> Citing environmental concerns and a lack of housing, an increasing number of cities and some West Coast states are reconsidering mandates that all homes, offices and businesses offer a minimum number of parking spots for residents, workers and customers.
> "Most Americans drive to most places, and that's going to be true 20 years from now, there's just no way it isn't," Herriges said. "But we desperately need to make the alternatives more available to more people and at a price point that's available to more people. Parking is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of that."
No, it's really not. Local governments and NIMBYs that control them prevent changes to zoning laws that could actually help alleviate housing issues. How about letting MFHs go up in your SFH zoned neighborhood? How about getting rid of arbitrary limits on how high you can build up?
> "If you have more compact, walkable, mixed-use areas and you eliminate or reduce those off-street parking requirements, people drive less," McCurdy said. "They might not need to own that second car. Or a car at all. And they certainly use it less often and drive fewer miles. So it's kind of a win-win all around on housing affordability and climate."
I think this hits the nail on the head. Mixed used areas should be present pretty much everywhere. I lived in Germany for almost ten years and I've never encountered a town in the US much like the ones there. I lived in a single family home, but right next door was an apartment building, and on the same exact street at the corner was a Totto Lotto. On the street perpendicular to the one I lived on was a bakery, a clothes shop, a gas station, a small grocery store, an asian food restaurant, and an ice cream shop. I could easily walk to various shops because the zoning laws allowed for it. In Japan even the most residential of zoning still allows for shops to be run out of them. In the US we hardly allow businesses to be in vicinity of housing.
I do think it's fair that we do need roads for large vehicles because we can't magically transport bulk goods from warehouses into local shops, but there's probably a better solution than what exists currently in most American cities. There could maybe be better bifurcation on the use of roads that still allows safe pedestrian/bicycle traffic.
I also do think that parking lots are a waste of space, at least the surface level ones. I just don't know that I agree that it's a low hanging fruit like these people do. You can't get rid of them until you alleviate the need for them. You can't do that until you make changes in policy through the government or a broad change in requirements for commuting in the first place, like expanding WFH.
Although I would prefer to see more dense housing (taller and more MDUs) I really do prefer the single family home lifestyle. That said living in an MDU (apartment, inlaw, condo, whatever) in a city was generally more pleasant than the equivalent in the burbs. I can tell you from living in a relatively low density part of San Francisco that a lot of the long time residents don't want more people. They wield terms like "manhattanize" as pejoratives.
While I do think my old neighborhood should be densified at least a little bit I think you really hit the nail on the head with mixed-use zoning. I had restaurants, transit, libraries, retail, police, schools, parks, pools, etc. all within a stone's throw of my apartment. It was amazing. I'm currently in suburban hell and it's just bleak and depressing.
> I can tell you from living in a relatively low density part of San Francisco that a lot of the long time residents don't want more people. They wield terms like "manhattanize" as pejoratives.
Yes, they are NIMBYs, and they are hugely prevalent in low density housing because they bought that single family home for a reason.
I get the desire for that sort of life, especially when you’re raising young children. I just don’t think single family homes should be what much of our land should be zoned for.
> "Most Americans drive to most places, and that's going to be true 20 years from now, there's just no way it isn't," Herriges said. "But we desperately need to make the alternatives more available to more people and at a price point that's available to more people. Parking is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of that."
No, it's really not. Local governments and NIMBYs that control them prevent changes to zoning laws that could actually help alleviate housing issues. How about letting MFHs go up in your SFH zoned neighborhood? How about getting rid of arbitrary limits on how high you can build up?
> "If you have more compact, walkable, mixed-use areas and you eliminate or reduce those off-street parking requirements, people drive less," McCurdy said. "They might not need to own that second car. Or a car at all. And they certainly use it less often and drive fewer miles. So it's kind of a win-win all around on housing affordability and climate."
I think this hits the nail on the head. Mixed used areas should be present pretty much everywhere. I lived in Germany for almost ten years and I've never encountered a town in the US much like the ones there. I lived in a single family home, but right next door was an apartment building, and on the same exact street at the corner was a Totto Lotto. On the street perpendicular to the one I lived on was a bakery, a clothes shop, a gas station, a small grocery store, an asian food restaurant, and an ice cream shop. I could easily walk to various shops because the zoning laws allowed for it. In Japan even the most residential of zoning still allows for shops to be run out of them. In the US we hardly allow businesses to be in vicinity of housing.
I do think it's fair that we do need roads for large vehicles because we can't magically transport bulk goods from warehouses into local shops, but there's probably a better solution than what exists currently in most American cities. There could maybe be better bifurcation on the use of roads that still allows safe pedestrian/bicycle traffic.
I also do think that parking lots are a waste of space, at least the surface level ones. I just don't know that I agree that it's a low hanging fruit like these people do. You can't get rid of them until you alleviate the need for them. You can't do that until you make changes in policy through the government or a broad change in requirements for commuting in the first place, like expanding WFH.
Change the zoning laws.