this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
265 points (98.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9628 readers
677 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The problem is tons of free parking everywhere needlessly sprawls out our cities, makes people drive further, and makes actual green methods of transit (like walking, cycling, and electrified public transit) less viable.

In the long term, maintaining car dependency is fundamentally incompatible with addressing the climate crisis. Removing mandatory parking minimums is a necessary step towards ending car dependency.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean the common podium design with a garage at the bottom works well and the space is not desirable in condo design. Larger high rises are the same as higher is more sought. Your not really losing housing as the parking is cheaper than fully done residentail for the square feet and taking much less square feet overall. I know a 3 over one that gives two spaces so a 6 over one should be able to do one easy enough and since lower sizes should be able to get the same out of even four flats as it just needs one additional story.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There's nothing stopping people from building them.

There's just no longer something forcing people to build them.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

thats a good point but again to go back to my original point people will do stupid things to deal with a no parking situation.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

For no parking? Short term they do stupid shit (like a large event). Long term they just get rid of cars.

Ground and semi-recessed also makes a fantastic space for retail, which makes more money than parking. Digging subterranean JUST to add parking only adds costs, you don't have to keep digging (or if you do, you can solid fill instead of putting in parking garages).

Again, nothing stopping people from putting them in, but don't think it's free space or inexpensive to do.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean I highly disagree because I have seen some stupid and I don't know anyone who wanted to have a car who has not found a way to have one. Short term they might do without but I found folks who give up cars were willing to do it regardless of circumstances.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

It's not something to agree or disagree with, traffic evaporation exists and cities which remove, charge for our increase charges on parking see reduced traffic volumes.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why do you hate affordable housing? I mean, you do realize how incredibly expensive those parking podiums are, right? Forcing developers to build them basically guarantees the development will have to be "luxury" in order to make the economics work.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't and the parking again is cheap relative to the finished area per square foot. Granted part of it is the way the 5 over ones and such are done with the one is part of the foundation and so can handle the higher weight.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

parking again is cheap relative to the finished area per square foot

Rough estimates are $90 / sq foot for parking, $160 / sq foot for finished construction.

But guess which one sells and rents for more?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my area the parking sells and rents for more per square feet but I don't think they should allow that. It should have to stay with the unit. Honestly another thing is condos should have to allow the parking to be used for general storage only being allowed to require it stays within the area and maybe that it has to be in a cabinet or such to keep it neat and such.

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If parking sell/rents for more than housing, you should be building parking garages instead of condos. Peter you aren't maximising potential of the land.

Allowing storage in parking stalls is inefficient. They should be leased to people who want to pay. Massive lanes between storage lockers is inefficient space usage. Task cabinets blocking sight lines is a safety issue. Just use strife lockers.

Also it would be more cost effective to rent finished area for storage instead of parking spaces, since the later rents for more.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 4 months ago

im not talking rent for the last part but places I have lived have had rules that parking spots are only for cars and its quite annoying.