatever isn't within walking distance.
Japanese cities have extensive train networks making it easy, quick and cheap to get around. Most people living in Tokyo or other major Japanese cities don’t own cars. This makes the cities much more liveable and community oriented.
Yes; however America constructed those differences over the course of the 20th century when they removed rail lines and paved everything over with concrete. In the 1920s and 1930s America was exactly like this, with dense high-frequency train networks connecting even smaller towns, and walkable urban centers.
This article goes too far and yet not far enough. By trying to build more buildings that increase parking in yet smaller footprints and then charge for the added expense of all of that, why not just eliminate cars in these districts altogether. Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within the city. Now you aren't trying to extract value from the simple act of wanting to exist in a space leaving more value to core economic goods and services.
In a large metro with an extant, functional, mass transit system, sure. But do this in a cold place with no existing mass transit, and all you'll do is kill off downtown businesses and reduce property values to 0.
This experiment was kind of done in Buffalo in the 70s. They blocked off large swathes of downtown to build the above ground section of metro rail. This encouraged business to close downtown locations and move to suburban malls. That kind of retail never came back to downtown in the roughly 1 decade after completion of the metro. So you had a mass transit system that went effectively from nowhere to nowhere, and managed to kill the downtown retail corridor.
I think someone should try banning absolutely everything but emergency vehicles. No cars, no taxis, no vans, no trucks. Only cargo bikes, hand carts and maybe palanquins. Add some sort of uber type platform where you can hire someone to push wheelchair around. Limit speeds of mopeds and bicycles to say 10 or 15 km/h for pedestrian safety. This should make extremely liveable city if those promoting these things are right.
My city, Utrecht, in the Netherlands is quite close this. No cars in the city center, no diesel vans for delivery, only busses and taxis can drive in certain roads in the center, bikes have priority on most roads cars can drive outside the center, mow they are reducing the speed limit to 30km/h everywhere in the city (following Amsterdam on this), and they are building a new car-free neighborhood for 40k people with no parking spaces and car roads.
Good first steps. Next is to get rid of those busses and taxis too. And truly open all roads to be freely used by pedestrians. Or even densification. You could fit buildings there for more people to live in. Then gradually expand this area so you have some reasonable like 40 km super block with no vehicles.
>I think someone should try banning absolutely everything but emergency vehicles. No cars, no taxis, no vans, no trucks. Only cargo bikes, hand carts and maybe palanquins.
This is honestly crazy. No modern city in the world could function this way. How is cargo going to get moved around? You can't stock a supermarket with cargo bikes, and even in a dense, walkable city like Tokyo where I live, lots of cargo needs to be moved around, especially to stores, but also for cargo deliveries to other businesses and homes. And with no trucks or vans, how do you do stuff like building construction and repair?
Sure, you could get rid of private cars, and even taxis, and reduce 75-95% of the traffic on the roads, then make the roads narrower, add bike lanes, etc., but you can't just keep out cargo vehicles. No one's going to build a skyscraper or large apartment building using cargo bikes and hand carts.
There’d be a revolt. You might be able to get away with doing this in some small area, maybe a city block or two. But anything more than that is just begging for a backlash from the local population.
I mean that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it. All the downsides of a car with all the downsides of a bus.
The solution, which has done in my city to genuinely smashing success is to nationalize the parking garages meaning government builds them, maintains them, and they're free forever. Dot them around a dense mixed use area and quite literally watch the money pour in. Everything is within grandpa walking distance of at least one garage, they're specced to over capacity so each one is never full, and it provides parking to the workers and apartments.
That sounds like a recipe for getting a ton of cars into your city. Think of parking garages as "traffic generators". If you cater to cars you shouldn't be surprised if what you get is more cars. It's literally sending the signal to people that it's fine (and encouraged) to drive cars everywhere. After all, your tax dollars are paying for all that infrastructure
Maybe some people are fully car-pilled, but many people want to live in an area that isn't so car-dependent, it tends to make everything more spread out, noisy, polluted, and congested. It also imposes very large personal costs.
I mean yeah… getting cars into your city is like the whole point. Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money. Specifically outside money. This is a city that has no subway or rail, vehicles are the only means of moving people. If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown, people won't start taking the bus, demand rail or move downtown because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination. You will get a dead downtown. In a sad twist of fate when your "business district" doesn't have the capacity to absorb workers commuting or people going out on nights and weekends you'll see commercial buildings spread out even more to areas that can. Little pockets of nightlife and office space crop up next to newly built 5 over 1 apartments with plenty of parking built adjacent to major suburbs.
> Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money.
You're conflating people with cars. You want people and you're assuming that all those people must be attached to a car. There are other ways to get people to be populate an area which brings me to my second point...
> If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown
You will if you build a lot more housing in that area. If thousands more people are able to live right there then of course it'll become more vibrant. That parking garage could be home to hundreds of people. Instead it's temporary storage for cars. The problem is that suburbanites are going to fight tooth-and-nail to bring their cars. So what you get is cars.
If that's what you want, so be it. That doesn't sound like a vibrant place if everybody has to drive a car to get there, though. It's traffic by design.
> because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination
This is another point people miss - 50 maybe 75 years ago the downtown area was a valuable destination because stores were smaller and what you needed could only be found at one or two places in a city; often downtown.
Cities are much bigger, but so are stores - you can go for months shopping nowhere but a SuperTarget or Walmart; and half the remainder can be delivered.
You make downtown desirable and then begin fixing the traffic problems. It takes 20+ years, but it can be done.
> that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it
... do people hate park and rides? Where I'm from (suburbs outside a US city) it's completely standard to park outside the city (in a garage or big lot at a train station) and take the train in. I find it quite comfortable personally.
It sounds like yours is specifically for buses, but I think it's that people generally don't like buses, they're slow and uncomfortable. The park and ride is fine when you can walk from it to a subway/train.
Parking at a train station or even a subway entrance sounds like heaven compared to ours which is a surface lot with a bus stop. But I'm not sure if "just have a subway or train network" is going to work for cities like Syracuse that don't already have them.
It is not convenient. It's freezing cold and icy, no walk, no bike, no scooter. Use mass-transit, sure, when you don't care about your life, when it's working, when it's coming regularly, when i don't have to exchange stations, but still, walking from home to a station and back, nah, it all sucks.
Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.
That giant 5-level parking lot monstrocity could be a transport hub instead that has a warm metro stop, much better lighting and safety and perhaps even some light convenience retail.
> Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.
Nope. The first thing i do in the warm car, is to turn the music on, making a stop at my favourite coffee shop and then i hit the road, humming my favourite songs. I barely drive anyways, its all automatic.
In mass-transit facilities all the people look at their screens, using headphones, waiting to be coughed on, scared to be not talked to, anxiety all around. Nope, not for me. Never looking into a dirty public toilet again, while the society yells: "but its free!".
Progress, folx, not regress. Come out of your bubbles, ignore the voices, that tell ya, hundreds of human bodies efficiently transported in an iron can is progress! Live! Expand! Use everything!
You should like a scary driver to share the road with. Your whole description of the “joy” of driving is all about how little attention you are spending on the actual driving part.
When you drive you are responsible for a massive complex device moving at high speeds. It must take your full focus
An unfortunate side effect of car dependence is people forgetting how to dress outside in the place they live, a skill humans had for thousands of years but apparently lost some time in the last ~100.
> Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within
Very telling how these arguments are always the most ableist shit you've ever heard and yet people seem to think they're Very Progressive for making them.
Cars are great for people who do have all their limbs but lack the stamina to walk long distances, stand for long periods of time, carry large weights, etc.
Enabling and incentivizing able-bodied people to do things other than drive reduces traffic and parking pressure, expanding access for the people who are unable to function without cars (and long-term will, contrary to your concerns, reduce the portion of people whose physical condition prevents them from functioning without a car).
Sorry the poster didn't put a specific, individualized carve out for all of the disabled groups of people who would obviously be allowed to use whatever method in whatever imagined, hypothetical future, and not kicked to the curb like trash.
It is generally more productive to assume charity in the people you are talking to, that of course no one is going to ignore that some people need cars to get around.
If they don't want to be replied to like they believe in absolutes then they should not speak in absolutes. I'm so tired of having to “““assume””” that people would be inclusive of me and my needs when they outright say the opposite. Do better.
I lived in Vancouver for years, near the downtown, near the SkyTrain and it was amazing. Back then I thought I would never live anywhere but the downtown of a city.
But, you know what, life changes. I know there’s hardcore folks out there who will cycle miles with their kids, or take them on transit, or even live with them in a 2 bedroom downtown apartment, but it is just too hard to live that way for many people. With a family, most people need more space, and they need to be able to get from their suburban home to some kind of shopping or work, in minimum time so that they can both take care of kids, maintain a career, and have a glimpse of a life for themselves.
We don’t need to have surface lots right in the middle of every downtown, but there needs to be somewhere for people to park.
Some European cities have car-free city centers. I live in one, which serves as the shopping center of roughly 1 million people living in the suburbs. If you want to shop in the city you need to park in one of the big underground parking lots and pay sth like more than 10 Euros/hour. Alternatively you can park just outside the city at a park & ride spot for 10 Euros/day and take the public transport included in the parking price.
It's inconvenient for people, yes. It was inconvenient to drive and park in the narrow streets of a medieval city too. This is unfortunately not easy to implement in North America, as the cities are relatively new. What we have feels very privileged.
Just sounds absolutely miserable to prioritize that way of living that is so car dependent. So many negatives come from it:
- pollution
- traffic deaths
- heat generation from all the infra
- inefficient use of space
- ugly aesthetic of strip malls and parking lots
It doesn't have to be this way. We can do better to build diverse housing in our cities, leverage space at the ground level for businesses, invest in our transit to make it safer and more convenient.
Instead we just go with what's easy and continue to build roads and sprawl.
I don't really buy this argument. I live a happily (nearly) car-free life with 3 kids. It's not hard, it really isn't. I bike them everywhere, we take transit. I even do our weekly grocery shopping by bike. I bike them to school year round (yes, even today when it was 10F this morning). I wouldn't consider myself "hardcore" at all. I'm just your average middle-aged dad.
I use our car approximately once per week. In 2024 I used my car a total of 32 times (I actually tallied it out for the whole year)
It's really just a matter of city design. Do you think there aren't families in Copenhagen who need to get to their job and shops? They manage with much lower car mileage than the average American. American suburbs are car-centric and those cars end up clogging up urban cores where people are trying to live their lives.
Many Americans/Canadians probably cannot even imagine what my life is like. They can't even picture what it means to pick up a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on a bike (with a kid!). It just doesn't even register that this is a possibility.
> American suburbs are car-centric and those cars end up clogging up urban cores where people are trying to live their lives.
I wonder how much of that is the case - anymore. I am suburb or even exurb, but I don't go "to the urban core" unless basically forced to; these days that's specialized medical only.
And surprisingly numbers of what people call "suburbs" are decently walkable, if you're willing to compromise on where you walk to - e.g., you might not have 20 restaurants in short walking distance, perhaps only 5.
(I've literally walked young kids - including a baby! - to school when it's -40°. A big big part of the change is to slowly move people to fewer car trips - not try to get them to reduce the number of cars. That comes later once they realize they only used it 32 times!)
You have to keep in mind that at this point, a substantial majority of Americans are overweight, and something like a full third of the US population can be considered "Obese," and so the notion of them doing any form of physical exercise whatsoever is utterly anathema to their world view. They live their lives in actively avoiding physical exercise at every turn, and so they cannot even fathom that someone would prefer active transportation like cycling that is also a form of excercise to being stuck in traffic in an automobile.
Basically to a lot of Americans, Jesus invented the pickup truck so they could "Exercise" their god-given right to never have to walk anywhere ever, as that's the way they like it. Walking is hard work when you're obese, and its uncomfortable to have your rolls of cascading fat rubbing against one another on a hot, humid day, where as sitting in a rolling leather recliner in their air-conditioned Ferd FteenFiddy is comfortable and requires no physical effort whatsoever.
The thing of it though is they know their choices are unhealthy for both their bodies and their communities on some level, but they'd rather drag everyone else down to their level than have to make and hard personal changes. They see us on our bikes getting where we need to go just as fast or faster than them (Since we're not stuck waiting in traffic), and getting exercise in the process, and they don't just resent us, they flat out hate us for it. We hold a mirror up to their unhealthy lifestyles, and unattractive bodies, and rather than following our lead by trying to be more active themselves, they'll fight tooth and nail to make the rest of us as miserable as they are trapped in their rolling metal prisons.
Parking exists in cities that are transit-first. But you are living in a car-dependent city for most things, so obviously it’s not going to be as convenient: the city isn’t built to be livable without a car. More developed countries put the amenities with the transit. IE your kids school has a metro stop named after it, and the grocery store is also the subway station.
It’s unfortunate that NA developed the wrong way because it takes a while to repair stupid planning decisions
Heck, I'm happy just parking close enough to walk to a downtown area, so parking doesn't necessarily have to be in the middle for me to use it, but there's no way I'm taking public transport to get close enough.
Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necessary.
Nice to think, "the people will take trains!" but sometimes it doesn't work that way.
Sure, removing parking essentially requires the neighborhood to become more self-sustaining. This works in really dense cities like New York and San Francisco but it requires enough desirability to fill the housing with people who have enough disposable income to replace the far bigger "catchment area" that the parking used to serve.
Which in turn affects the kind of economies that the new development can support. A car dealership? Needs parking and a large catchment area. Burrito shop? Probably not getting much destination traffic and can support itself on locals.
Those people may not be enough to support them. Cars take up space, but houses take up even more space. It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there.
It need not happen, but all too often simple answers are wrong.
> It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there.
I've seen this sad downward spiral multiple times, it is not a good outcome.
I used to live not too far from a town with a mellow but nice downtown center. Not a huge draw but many small nice restaurants and shops and there was steady business. Sensing a profit machine, the city filled all streets with parking meters. Turns out that while it was a nice area, it wasn't so irreplaceable, so nobody goes anymore. Business collapsed. I drove by last summer and everything is closed, the parking meters sit empty.
Same is happening now to the downtown one town over. It used to very vibrant awesome downtown, although small. Bars, restaurants, music venues, fun shops. I was there every night for something or other. Loved it. Easy free parking around. Some of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. While in its heyday this downtown was far more active than my first example, turns out it wasn't irreplaceable either. People just don't go anymore.
Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
> ome of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going.
Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed...
Of course to you this is bad, and the city lost the night life, but that might or might not be worse overall. They seem to be a denser area despite it, for whatever that means.
> Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed...
That would be the case if the storefronts didn't just wind up remaining empty. Empty commercial real estate is rife in the US right now.
Your "No Parking" area always has competition from the suburbs in the US. If you make parking too problematic, things can invert. Then, people will save up tasks for their trip to the burbs and be completely inert locally--they will do next to nothing with local businesses, do everything inside their house (way cheaper, you know, since I bought the stuff at Costco) and the car remains parked and unmoving until their next trip to the burbs. Once that inversion happens, your "walkable business area" spirals into more and more empty storefronts and the decline becomes ridiculously difficult to arrest.
> Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
Or the facilitating of cars has now made it more unattractive for people to go and hangout there even if it is easier to drive to.
Has there ever been a situation where taking away parking has lead to traffic dropping?
I've heard this, but I've never seen an example in practice. It seems like making things more walkable and bikeable, at the expense of cars, always increases foot-traffic, with no exception.
Yes, though I can't recall enough details that I could help you search.
Basically anytime it is tried in the suburbs where nobody is walking now nothing changes. When a lot of people are already walking you can increase traffic by getting rid of cars.
Details matter, most of the places people take aware cars are already dense areas and they tell you about it. However in a few cases someone who hasn't understood the context tried to apply a lesson it doesn't apply and it fails.
Good point. And 'yard', if any. You can even see this at large events that are in urban centers.
Churchill Downs for example is surrounded by residential properties. At Derby time a lot of those enterprising people would let you park in their yard for $5 or $10 (maybe more now, it's been many years). These are not large properties - typical older shotgun houses. I seem to remember them getting 10 or more cars and that's not even counting the space the house itself is taking up.
Sure, but this is why it makes sense to do it gradually. Things get built slowly and if the new buildings are taller they may actually take up less space (per person) than a car does, when considering ingress, egress, the road itself, etc.
IMO places need to be transitioned thoughtfully. Eliminate some parking here, build dense infill, then some more parking. Over time you can manage modal share so car volumes become insignificant relative to transit, walking, and biking. Basically if you’re going to remove 100 parking spaces, you should add n housing units, and so on.
When I choose where to go, I look if I'll be able to park there, and if not - I will always be able to find another place. Parking availability is number one priority, not star rating or $$$
Am I the only person on Earth who would stop going to downtown restaurants if parking became inaccessible? I don't think so, but your guess is as good as mine
TL;DW: The difference in tax revenue between a surface parking lot and a business with subterranean parking is so vast, that cities can justify using value to underwrite the loans necessary for developers to do the work. (Called "Tax Increment Financing") This model is proving extremely successful with cities that try taking it on.
Switch from a culture of car use to walking, biking and public transport (buses, trams, light rail). And if people outside the city are coming in by car - let them park outside the town center and continue with public transport from there (while public transport is developed further afield; after that they would only drive their cars as far as the nearest train station, or even bike there).
If you don't like parking you need to start with cars: give people a reasonable alternative. Too many are looking at this from a standpoint of "lets just get rid of parking" - without asking what people will do instead. All too often the answer is they will drive someplace in the suburbs instead where they get free parking.
If you want your downtowns to not have parking you need an alternative. In most cases that means you need to improve your transit in the entire city so people can get there.
It's a chicken and egg problem. If you retain the parking but build transit, people will keep doing what they've always done. Partly because people are resistant to change, partly because the areas you can take transit to are still mostly parking lots.
Places like Los Angeles are grappling with 30+ years of investing in transit with minimal changes in modeshare, because they continued investing in automobility at the same rate.
It takes decades for good transit to change habbits. Others have written about mistakes LA has made on the way, but still transit is making a difference even if small.
I think it depends on what degree of parking we're talking about here, but there are downtowns where the city core is full of large parking lots. That situation makes walking basically impractical because even two adjacent businesses will be a block apart, and everything becomes very spread out. Eliminating most of that parking leads to higher density which is naturally more walkable. The more trips taken on foot, the fewer need to be in a car or other form of transit. Sure this doesn't serve the suburban crowd as well, but it's a city, not an outlet mall.
I think you have to start a step back from cars: the people buying them. At least where I live having a large (and getting larger) 4wd seems to be a source of identity for them, and integral to their lifestyle.
Many cities that have a dense core will have big municipal lots and garages to enable people to park somewhere they can walk from. Of course, the first thing urbanists go after is the presence of these lots in "high-value" real estate.
Nary a mention of parking garages / underground parking?
Austrian cities have way more parking than one would expect, but it's nearly all underground and costs €
The benefits are huge, you have have dense commerical areas where you drive in, park underground, pay for some hours, then walk between the shops to do all your business.
"That is, how much value a parcel creates for the community compared to how much value it consumes simply by existing as land. Think of it like this:
Net Contribution=(Economic Output in $)−(Land Value in $)"
This calculation is shady. Land value fluctuates and already "bakes in" the predicted economic output... but multiplied across decades. Not to mention, land doesn't consume value by existing. the value never goes anywhere. Its opportunity cost, not a decrease in actual value.
Yes, there is value "missed out on", but it hasn't been destroyed. Because it never existed. And that value wouldn't have appeared out of nowhere. it would've required using up other resources that the parking lot wasn't.
I was also unconvinced by that hand-wavy analysis. Basically, "parking is negative value because I don't like it, look at this graph I made up."
In the US most places that aren't already highly urbanized are based on car culture. The culture isn't going to magically shift to transit if you take away parking, people will just complain and go elsewhere.
The article also completely abandons this angle later when it acknowledges that parking can be financially acceptable for the land owners. It also acknowledges that municipally mandated parking isn't the issue either.
How many parcels in e.g. downtown Syracuse are just vacant? That represents a much lower value than surface parking.
I definitely agree that parking in garages and integrated into buildings is much better but if you're unsatisfied with your downtown area I don't think targeting parking lots is the place to start. The real question is why don't people believe they can get more value out of it with further development? It's a little chicken-and-egg but you have to make the downtown a desirable place for those investments.
Cambridge MA was rezoned in the mid-20th century to suburban standards, in a city where land in a mid-range neighborhood now costs $350-$400 per square foot. Besides putting in floor area ratio requirements that required most of the existing housing to be grandfathered, they added a requirement of one parking spot per unit.
If it's a traditional 1-car driveway that's about $70K worth of land, although in the end it's zero-sum because it takes away an on-street spot. Parking garages for larger developments probably cost as much or more per parking space - they use less land, but they're expensive to build.
It's insane, and they're trying to fix it, and approving special permits left and right to omit the spots.
So basically they basically took everyone's property rights for 50yr and now then give them back at the government's pleasure.
Now, I know nobody not rich enough to play the game owns land in Cambridge, but even the something tells me the guy who had a Trump 2024 sign on his garage, the guy who owns a business that's at odds with the city, something tells me their permits require the most $1-10k engineering expenses, lawyers fees, etc, etc, to get approved.
looking at the pictures.....Syracuse looks a lot like my home town... did, old buildings, low rise high rise, muddled look, sortof stuck, was a good place till the land bankers bought up stuff and waited, and now Halifax ,NS is the second fastest growing city in NA, and there is a forest of cranes
and older sections of town are under the wrecking ball, 9 billion $ hospital going up, and some days my phone blows up for no particular reason, other than I suppose, everyone else has stopped answering there's.
I have no idea what all the many tens of thousands of new residents are going to do, but here they are re-building my home town into a mini megalopolis.
So, the comonality is the land banking parking lots, literaly, parking money, as an
asset, that will beat holding costs and inflation, untill, BOOM!
The secondary type is to by up lots, right at highway exits within 30 min circle of an area like this, cant loose.
>> Our property tax policy punishes buildings and does not inflict enough cost on underutilized land. The result is a system that rewards holding valuable sites idle while penalizing those who invest, build, and contribute to the city’s productivity.
This is the exact reasoning for cutting taxes on the rich and let the upper middle class pay the highest percentages.
Maybe the family who has owned that lot for 80 years doesnt have the money to upgrade it for the "highest and best use" by someone else's standards, but the revenue allows them to live a little better.
I've never understood why constant growth is so often a priority. The world is headed for population decline so governments better figure out how to shrink instead of growing.
Im not against city planning, but this whole piece stinks of telling people what to do.
Georgism separates land (and other natural resources) from capital. It doesn’t comment on income distribution, though such a separation seems highly likely to reduce inequality.
Nor does Georgism care about growth. Socializing natural resources is orthogonal to growth or de-growth.
Here's the thing - if I can't easily park somewhere, I won't go there. There is no public transit, but even if there was, I am not going to use it if it's anything like the NYC subway. You have to solve the problem of mentally ill people causing problems on the public transit, socially ill people blasting music from a bluetooth speaker, etc before anyone I know would ever consider using the public transit. It's just so much less pleasant than driving.
In effect, reducing parking reduces economic activity. Even if you increase public transit use, those users are overwhelmingly poor and don't contribute greatly to the economic activity where they go.
Solar panels is the answer. It keeps the people dry in the rain and the power can go right back to the city. Yes, it's not possible for all lots. For a vast majority of them, it's a net win.
Solar panels do not solve the problem of parking lots being community dead zones. You can put solar panels on anything - it'd be better if it were housing, a store, a pub, etc. than a parking lot.
This is at General Manager's discretion, and many will kick you out if you look "troublesome" that is young, poor, or tick any other bias the manager has.
If you stretch the definition of a "city" to include its suburbs, sure, but that's outside the context of TFA. There are no Walmarts in Syracuse, for example. There's one nearby, but not in the city. Adding solar to suburban lots is surely a win, but we're talking about urban lots here.
I currently live in a downtown area, and "walkable city" policies like this is why I'm going to move to a big open suburb when my lease is up. It makes life much more of a hassle, especially in cold weather.
That doesn't mean it subtracts value. Or that it is idle.
What you've described is quite different. It is opportunity cost. If that is what he's thinking then he should say it... except such clarity would support scrunity that his conclusions might not withstand.
Parking maximums would be just as stupid as parking minimums. Instead of oversupply with inefficient use of space you'll get under supply with businesses starved of customers who can't find a convenient parking space.
Let the market decide how much parking is needed. It'll do a much better job than you ever could.
This is such a terrifying vision of the proper scope of government. We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.
If you're really concerned with surface parking push the government to stop making it so expensive for companies to develop self-driving technology or to offer transportation services. If it's easier and less expensive for individuals to use transportation that they don't need to park anywhere the need for surface lots vanishes and those owning the property will look for something else to do with it.
> We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.
But we are using government to hurt people — we are incentivizing (or worse, requiring) land owners to harm the surrounding community by not developing their property. A land value tax would simply shift some of the cost that is already burdening the rest of the community onto the unproductive property owners.
So, the thing here, is that the property you're worried about is the guy who owns a parking lot, and not the people who are being overcharged on their personal homes to subsidize mister-surface-parking.
Parking lots (in desirable places) exist because of government policy. Not sure what you’re talking about. Government policy lets people under-utilize their land by letting them keep natural resource wealth personally for free. This is the egregious misuse of government power OP is bemoaning.
Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.
So eliminating parking minimums by themselves will create nasty side effects.
But of course the correct answer to tragedy of the commons is pricing -- price the street parking appropriately and it won't be abused so you won't need worse solutions like parking minimums.
Just a note - the parking minimums that are set themselves don’t necessarily correspond to the number of units built in the best way. So by artificially setting them you can windup with, as often seems the case, an oversupply of parking or in more rare cases an undersupply.
But in addition to pricing street parking more appropriately, and some cities are doing so, shifting the load on to the common spaces is kind of what you want to see as a transit user because if it continues to be set at a minimum you just wind up building more parking lots, highways, and cars. But if “the market” decides the market can actually signal to government entities that we do indeed need and want more options.
Like you actually want to see new apartments in urban cores built without parking garages. Theoretically (and perhaps in practice) these new developments should also be cheaper and less theoretically they give sidewalks and bus routes and tram routes more users and thus more funding and support. That then alleviates pressure on existing highways and everybody wins except the obnoxious highway lobby and the revolving door that it operates with existing state departments of highways.
Or just do what the Japanese do - remove unlimited (and overnight) on-street parking in urban areas and require anyone owning a car to prove they have a private parking spot to house it
That would be a good idea, but one of the main impediments is the fact that heavy regulations make underground concrete structures (and hence underground parking lots) very expensive, a lot more than in Europe or Asia, where it's often economical for even 3-5 story residential buildings to have underground parking space. That's the reason why developers push for on-street parking.
I think you're also forgetting the other aspect that allows this which is having readily available public transport.
Most of Japan doesn't have excellent public transport.
Car ownership is less common in most of the places in Japan with excellent public transport.
But I do like that each car legally requires its own parking spot. It is tricky to go to people's homes, because often extra parking is extremely limited or non-existent. It requires specific planning.
The more you subsidize automotive infrastructure, the more public transport will suffer for it.
That's pretty drastic, and would probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island. Seems like overkill for any other situation.
Price parking appropriately and make people pay for it. If land is cheap, parking is cheap, so not a big deal. If land is expensive, then no freeloading on the streets, which can be put to better use anyways (sidewalks, bike lanes, outdoor cafes etc...)
What do you mean freeloading? Do you know how many taxes do you pay to have a vehicle, gas, etc?
The car registration and gas taxes don't even pay for a quarter of all road-infrastructure-related costs. It boggles the mind to see free street parking in places like NYC, where a more reasonable cost structure would be something like other cities around the world (and Canada) do: divide the territory in parking districts. Locals can buy a discounted annual pass for the district where their main residence is located (should not cost less than $400/month in a place like Manhattan), while elsewhere the rate should be at least $10-12/hour.
You're leaving your property on public land. How much would that land rent for?
You perhaps pay tens of dollars per month. Is that enough to fully cover all externalized costs of owning that vehicle? No.
The government says yes. In fact, knowing the government, they probably get a huge surplus from my taxes. What makes you say no?
You should look up how your local government pays for the kinds of local roads you can park on.
If you live in the US, there's a very good chance that's coming from the property and sales tax everyone pays, not any tax on your vehicle.
> probably only be the best alternative on a densely packed island
So Manhattan or the San Francisco Peninsula?
I suspect the refusal to kowtow to car owners and the density are interrelated. Tokyo is more dense, in (small?) part, because there is far less space consumed by inanimate appliances.
No, it's in very, very large part due to this. You can see it not just walking around, but especially when you go up in one of the tall buildings or in SkyTree tower and look at the city from above: you can't see any parking lots anywhere, and most of the roads are pretty small (there's some large boulevards, but not that many). Compare to any American city that was built up after the rise of the automobile and it's staggering how much space is wasted on cars in those cities.
Covered multi-story parking lots.
And those cost money. That is the crux here. Free parking is frankly insane. It became untenable in Amsterdam as early as the 1960s when most people could afford a car.
If you want trees, a sidewalk and bike lanes something has got to give.
> Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.
Another way of looking at it: parking minimums require developers to encroach upon a commons, that commons being land that could otherwise be used for more productive things than free parking.
It's not a commons if they buy the land.
Of course it is — unproductive land use creates negative externalities that affect the entire surrounding community. It's like saying "a factory dumping waste into a river doesn't pollute the commons if the river runs through their property".
The article explains this well:
> The office, filled with workers and transactions, generates far more in economic activity and value creation than its land value and, therefore, rises the highest. The apartment, where dozens of residents live, stands nearly as high. The rowhomes add steady, smaller value. But the parking lot does something different. It dips below the surface, shown as a red bar sinking into the ground.
> Why below ground? Because in economic terms, a parking lot doesn’t simply fail to add value; it actively subtracts value. Every year it sits idle, it consumes some of the most valuable land in the city.
> When valuable downtown land lies idle, it blocks the housing, jobs, and amenities that could exist there. The costs ripple outward: higher rents, longer commutes, fewer opportunities nearby. What could have been a productive part of the community instead becomes a hole in its fabric.
> generates far more in economic activity
The LVT focus on profit above all else is why it is an unsatisfactory solution.
If the most important goal for every plot of land is to maximize its economic activity & tax revenue, that's going to be a miserable place to live.
All of the space uses that make a town nice to live in, are also underutilizing the land if the sole goal is to maximize economic activity.
Open space with native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, sports fields of all kinds like soccer fields, community pools, hiking trails.. all of that is wasted land if viewed through the lens of LVT maximization. All that space should be crammed full of high rise offices and apartments.
LVTs focus is on maximizing land value, not profit. It just so happens that when a landowner maximizes the value a piece of their land provides, higher profits are almost guaranteed.
It's also a bit of a mistake to view LVT solely through an economic lense. Sure, we quantify it through a dollar amount or a difference in profits, but the value in LVT comes from how individuals value the land as a whole. So you are absolutely correct that a place without native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, etc. is going to be valued less than a place with those amenities by a lot of people. But only if people value greenspace and amenities more than pure economic output, which is mostly the case when it comes to residential spaces.
If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace. Instead of would (likely) be to densify housing, or convert existing buildings to mixed-use spaces.
> If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace.
This is where I believe LVT breaks down when faced with greedy reality.
In a perfect world, I totally agree with the above. That would be pretty awesome.
Could that ever happen in the real world of greedy corrupt politicians who never look further in time than the next election?
How do we assign monetary value to pleasant and beautiful things that provide quality of life? Like the parks and playgrounds and sports fields, etc etc. I'm sure there are studies, but the numbers are not as clear-cut and not as immediate as tax revenue this quarter, so they get ignored.
Each individual lot gets evaluated in isolation and the most profitable choice, individually, is to maximize revenue on that lot, so every lot ends up being a high rise concrete box, either offices or apartments. It would take a very brave politician to say let's look at the big picture long term, sacrifice some tax revenue today and build for a better quality of life because long term that will raise values more.
LVT is uncommon so a lot of it is argued in theory, but I suggest looking at a somewhat similar decision process happening in cities today, which relates to the homeless.
How are cities reacting to homeless? They fence off all the open green space and parks, rip out benches and bus stop roofs, eliminate all public bathrooms and so on. Making the area miserabe for everyone, destroying quality of life. Oh but it is difficult to measure quality of life, so they don't.
It would be much wiser for society as a whole to attend to the homeless and let us all have the open parks and benches and bathrooms, city life would be far more pleasant and long term also more profitable if cities can thrive instead of decay.
But that's not how politicians think or act, so I'm fairly sure it would be the same with LVT.
Well I can't speak to the notion of corrupt politicians, but it's worth noting that if it's in the interests of the landowners, then they'd likely fight to keep anything that they feel would keep their value high. And especially if they started developing/investing in their land to maximize the potential return of the land. Anecdotally, I've seen individual homeowners stir up enough support in my major Canadian city to stop city councils from starting somewhat major development projects, so I don't think that it'd be as inevitable as you're making it out to be.
It's also a mistake to say that a lot of land gets evaluated in isolation, because that's not even true with a the current property tax. You absolutely factor in the surrounding community and external factors when valuing a piece of land. Land in a downtown area is going to be inherently worth more than land on the periphery of a city due to the activity and potential of the land to generate economic activity.
To your point though, would you say that an apartment building next to a park (or even within several blocks of a park) is worth more than an apartment building with no park in proximity? I think most people would as well, therefore the apartment building with the park in proximity would have a higher value (which would extend to all land in proximity of the park), and thus the local government would be able to collect a higher tax dollar amount because of the park being there. Whereas maybe they could get a similar total amount by building another building, but why would a local government purposefully lower the amount of tax they'd collect on each plot of land? It's in the interest of the local government to maximize the value of the land within their jurisdiction to collect the highest amount of tax possible. Just like it's in the landowners interest to develop and invest in their land to get the highest return on their investment possible.
Re: homelessness, it would seem to me like a large group of people without housing would benefit from a system that incentivizes building more housing. Which LVT does. It would also encourage public spaces to be as ammenible as possible, so that the park is as appealing as possible in order to maximize the value for surrounding lots of land. At this point though we're talking second or even third order effects of LVT, which like you mentioned aren't super clear or even assured because LVT mostly remains in the theoretical. But if we have a sound theory, at this point why not try it and see what happens? Our current systems are very clearly failing us, so if we have ideas with sound reasoning, can things really get so much worse than they already are?
> It's also a mistake to say that a lot of land gets evaluated in isolation, because that's not even true with a the current property tax.
Sorry, my sentence may have been confusingly worded. I don't mean for tax computation (which certainly uses neighborhood comparables), but I mean that every lot owner will evaluate the maximum profit for their own pocket only, without any regard to greater good of the town. So every lot owner will sell to the developer who'll make a highrise building. Let "someone else" sell a lot to build a library or a tennis court! But there is no "someone else", everyone will seek to maximize personal profit which means no nice places will exist, only tightly packed concrete highrises.
> To your point though, would you say that an apartment building next to a park (or even within several blocks of a park) is worth more than an apartment building with no park in proximity?
Absolutely! But to actually sacrifice short-term tax revenue for longer-term benefit would require forward-thinking politicians. You mention being in Canada so those might exist there, but here in the US, there are none.
> homelessness, it would seem to me like a large group of people without housing would benefit from a system that incentivizes building more housing
I hesitated to mention homeless because my comment has nothing to do with the homeless issue per se. Only using it as a very real example where we can see that town governments are completely willing to ruin quality of life for everyone (fencing off parks, etc) just to save a few dollars short term. Even though it would be immensely better to spend a bit more upfront, to raise the quality of life for the whole town, which will bring in more prosperity and more property value and more tax later on.
> Open space with native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, sports fields of all kinds like soccer fields, community pools, hiking trails.. all of that is wasted land if viewed through the lens of LVT maximization.
No, because all of that would be open to the community. The waste is only if it was locked up for use by certain people.
> Of course it is — unproductive land use creates negative externalities that affect the entire surrounding community.
By definition “commons” means public land. So if they buy the land, it’s no longer commons.
And the claim that unproductive land use affects the commons is not a very informative statement.
Everything affects the commons, it’s inevitable of a world with more than 1 persons.
>Of course it is — unproductive land use creates negative externalities that affect the entire surrounding community. It's like saying "a factory dumping waste into a river doesn't pollute the commons if the river runs through their property".
Pretty damn rich to say such a thing when exactly this sort of hand wringing that brought this whole crap about.
"oh no, think about how the commons will be polluted if we don't compel people to build parking space". -some karen in 1970, probably
The right thing go do is back off the regulation. Let land owners do what they please. If that's a parking space (it almost certainly won't be in the overwhelming majority of cases) so be it. And then when there's enough demand parking garages will go up.
>The right thing go do is back off the regulation. Let land owners do what they please. If that's a parking space (it almost certainly won't be in the overwhelming majority of cases) so be it.
This is exactly how it is here in Tokyo. People are free to build parking lots (or parking garages even) if they want. But they don't, except in rare cases, because it's far more profitable to build an apartment building or shop or some other building there. Though for apartments, they'll usually build a small parking lot (or garage for a big apartment building) and charge very high rent for residents who want to park their car there, which is a small minority of residents.
Once a city gets to the density of Tokyo with the transit of Tokyo, there's little reason to build parking. I would expect that in smaller cities around Tokyo, plenty of building owners choose to build parking.
I mean, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying? End mandatory parking minimums, institute a land value tax and then let the market decide whether parking is truly a valuable use of space.
The river dumping analogy is so bad it's laughable. Obviously you don't own the entire river when the river merely runs through your property nor do you own the ocean or the watershed, and property values surrounding yours go down by a measurable amount when you dump things in the river. What negative externalities does a parking lot create that an empty lot does not? Minimal noise from people pulling in and out? Extra walking time between lots that are built up? Some pollution from the cars? These are normal externalities from literally any building that might be there as well. You can see how this is a different class than a polluted river, and is literally immeasurable.
With regards to the argument presented in the article, it's arguable that parking lots create value by making places accessible to more people. As such, a parking lot raises the property values and economic output of neighboring properties. I didn't see anything about that covered in the article, nor did I see any actual data. This is why chambers of commerce and the like support parking mandates, because they actually have positive externalities, not negative ones.
> With regards to the argument presented in the article, it's arguable that parking lots create value by making places accessible to more people.
I think it's arguable, but I think it's not the full picture. Let's look at downtown Columbus, Ohio where I live. With the parking lots that exist, there's less housing, which means that people move further away from where they work, creating traffic, creating highway construction costs, insurance, &c. I'm quite sure that creating a parking lot makes the location of my employer (well not mine literally) more valuable, but it does seem like it creates more costs. If those lots were, say, because it's a downtown location a 10-story building with 300 residents those people would be shopping downtown, going to restaurants and bars downtown, spending more time there, &c.
There are cases where a parking lot does create economic value, though I think those are more nuanced and limited. I'm not sure your point nor the one you were responding to, nor mine for that matter, are able to really calculate the economic costs of surface parking lots without taking into account factors like, well where the hell is the thing?
> As such, a parking lot raises the property values and economic output of neighboring properties.
Cherry-picking this comment. I'd add to what I wrote above, but I'd also add that I'm not sure that there is evidence to support this statement and if you take this to its quasi-logical extreme you wind up with your entire neighborhood just being one gigantic skyscraper with a Costco and doctors office inside surrounded by parking lots or something. And then the increased profit flows to Costco's shareholders which is fine, but for your local economy that's kind of bad versus having a variety of stores that can open and close. It's putting your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Everything about city planning should generally be done in moderation. Including enough parking and enough residential space, but not too much or too little. A city consisting only of residential apartment blocks but no parking, transit, or stores will be a pretty terrible city as well.
I assume that Syracuse or other similar tier-2-to-3 cities would be far worse off if you replaced all the parking with apartment buildings.
Yea I think that's fair. I personally advocate for mixed-use medium level density over skyscrapers or the suburbs which are both not ideal either. Something more like European towns and villages but since it's America we can have a little bit larger homes. I live in that style of neighborhood today, and have a 2.5 story house and detached garage and back yard. Though it's not quite as dense as it should be, but zoning rules have recently changed to allow the main streets on the east and west side to build better density which will be great for everyone here. We can't have a grocery store really because the density isn't there. Tons of good restaurants and coffee shops and such.
I've never been to Syracuse but with the university there and number of employees you may be right, but it really depends I think on the layout. In the US once you get away from college towns or smaller towns like you're describing and get into medium-sized American cities we really lack density and transportation and we pay out the ass for the poor planning and past destruction that took place. It's changing though.
>The river dumping analogy is so bad it's laughable.
The frame of mind that brings such comparisons about is anything but funny in a world where all our votes count the same.
Underutilized surface area of the Earth contributes to more resource, energy, and time consumption for everyone else in society to move around it.
When ranking consumption such as large cars, flights, plastic toys, etc, space on the surface of the Earth, within an urban/suburban metro, is at the very top in terms of impact on others.
And it’s taxed the least.
Even if on street parking were metered consistently and priced appropriately that's too divorced from the developer & their incentives to solve this. Parking after the building is sold is the definition of not the developer's problem, which is part of the reason we have parking regulations to begin with.
A better solution might be to mandate parking minimums (to ensure the property is actually useful / not encroaching on the street) but not allowing "open air" spots to count to the minimum, meaning an open lot gets you nothing, a 2 level garage counts for half the spots, etc. Maybe tack on some credits for proximity to public transit while we're at it.
It is very much important to the developer - whoever buys the land wants to know that their employees and customers can get there. That means there needs to be enough parking, transit, or pedestrians. If it is in a car centrist area that won't buy if there isn't enough parking. Downtowns can get by with less parking only if there is great transit to bring people in. Developers are not stupid, they know that if there isn't enough parking property values go down.
This is the root of the issue, which people often want to ignore - it's a class chicken'd egg problem.
The "there is no parking at all" wonderlands can exist (even NOT counting artificial ones like Disneyland) - and the "everything is acres of parking and there's no street parking at all" also.
The question is how you get from one extreme to another - in a way that does NOT require you to redevelop the entire city Simcity style, nor puts onerous costs such that all development is stifled.
Part of it might be that if the parking lots/garages are not heavily used, or not used much, they'll "redevelop themselves" - but that likely requires making transit and other options better which is difficult, expensive, and often politically unsound.
Disneyland has one of the largest parking structures in the world.
But it isn't inside the park, making the inside car-free.
Exactly - the only other example I could think of was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island
Get rid of street parking so drivers can't free load on the commons either, make parking something that you have to buy (with your rent or on your own) because it actually costs something.
Also, you no longer have to worry about kids appearing into the street between parked cars that obscure their presence even near crosswalks (that cars park way too close to because they can't find parking elsewhere). Win-win.
If a developer builds in a way such that the demand for street parking outstrips supply, the street parking still has a cost, that cost is just expressed in time to find a spot, not dollars like you're suggesting. People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car (which is basically the dynamic in my building: people either pay $450 a month for a spot or they spend 10-15 minutes looking for a free street spot).
In practice, of course, existing residents feel entitled to "their" street parking and get mad when a new building with new people contending for those spots is built but there's no logical reason to preference residents who have previously lived there. This is where politics rears its head though.
I completely agree with your comment, but would also like to add that many cities have restricted or stopped permitting the construction of above-surface parkades, further distorting the market.
> People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car
If we're talking about commercial properties and zones, people unwilling to pay that time cost just won't come to the area.
This is correct which will incentivize the constructions of private lots etc (assuming the people you mentioned value their time more than the $ those lots cost). I don't see any reason you can't trust markets to address the supply of a commodity product.
Exactly, it's not like a Target going up in an area with no parking minimums is going to be like "great our massive big box store won't need any parking!" They're just going to be incentivized to build enough parking to fill their store to levels they expect based on the massive amount of data they have, and not just some gut-feeling BS from the 60s in the parking minimums regulations "department store - 20 spots per 100sqft" or some bullshit.
But I have a bike and use public transit and don’t want parking driving up my cost of housing.
You also don't want the streets you bike on to be clogged up with cars parking legally, parking illegally and circling the block continuously looking for parking.
Right, which is why the actual solution is mixed use development and a robust public transit system.
Ultimately this is a geometry problem. Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people; eventually your roads just can't accommodate any more traffic. If there's enough demand to visit a given area then anything that doesn't minimize cars will just make things worse.
> Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people
Not true in practice even if true in theory; in many places the average full-size bus contains fewer people than would fit in a minivan.
The problem is you need 5-10 years of reliable public transit in an area before non-transit users begin to convert (or transit users begin to move in).
If you myopically look at the instantaneous usage of infrastructure then you could argue that most roads are pointless because they are, on average, empty.
The bus might have less than 5 people on it at any given moment you observe, but over its >2 hour route it transports dozens or hundreds of people between stops.
Passenger-mile vs vehicle-mile is a useful metric (you can add driver-mile if you want, or cost-mile) but you can probably do something similar with some measurement of storage space, too.
A full minivan ranks surprisingly high on all of them, which is one of the reasons it's disappointing that carpooling and such aren't discussed as much anymore.
Or you can start with minivan buses, and switch to traditional one when minivans stopped being enough In my city less common routes are still purely minivan because why not. Some seasonal routes (more relevant in summer|winter) are also partially or full minivan.
(sidenote: I'm pretty sure it started because few guys with minivans noticed that some areas were under-connected by buses and just started a business driving those routes back-and-forth on a schedule. Then some regulations were slapped on top. So it looks like public transport have tendency to spontaneously appear in denser areas)
These used to be called jitney cabs or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi#Jitney (basically, cabs that travel like busses) and are still common in many parts of the world.
In Mexico it was always a decision of "do I walk a bit further to get the jitney and pay a bit more, but likely go faster (it stops picking up passengers when full and just goes until the first drop-off), or do I get on a bus sooner for cheaper but likely slower?"
Suburbs (with local amenities) with light rail connectivity into urban centres might actually be awesome.
I really wish someone would be a modern city from scratch.
Cars are the most time efficient though, assuming you can find parking relatively quick.
Depends on the trip. I've timed many trips bike vs. car in my city. Bike is usually faster (or very similar time) because the average speed through a city is actually pretty slow. There's a lot of "hurry up and wait" with cars (rush to get to the next red light) and on my bike I'm frequently passing long lines of cars stopped at lights.
And parking is a time sink. There's a place in my city that has huge parking garages with lots of parking but you still have to drive through a few levels of the garage, park, and then walk back down a few flights of stairs, then walk to your destination. I just park my bike right outside of my destination with the wheel lock. Street parking is always awful in populated cities, and I never have to worry about it. I always park right at my destination, where ever it is.
In suburbia, cars are faster because the average distance per trip is a lot longer. But it's ironic that the reason why the average distance is longer is BECAUSE it was built for cars so everything gets spread out! Cars are a solution to a problem that they created.
Not the case as density increases: once roads reach their capacity, space inefficiency quickly becomes time inefficiency. That's why some cities have started introducing congestion pricing.
For a cyclist high speed traffic is scary. Speed kills. Slow traffic –like, gridlocked car traffic– is freedom for a cyclist.
Correct, I want others to use bikes, walk or transit for most urban travel, because it’s the best option as it’s cheap, fast, safe and convenient.
They already are, and the more clogged the streets are the slower the cars are moving, so the safer it is for me. So actually, I don't mind.
Expensive parking and higher population density might even make pubic transportation commercially viable. Not having to walk a mile from the nearest stop / station could also make it actually convenient to people of all walks of life.
Make it illegal to use private vehicles in urban areas, except for on specific ingress/egress routes. Bolster public transit.
Most drivers are using their car to scoot around 5-10 miles. Make them walk (yes not everyone can; they have friends and family, care workers, etc). Invest in infrastructure to backfill gaps that make walking onerous.
There was measurable improvement in air pollution during Covid lockdown. We'll hate it now but thank ourselves when we're 70 and a little less anxious about environmental collapse.
Cars are great for road trips but a massive pollution and burden on urban infrastructure.
Rip up superfluous sidewalks then (aka heat storage. Plus concrete is worse for joints) and leave the avenues/streets not designated for ingress and egress for bikes, small delivery vehicles, handicap accessibility.
People drive because it is convenient. If there are fewer parks it becomes less convenient and fewer people will drive. Why do we prioritise the convenience of those that want to park a car over those that need a place to live?
Changing street parking prices is a lot easier than changing buildings built with previous parking requirements.
I'd say change the requirements first, then if there's a surge in street parking demand there will be natural pressure to raise prices.
Distribute the currency appropriately so that pricing won't be abused.
Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.
The High Cost of Free Parking is an incredible book that shows exactly how awful parking has been for society.
> Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.
Yes, and. If you start charging for parking to try to fight against this without also improving public transportation, it just kills cities faster. I avoid going into downtown cores where I will pay $25-$40 to park for an hour or two to eat at a restaurant, which means those restaurants can only support their businesses off captive people during the work day, which means that moving to remote work widely across society devastated downtown cores in a way you would not have expected. All because I can get downtown in 15 minutes from my house in my car but it takes 3 hours and 20 minutes by bus and there is no other public transport in the 7th largest city in the US by population.
Cars are the enemy, sort of, but the biggest enemy is the complete lack of any reasonable public transport in almost every major US city, which needs to exist to fairly ratchet up on parking.
Not in my city. Business is all dying, everyone avoids to go to the centre, everywhere the city fights cars, handy man charge extra just for comings, nah, it's basically gated communities now, well, they can have it, but life happens somewhere else then, where it can expand freely.
Cars do not allow life to happen or expand freely. Cars are prison, trapping people and communities in congestion.
Cars are very very very dangerous devices.
What is your city? What anti-car policies were implemented? Did city offer viable altenatives to driving?
Makes a bold claim without stating the city.
Where do you live? I’ve never found a counterexample to the benefits of de-car-ing, would love to learn more
> exactly how awful parking has been for society.
Not parking would be worse. Just think of the injuries from jumping from moving vehicles.
> Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.
What's your solution to it then?
Mixed-use developments, walkable neighborhoods. When you make it easy to walk or bike to any place people need to go, parking is not necessary. Plenty of cities do it just fine, just not in the US.
Then invest in public transit (trains, mainly) for whatever isn't within walking distance.
Okay, so cities that are only accessible to people who live there?
It would be better to just get rid of cities. They're a drain on resources that we can't afford.
I think you'll find that the cities that do this manage to have travelers from other areas just fine.
If you built for cars you get traffic and congestion: if you built for people (transit, bike lanes, pedestrianization) you will get community
Also ban free parking
Japanese cities have extensive train networks making it easy, quick and cheap to get around. Most people living in Tokyo or other major Japanese cities don’t own cars. This makes the cities much more liveable and community oriented.
Japan also has some other differences from america that are required for this system to function
Yes; however America constructed those differences over the course of the 20th century when they removed rail lines and paved everything over with concrete. In the 1920s and 1930s America was exactly like this, with dense high-frequency train networks connecting even smaller towns, and walkable urban centers.
This article goes too far and yet not far enough. By trying to build more buildings that increase parking in yet smaller footprints and then charge for the added expense of all of that, why not just eliminate cars in these districts altogether. Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within the city. Now you aren't trying to extract value from the simple act of wanting to exist in a space leaving more value to core economic goods and services.
We need to attack The Modern Moloch (99pi).
In a large metro with an extant, functional, mass transit system, sure. But do this in a cold place with no existing mass transit, and all you'll do is kill off downtown businesses and reduce property values to 0.
This experiment was kind of done in Buffalo in the 70s. They blocked off large swathes of downtown to build the above ground section of metro rail. This encouraged business to close downtown locations and move to suburban malls. That kind of retail never came back to downtown in the roughly 1 decade after completion of the metro. So you had a mass transit system that went effectively from nowhere to nowhere, and managed to kill the downtown retail corridor.
I think someone should try banning absolutely everything but emergency vehicles. No cars, no taxis, no vans, no trucks. Only cargo bikes, hand carts and maybe palanquins. Add some sort of uber type platform where you can hire someone to push wheelchair around. Limit speeds of mopeds and bicycles to say 10 or 15 km/h for pedestrian safety. This should make extremely liveable city if those promoting these things are right.
My city, Utrecht, in the Netherlands is quite close this. No cars in the city center, no diesel vans for delivery, only busses and taxis can drive in certain roads in the center, bikes have priority on most roads cars can drive outside the center, mow they are reducing the speed limit to 30km/h everywhere in the city (following Amsterdam on this), and they are building a new car-free neighborhood for 40k people with no parking spaces and car roads.
Good first steps. Next is to get rid of those busses and taxis too. And truly open all roads to be freely used by pedestrians. Or even densification. You could fit buildings there for more people to live in. Then gradually expand this area so you have some reasonable like 40 km super block with no vehicles.
>I think someone should try banning absolutely everything but emergency vehicles. No cars, no taxis, no vans, no trucks. Only cargo bikes, hand carts and maybe palanquins.
This is honestly crazy. No modern city in the world could function this way. How is cargo going to get moved around? You can't stock a supermarket with cargo bikes, and even in a dense, walkable city like Tokyo where I live, lots of cargo needs to be moved around, especially to stores, but also for cargo deliveries to other businesses and homes. And with no trucks or vans, how do you do stuff like building construction and repair?
Sure, you could get rid of private cars, and even taxis, and reduce 75-95% of the traffic on the roads, then make the roads narrower, add bike lanes, etc., but you can't just keep out cargo vehicles. No one's going to build a skyscraper or large apartment building using cargo bikes and hand carts.
Large swaths of many European cities are like this. Copenhagen has a huge pedestrianized shopping area and it's amazing.
There’d be a revolt. You might be able to get away with doing this in some small area, maybe a city block or two. But anything more than that is just begging for a backlash from the local population.
There's this - bloommerwede.nl - it looks awesome.
Look like there is still at least two bridges to block entirely. I think you could maybe build some sort of permanent market place on them.
I mean that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it. All the downsides of a car with all the downsides of a bus.
The solution, which has done in my city to genuinely smashing success is to nationalize the parking garages meaning government builds them, maintains them, and they're free forever. Dot them around a dense mixed use area and quite literally watch the money pour in. Everything is within grandpa walking distance of at least one garage, they're specced to over capacity so each one is never full, and it provides parking to the workers and apartments.
That sounds like a recipe for getting a ton of cars into your city. Think of parking garages as "traffic generators". If you cater to cars you shouldn't be surprised if what you get is more cars. It's literally sending the signal to people that it's fine (and encouraged) to drive cars everywhere. After all, your tax dollars are paying for all that infrastructure
Maybe some people are fully car-pilled, but many people want to live in an area that isn't so car-dependent, it tends to make everything more spread out, noisy, polluted, and congested. It also imposes very large personal costs.
I mean yeah… getting cars into your city is like the whole point. Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money. Specifically outside money. This is a city that has no subway or rail, vehicles are the only means of moving people. If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown, people won't start taking the bus, demand rail or move downtown because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination. You will get a dead downtown. In a sad twist of fate when your "business district" doesn't have the capacity to absorb workers commuting or people going out on nights and weekends you'll see commercial buildings spread out even more to areas that can. Little pockets of nightlife and office space crop up next to newly built 5 over 1 apartments with plenty of parking built adjacent to major suburbs.
> Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money.
You're conflating people with cars. You want people and you're assuming that all those people must be attached to a car. There are other ways to get people to be populate an area which brings me to my second point...
> If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown
You will if you build a lot more housing in that area. If thousands more people are able to live right there then of course it'll become more vibrant. That parking garage could be home to hundreds of people. Instead it's temporary storage for cars. The problem is that suburbanites are going to fight tooth-and-nail to bring their cars. So what you get is cars.
If that's what you want, so be it. That doesn't sound like a vibrant place if everybody has to drive a car to get there, though. It's traffic by design.
> because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination
This is another point people miss - 50 maybe 75 years ago the downtown area was a valuable destination because stores were smaller and what you needed could only be found at one or two places in a city; often downtown.
Cities are much bigger, but so are stores - you can go for months shopping nowhere but a SuperTarget or Walmart; and half the remainder can be delivered.
You make downtown desirable and then begin fixing the traffic problems. It takes 20+ years, but it can be done.
> that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it
... do people hate park and rides? Where I'm from (suburbs outside a US city) it's completely standard to park outside the city (in a garage or big lot at a train station) and take the train in. I find it quite comfortable personally.
It sounds like yours is specifically for buses, but I think it's that people generally don't like buses, they're slow and uncomfortable. The park and ride is fine when you can walk from it to a subway/train.
Parking at a train station or even a subway entrance sounds like heaven compared to ours which is a surface lot with a bus stop. But I'm not sure if "just have a subway or train network" is going to work for cities like Syracuse that don't already have them.
That's fair, yeah.
I do think parking garages are a pretty good solution, though obviously expensive (but cheaper than building out trains, like you said)
It is not convenient. It's freezing cold and icy, no walk, no bike, no scooter. Use mass-transit, sure, when you don't care about your life, when it's working, when it's coming regularly, when i don't have to exchange stations, but still, walking from home to a station and back, nah, it all sucks.
Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.
That giant 5-level parking lot monstrocity could be a transport hub instead that has a warm metro stop, much better lighting and safety and perhaps even some light convenience retail.
> Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.
They already have this. It's called a metro.
Cars aren’t remotely cozy. They are incredibly stressful to drive, are a huge cost, and are dangerous to those inside and out.
Every complain about public transit being unsafe is twice as true about cars
Nope. The first thing i do in the warm car, is to turn the music on, making a stop at my favourite coffee shop and then i hit the road, humming my favourite songs. I barely drive anyways, its all automatic.
In mass-transit facilities all the people look at their screens, using headphones, waiting to be coughed on, scared to be not talked to, anxiety all around. Nope, not for me. Never looking into a dirty public toilet again, while the society yells: "but its free!".
Progress, folx, not regress. Come out of your bubbles, ignore the voices, that tell ya, hundreds of human bodies efficiently transported in an iron can is progress! Live! Expand! Use everything!
You should like a scary driver to share the road with. Your whole description of the “joy” of driving is all about how little attention you are spending on the actual driving part.
When you drive you are responsible for a massive complex device moving at high speeds. It must take your full focus
An unfortunate side effect of car dependence is people forgetting how to dress outside in the place they live, a skill humans had for thousands of years but apparently lost some time in the last ~100.
Don't be silly. Humans haven't forgotten this, only Americans have.
> Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within
Very telling how these arguments are always the most ableist shit you've ever heard and yet people seem to think they're Very Progressive for making them.
People with disabilities disproportionately rely on transit. Many disabilities preclude driving all together, or require expensive modified vehicles.
Before using "ableist" as a cudgel, consider whether you know the first thing about the people you think you're defending.
I am the person I'm defending.
It's not a bad thing to make places more accessible to children and senior citizens who can't (or shouldn't) be driving.
Cars suck for anybody who doesn’t have all of their faculties in order. Broke a leg, trains were my saviour.
Cars are great for people who do have all their limbs but lack the stamina to walk long distances, stand for long periods of time, carry large weights, etc.
Enabling and incentivizing able-bodied people to do things other than drive reduces traffic and parking pressure, expanding access for the people who are unable to function without cars (and long-term will, contrary to your concerns, reduce the portion of people whose physical condition prevents them from functioning without a car).
Dense cities mean you only need to walk short distances, and doing that often enough builds the stamina for long distances.
I see you've never had chronic respiratory issues or you would know that's not true.
Sorry the poster didn't put a specific, individualized carve out for all of the disabled groups of people who would obviously be allowed to use whatever method in whatever imagined, hypothetical future, and not kicked to the curb like trash.
It is generally more productive to assume charity in the people you are talking to, that of course no one is going to ignore that some people need cars to get around.
If they don't want to be replied to like they believe in absolutes then they should not speak in absolutes. I'm so tired of having to “““assume””” that people would be inclusive of me and my needs when they outright say the opposite. Do better.
Says the ableist who doesn't care about people who are physically or mentally unable to drive a car.
... and yet, a place that is built for humans first instead of cars first would likely do just that.
I lived in Vancouver for years, near the downtown, near the SkyTrain and it was amazing. Back then I thought I would never live anywhere but the downtown of a city.
But, you know what, life changes. I know there’s hardcore folks out there who will cycle miles with their kids, or take them on transit, or even live with them in a 2 bedroom downtown apartment, but it is just too hard to live that way for many people. With a family, most people need more space, and they need to be able to get from their suburban home to some kind of shopping or work, in minimum time so that they can both take care of kids, maintain a career, and have a glimpse of a life for themselves.
We don’t need to have surface lots right in the middle of every downtown, but there needs to be somewhere for people to park.
Some European cities have car-free city centers. I live in one, which serves as the shopping center of roughly 1 million people living in the suburbs. If you want to shop in the city you need to park in one of the big underground parking lots and pay sth like more than 10 Euros/hour. Alternatively you can park just outside the city at a park & ride spot for 10 Euros/day and take the public transport included in the parking price.
It's inconvenient for people, yes. It was inconvenient to drive and park in the narrow streets of a medieval city too. This is unfortunately not easy to implement in North America, as the cities are relatively new. What we have feels very privileged.
Just sounds absolutely miserable to prioritize that way of living that is so car dependent. So many negatives come from it:
- pollution
- traffic deaths
- heat generation from all the infra
- inefficient use of space
- ugly aesthetic of strip malls and parking lots
It doesn't have to be this way. We can do better to build diverse housing in our cities, leverage space at the ground level for businesses, invest in our transit to make it safer and more convenient.
Instead we just go with what's easy and continue to build roads and sprawl.
I don't really buy this argument. I live a happily (nearly) car-free life with 3 kids. It's not hard, it really isn't. I bike them everywhere, we take transit. I even do our weekly grocery shopping by bike. I bike them to school year round (yes, even today when it was 10F this morning). I wouldn't consider myself "hardcore" at all. I'm just your average middle-aged dad.
I use our car approximately once per week. In 2024 I used my car a total of 32 times (I actually tallied it out for the whole year)
It's really just a matter of city design. Do you think there aren't families in Copenhagen who need to get to their job and shops? They manage with much lower car mileage than the average American. American suburbs are car-centric and those cars end up clogging up urban cores where people are trying to live their lives.
Many Americans/Canadians probably cannot even imagine what my life is like. They can't even picture what it means to pick up a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 on a bike (with a kid!). It just doesn't even register that this is a possibility.
> American suburbs are car-centric and those cars end up clogging up urban cores where people are trying to live their lives.
I wonder how much of that is the case - anymore. I am suburb or even exurb, but I don't go "to the urban core" unless basically forced to; these days that's specialized medical only.
And surprisingly numbers of what people call "suburbs" are decently walkable, if you're willing to compromise on where you walk to - e.g., you might not have 20 restaurants in short walking distance, perhaps only 5.
(I've literally walked young kids - including a baby! - to school when it's -40°. A big big part of the change is to slowly move people to fewer car trips - not try to get them to reduce the number of cars. That comes later once they realize they only used it 32 times!)
You have to keep in mind that at this point, a substantial majority of Americans are overweight, and something like a full third of the US population can be considered "Obese," and so the notion of them doing any form of physical exercise whatsoever is utterly anathema to their world view. They live their lives in actively avoiding physical exercise at every turn, and so they cannot even fathom that someone would prefer active transportation like cycling that is also a form of excercise to being stuck in traffic in an automobile.
Basically to a lot of Americans, Jesus invented the pickup truck so they could "Exercise" their god-given right to never have to walk anywhere ever, as that's the way they like it. Walking is hard work when you're obese, and its uncomfortable to have your rolls of cascading fat rubbing against one another on a hot, humid day, where as sitting in a rolling leather recliner in their air-conditioned Ferd FteenFiddy is comfortable and requires no physical effort whatsoever.
The thing of it though is they know their choices are unhealthy for both their bodies and their communities on some level, but they'd rather drag everyone else down to their level than have to make and hard personal changes. They see us on our bikes getting where we need to go just as fast or faster than them (Since we're not stuck waiting in traffic), and getting exercise in the process, and they don't just resent us, they flat out hate us for it. We hold a mirror up to their unhealthy lifestyles, and unattractive bodies, and rather than following our lead by trying to be more active themselves, they'll fight tooth and nail to make the rest of us as miserable as they are trapped in their rolling metal prisons.
Parking exists in cities that are transit-first. But you are living in a car-dependent city for most things, so obviously it’s not going to be as convenient: the city isn’t built to be livable without a car. More developed countries put the amenities with the transit. IE your kids school has a metro stop named after it, and the grocery store is also the subway station.
It’s unfortunate that NA developed the wrong way because it takes a while to repair stupid planning decisions
Good thing that this article is not arguing for the elimination of parking!
Heck, I'm happy just parking close enough to walk to a downtown area, so parking doesn't necessarily have to be in the middle for me to use it, but there's no way I'm taking public transport to get close enough.
Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necessary.
Nice to think, "the people will take trains!" but sometimes it doesn't work that way.
You might not go there, but the people who live in the homes you build where the parking garage used to be will go there.
Sure, removing parking essentially requires the neighborhood to become more self-sustaining. This works in really dense cities like New York and San Francisco but it requires enough desirability to fill the housing with people who have enough disposable income to replace the far bigger "catchment area" that the parking used to serve.
Which in turn affects the kind of economies that the new development can support. A car dealership? Needs parking and a large catchment area. Burrito shop? Probably not getting much destination traffic and can support itself on locals.
Those people may not be enough to support them. Cars take up space, but houses take up even more space. It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there.
It need not happen, but all too often simple answers are wrong.
> It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there.
I've seen this sad downward spiral multiple times, it is not a good outcome.
I used to live not too far from a town with a mellow but nice downtown center. Not a huge draw but many small nice restaurants and shops and there was steady business. Sensing a profit machine, the city filled all streets with parking meters. Turns out that while it was a nice area, it wasn't so irreplaceable, so nobody goes anymore. Business collapsed. I drove by last summer and everything is closed, the parking meters sit empty.
Same is happening now to the downtown one town over. It used to very vibrant awesome downtown, although small. Bars, restaurants, music venues, fun shops. I was there every night for something or other. Loved it. Easy free parking around. Some of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. While in its heyday this downtown was far more active than my first example, turns out it wasn't irreplaceable either. People just don't go anymore.
Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
> ome of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going.
Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed...
Of course to you this is bad, and the city lost the night life, but that might or might not be worse overall. They seem to be a denser area despite it, for whatever that means.
> Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed...
Explain how is it more valuable to have roughly a third of the businesses close? And many others borderline surviving?
I fear in ten years this will be like the first example I mentioned, a ghost street with all business closed.
> Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed...
That would be the case if the storefronts didn't just wind up remaining empty. Empty commercial real estate is rife in the US right now.
Your "No Parking" area always has competition from the suburbs in the US. If you make parking too problematic, things can invert. Then, people will save up tasks for their trip to the burbs and be completely inert locally--they will do next to nothing with local businesses, do everything inside their house (way cheaper, you know, since I bought the stuff at Costco) and the car remains parked and unmoving until their next trip to the burbs. Once that inversion happens, your "walkable business area" spirals into more and more empty storefronts and the decline becomes ridiculously difficult to arrest.
The us is in a recession now. Just like every other recession there are a lot of empty store fronts.
> Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
Or the facilitating of cars has now made it more unattractive for people to go and hangout there even if it is easier to drive to.
Has there ever been a situation where taking away parking has lead to traffic dropping?
I've heard this, but I've never seen an example in practice. It seems like making things more walkable and bikeable, at the expense of cars, always increases foot-traffic, with no exception.
Yes, though I can't recall enough details that I could help you search.
Basically anytime it is tried in the suburbs where nobody is walking now nothing changes. When a lot of people are already walking you can increase traffic by getting rid of cars.
Details matter, most of the places people take aware cars are already dense areas and they tell you about it. However in a few cases someone who hasn't understood the context tried to apply a lesson it doesn't apply and it fails.
I think what you’re referring to is traffic evaporation. But that’s sometimes referring to road capacity more than parking
Good point. And 'yard', if any. You can even see this at large events that are in urban centers.
Churchill Downs for example is surrounded by residential properties. At Derby time a lot of those enterprising people would let you park in their yard for $5 or $10 (maybe more now, it's been many years). These are not large properties - typical older shotgun houses. I seem to remember them getting 10 or more cars and that's not even counting the space the house itself is taking up.
Sure, but this is why it makes sense to do it gradually. Things get built slowly and if the new buildings are taller they may actually take up less space (per person) than a car does, when considering ingress, egress, the road itself, etc.
IMO places need to be transitioned thoughtfully. Eliminate some parking here, build dense infill, then some more parking. Over time you can manage modal share so car volumes become insignificant relative to transit, walking, and biking. Basically if you’re going to remove 100 parking spaces, you should add n housing units, and so on.
You're right in the short term, but over time it does work that way. Look at Amsterdam.
I double that.
When I choose where to go, I look if I'll be able to park there, and if not - I will always be able to find another place. Parking availability is number one priority, not star rating or $$$
Am I the only person on Earth who would stop going to downtown restaurants if parking became inaccessible? I don't think so, but your guess is as good as mine
I cannot recommend this Road Guy Rob video enough: https://youtu.be/K1TFOK4_07s?si=IwCK4sxVgw5Konu4
TL;DW: The difference in tax revenue between a surface parking lot and a business with subterranean parking is so vast, that cities can justify using value to underwrite the loans necessary for developers to do the work. (Called "Tax Increment Financing") This model is proving extremely successful with cities that try taking it on.
I have a hard time with Road Guy Rob's style, but that's a great video. Thanks.
Related: there's currently a bill in the NYS legislature which would allow cities to switch partly to a land-value tax. This is a pretty good local article about it: https://centralcurrent.org/how-a-state-bill-with-support-fro...
Amazing. That would be an astonishing win for sane people
> How can we get less parking lots?
Switch from a culture of car use to walking, biking and public transport (buses, trams, light rail). And if people outside the city are coming in by car - let them park outside the town center and continue with public transport from there (while public transport is developed further afield; after that they would only drive their cars as far as the nearest train station, or even bike there).
This is called out in the article as well but you're always welcome to join the party at https://parkingreform.org
It's a great group of advocates that are making impactful changes across the US and internationally.
If you don't like parking you need to start with cars: give people a reasonable alternative. Too many are looking at this from a standpoint of "lets just get rid of parking" - without asking what people will do instead. All too often the answer is they will drive someplace in the suburbs instead where they get free parking.
If you want your downtowns to not have parking you need an alternative. In most cases that means you need to improve your transit in the entire city so people can get there.
It's a chicken and egg problem. If you retain the parking but build transit, people will keep doing what they've always done. Partly because people are resistant to change, partly because the areas you can take transit to are still mostly parking lots.
Places like Los Angeles are grappling with 30+ years of investing in transit with minimal changes in modeshare, because they continued investing in automobility at the same rate.
The carrot is great, but we need the stick too.
It takes decades for good transit to change habbits. Others have written about mistakes LA has made on the way, but still transit is making a difference even if small.
I think it depends on what degree of parking we're talking about here, but there are downtowns where the city core is full of large parking lots. That situation makes walking basically impractical because even two adjacent businesses will be a block apart, and everything becomes very spread out. Eliminating most of that parking leads to higher density which is naturally more walkable. The more trips taken on foot, the fewer need to be in a car or other form of transit. Sure this doesn't serve the suburban crowd as well, but it's a city, not an outlet mall.
I think you have to start a step back from cars: the people buying them. At least where I live having a large (and getting larger) 4wd seems to be a source of identity for them, and integral to their lifestyle.
Many cities that have a dense core will have big municipal lots and garages to enable people to park somewhere they can walk from. Of course, the first thing urbanists go after is the presence of these lots in "high-value" real estate.
I enjoy the image [1] circling parking lots to show the land wasted right next to maybe 2x as much land consumed by a highway.
[1] https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/2...
Nary a mention of parking garages / underground parking?
Austrian cities have way more parking than one would expect, but it's nearly all underground and costs €
The benefits are huge, you have have dense commerical areas where you drive in, park underground, pay for some hours, then walk between the shops to do all your business.
> Nary a mention of parking garages / underground parking?
Yes, they're mentioned in the article. You clearly only checked out the title.
"That is, how much value a parcel creates for the community compared to how much value it consumes simply by existing as land. Think of it like this:
Net Contribution=(Economic Output in $)−(Land Value in $)"
This calculation is shady. Land value fluctuates and already "bakes in" the predicted economic output... but multiplied across decades. Not to mention, land doesn't consume value by existing. the value never goes anywhere. Its opportunity cost, not a decrease in actual value.
Yes, there is value "missed out on", but it hasn't been destroyed. Because it never existed. And that value wouldn't have appeared out of nowhere. it would've required using up other resources that the parking lot wasn't.
I was also unconvinced by that hand-wavy analysis. Basically, "parking is negative value because I don't like it, look at this graph I made up."
In the US most places that aren't already highly urbanized are based on car culture. The culture isn't going to magically shift to transit if you take away parking, people will just complain and go elsewhere.
The article also completely abandons this angle later when it acknowledges that parking can be financially acceptable for the land owners. It also acknowledges that municipally mandated parking isn't the issue either.
How many parcels in e.g. downtown Syracuse are just vacant? That represents a much lower value than surface parking.
I definitely agree that parking in garages and integrated into buildings is much better but if you're unsatisfied with your downtown area I don't think targeting parking lots is the place to start. The real question is why don't people believe they can get more value out of it with further development? It's a little chicken-and-egg but you have to make the downtown a desirable place for those investments.
Cambridge MA was rezoned in the mid-20th century to suburban standards, in a city where land in a mid-range neighborhood now costs $350-$400 per square foot. Besides putting in floor area ratio requirements that required most of the existing housing to be grandfathered, they added a requirement of one parking spot per unit.
If it's a traditional 1-car driveway that's about $70K worth of land, although in the end it's zero-sum because it takes away an on-street spot. Parking garages for larger developments probably cost as much or more per parking space - they use less land, but they're expensive to build.
It's insane, and they're trying to fix it, and approving special permits left and right to omit the spots.
So basically they basically took everyone's property rights for 50yr and now then give them back at the government's pleasure.
Now, I know nobody not rich enough to play the game owns land in Cambridge, but even the something tells me the guy who had a Trump 2024 sign on his garage, the guy who owns a business that's at odds with the city, something tells me their permits require the most $1-10k engineering expenses, lawyers fees, etc, etc, to get approved.
looking at the pictures.....Syracuse looks a lot like my home town... did, old buildings, low rise high rise, muddled look, sortof stuck, was a good place till the land bankers bought up stuff and waited, and now Halifax ,NS is the second fastest growing city in NA, and there is a forest of cranes and older sections of town are under the wrecking ball, 9 billion $ hospital going up, and some days my phone blows up for no particular reason, other than I suppose, everyone else has stopped answering there's. I have no idea what all the many tens of thousands of new residents are going to do, but here they are re-building my home town into a mini megalopolis. So, the comonality is the land banking parking lots, literaly, parking money, as an asset, that will beat holding costs and inflation, untill, BOOM! The secondary type is to by up lots, right at highway exits within 30 min circle of an area like this, cant loose.
>> Our property tax policy punishes buildings and does not inflict enough cost on underutilized land. The result is a system that rewards holding valuable sites idle while penalizing those who invest, build, and contribute to the city’s productivity.
This is the exact reasoning for cutting taxes on the rich and let the upper middle class pay the highest percentages.
Maybe the family who has owned that lot for 80 years doesnt have the money to upgrade it for the "highest and best use" by someone else's standards, but the revenue allows them to live a little better.
I've never understood why constant growth is so often a priority. The world is headed for population decline so governments better figure out how to shrink instead of growing.
Im not against city planning, but this whole piece stinks of telling people what to do.
Georgism separates land (and other natural resources) from capital. It doesn’t comment on income distribution, though such a separation seems highly likely to reduce inequality.
Nor does Georgism care about growth. Socializing natural resources is orthogonal to growth or de-growth.
Here's the thing - if I can't easily park somewhere, I won't go there. There is no public transit, but even if there was, I am not going to use it if it's anything like the NYC subway. You have to solve the problem of mentally ill people causing problems on the public transit, socially ill people blasting music from a bluetooth speaker, etc before anyone I know would ever consider using the public transit. It's just so much less pleasant than driving.
In effect, reducing parking reduces economic activity. Even if you increase public transit use, those users are overwhelmingly poor and don't contribute greatly to the economic activity where they go.
Build it underground if feasible, or build a parking garage with high-economic-contribution units in upper floors.
Solar panels is the answer. It keeps the people dry in the rain and the power can go right back to the city. Yes, it's not possible for all lots. For a vast majority of them, it's a net win.
Solar panels do not solve the problem of parking lots being community dead zones. You can put solar panels on anything - it'd be better if it were housing, a store, a pub, etc. than a parking lot.
Walmart allows overnight campers on their lots. Add free power and you get a pop-up community.
This is at General Manager's discretion, and many will kick you out if you look "troublesome" that is young, poor, or tick any other bias the manager has.
There are almost no Walmarts in urban centers.
Is that a joke? There's literally thousands of Walmarts in cities. https://mapstack.io/map/VkEPZb/map-of-walmart-supercenter-lo...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MY89q9pnrS-rB8t6Df4T...
If you stretch the definition of a "city" to include its suburbs, sure, but that's outside the context of TFA. There are no Walmarts in Syracuse, for example. There's one nearby, but not in the city. Adding solar to suburban lots is surely a win, but we're talking about urban lots here.
Even better, solar panels on the top of a 15 story mixed use building.
i live in one of these cities and it's impossible to explain.
I currently live in a downtown area, and "walkable city" policies like this is why I'm going to move to a big open suburb when my lease is up. It makes life much more of a hassle, especially in cold weather.
I first thought this was a joke. E.g.
> in economic terms, a parking lot doesn’t simply fail to add value; it actively subtracts value. Every year it sits idle
Idle. Cars park on it, right?
But no, it is sincere.
He means that if you built something more useful on the land, it would increase that lands value but also the value of the land around it.
That doesn't mean it subtracts value. Or that it is idle.
What you've described is quite different. It is opportunity cost. If that is what he's thinking then he should say it... except such clarity would support scrunity that his conclusions might not withstand.
Parking maximums would be just as stupid as parking minimums. Instead of oversupply with inefficient use of space you'll get under supply with businesses starved of customers who can't find a convenient parking space.
Let the market decide how much parking is needed. It'll do a much better job than you ever could.
This is such a terrifying vision of the proper scope of government. We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.
If you're really concerned with surface parking push the government to stop making it so expensive for companies to develop self-driving technology or to offer transportation services. If it's easier and less expensive for individuals to use transportation that they don't need to park anywhere the need for surface lots vanishes and those owning the property will look for something else to do with it.
> We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.
But we are using government to hurt people — we are incentivizing (or worse, requiring) land owners to harm the surrounding community by not developing their property. A land value tax would simply shift some of the cost that is already burdening the rest of the community onto the unproductive property owners.
So, the thing here, is that the property you're worried about is the guy who owns a parking lot, and not the people who are being overcharged on their personal homes to subsidize mister-surface-parking.
“Overcharged” relative to what? Certainly not to land value, unless you live in a truly undesirable location
This is comically backwards. Widespread car ownership is only possible due to bottomless government subsidy in the first place.
We shouldn't use the government to hurt people, so we should stop subsidizing cars that spew poison and crush children. Right?
> those owning the property will look for something else to do with it
Not if there's a law mandating they maintain a certain amount of parking. Eliminating such laws is part of what the article is advocating for.
Other than that I agree.
Parking lots (in desirable places) exist because of government policy. Not sure what you’re talking about. Government policy lets people under-utilize their land by letting them keep natural resource wealth personally for free. This is the egregious misuse of government power OP is bemoaning.