this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

116 points (90.3% liked)

Solarpunk Urbanism

1729 readers

1 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.

Checkout these related communities:

!15minutecity@slrpnk.net

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

mambabasa@slrpnk.net

ex_06@slrpnk.net

Five@slrpnk.net

ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net

116

One solution to fight climate change? Fewer parking spaces - Grist (grist.org)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/urbanism@slrpnk.net

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

Getting rid of parking spaces just creates frustration among commuters unless you provide real practical alternatives to driving — dedicated bike lanes; proper public transport that has enough seats, runs frequently and on time, and arrives close to where people are going; and/or formal car pooling.

Bicycles aren’t practical for everyone. Public transport that requires passengers to stand for 20 minutes or more while crammed in like sardines; or public transport that runs every half-hour or more, isn’t useful — it actually discourages use of public transport. The only car pooling that I’ve seen work is when it’s organised within large companies so that people are going to the same destination and have something in common to talk about on the ride.

Waving a magic wand and canceling car parks is most definitely not useful unless proper alternatives are available.

Edit: Also, the plural of “minimum” is “minima“.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but at minimum, it may be good to get rid of mandatory parking minimums and the prioritization of good parking next to mass transit.

It doesn't have to be a lot of pain, but a little can help.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yup, this can easily be a 10 year + project.

[–] TeaHands@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I despise car-reliant infrastructure as much as anyone but yeah, this has to be approached from all sides you can't just punish people who use cars due to there being no alternative, and then STILL give them no alternative.

That said, the article implies that this is in fact part of a larger plan and just removes one blocker, so I guess we'll see if that ends up being true or not.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, don't buy into the strawman. At no point did anyone say "let's not do anything else". Removing the parking minimum tax enables the rest of it.

[+] aniki@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Oh the Urbanity had a great video on how a large portion of non-commuting trips can be made by bicycle.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Depends quite a lot o the climate and time. If your in a place where ice and heat stroke aren’t common, and have a shower at work, and don’t have to travel at night, and don’t have to deal with sharing the road with fifty mile an hour traffic, and can afford to spend the extra hour or so a day, and can find a place to stash your bike where it won’t be stolen immediately, etc…

Bicycles require a lot of infrastructure and time, as well as an amenable climate. As much as i would like for the vast majority of humanity to be able commute every day by bike, the infrastructure simply isn’t there even in the places where you don’t have harsh winters. The goal of all transit, be it bike metro bus or car, is to get people from point A to B in the most effective way practical.

Build the infrastructure, and they will come. If they don’t, then figure out what you did wrong with the infrastructure.

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I work 20+ miles from where I live due to what I can afford. I’m not biking that lol I’d consider taking a train if I could take the bike to the train and from the train station to work. But I’d still be biking on busy roads not safe for bikers

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Part of why you have to live so far is because parking minimums create vast amounts of space that sits empty 90% of the time.

The other part is because of stringent zoning regulations that kill real housing options.

[–] soloner@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Not when the weather is shit. You're not gonna get humanity to get up for a bike ride and have to take a shower on arrival just to go get groceries, for example.

There are a lot of different things that impact this, not just weather. The point isn't about not picking one thing but to recognize it's not feasible for everyone, full stop.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If there was really solid bike infrastructure, I think covered electric tricycles capable of towing small capsule trailers could fill that gap fairly well. Something like this or this.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

People do this all the time in communities that emphasize biking. Easily. And actually, it isn't that difficult to do.

Further, driving isn't feasible for everyone, but driving is emphasized in such a way that alternatives cannot thrive.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

nothing can be done, so let's just stick our heads in the sand and wail.

oh wait, no, human behavior and values change over time. so we can use that to our advantage by not enabling selfish fucks who refuse to change with the times. No one's expecting metro service to rural households, but also, it's insane to expect your right to your own single person transport while the world is on freaking fire.

so you do you bud, but understand the rest of society is going to change and you can fight it, but it won't make you right.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Adjusting parking minimums and reducing parking over time is absolutely the way to promote alternatives. It promotes higher better access to services (as land can be used for alternatives) and cheaper housing (meaning you can live closer to where you work).

The reality is we are vastly overparked. Depending on where you live, there can be 8 TIMES the number of parking spaces than cars. You can pretty easily reduce parking by 1/3 and have near zero impact for drivers 99% of the time (maybe on black Friday you may need to take a ride).

Also, just want to point out to the conservatives and libertarians in the crowd: Parking Minimums are a TAX. Worse, they are a tax that overly affects small business that is less likely to be able to get the support they need endure the taxes effect on their finances.

[+] pathief@lemmy.world -10 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Because there's already so much parking available, right?

When I'm driving my mobility impaired grandma to her eye surgery, I want a parking space. Driving in major cities is already enough frustration, no need to add more.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If there were sufficient public transport that was accessible, then you wouldn't need to

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also the cities that have the most investment in things like multimodal public transit are also the best cities to drive in. If you just genuinely want or need the car those cities are better then the cities designed for the car. Designing for the car creates the worst outcomes for the car.

Parking requirements were established in an entirely unscientific way. And they've never really been updated.

A city with a lot less parking would be one that was easier for Grandma to get around in even if she was getting around in it in a car. People with significant disabilities are pretty much the only ones who should expect parking when they go to places.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The best cities to drive in have populations of around 5000 people. Just enough population that there are things to drive to (very limited things, but still things), but not enough that there is congestion even during what passes for rush hour.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or places like Amsterdam that regularly rank top cities for drivers because they can afford good planning and maintenance on their svelt network. Because people who don't want to drive just don't.

It's easy for a small town like you described to have just brutal congestion. And they routinely do, in the US, when the whole town is a highway offramp wart off an artillery feeder road made up of commercial parks and box stores. They end up with chains of back to back streetlights and tons of left turns across traffic and are always a headache to get through - not to mention dangerous. And they're the most universal sight in North America.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Not in a town of 5000. That sounds more like 50,000 people. At 5000 even a highway offramp cannot support many big box stores. Either that or a.suburb, which might have only 5000, but the drivers from the rest of the MSA visit and add up.

[–] pathief@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'm definitely with you on that.

Fewer parking spots is not a solution on its own... It's a natural consequence of good public transportation network. No one really enjoys to spend hours on traffic to go anywhere.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

It is a solution on its own. Many cities have far more parking than they need - even on "black friday" there are empty parking spaces. Those parking spaces could be redeveloped to something else (not all of them as that something else will also need parking)

Of course the more you redevelop those empty parking spaces, the denser you get and the better chance is that public transit will work. The more people who arrive via transit the less parking spaces you need as well, which means more empty parking can de redeveloped.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's what handicapped parking is for.

[–] pathief@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Since I'm the driver, I can't park there.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It isn't about the driver, but the passenger.

[–] pathief@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not sure how it works in your country, maybe it's different. Here you car needs to have a visible disability permit or you'll get fined. Only the car owner can apply for the permit. I'm the car owner.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 points 10 months ago

My country allows for a placard that can move between cars as long as the handicapped person is there to provide identification if asked by the police.

[–] haagch@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

What if health insurance paid for necessary taxi rides? Not every mobility impaired grandma is lucky enough to have family members to be their personal chauffeurs.

[–] AEMarling@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago

I caregive as well. What we truly need are five-minute cities and things like tricycle taxies that I can safely take anywhere.

[–] jessta@aus.social 1 points 9 months ago

@pathief @ProdigalFrog it's just physically not possible to build enough parking for everyone to always have a park. You have trouble finding a park because that's just the physical reality. Adding more parking (like adding more lanes) doesn't increase availability because of induced demand and the inherent inefficiency of cars.

Reducing parking won't reduce the parking available to you. Just as reducing the number of car lanes won't reduce your ability to drive places.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Throw gran in the basket of your huffy.