Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itf869x wrote

Reply to comment by noob_tube03 in Email City Council to Abolish Minimum Parking Requirements! City Council is meeting at 5:30pm on Monday, October 24th to discuss making it easier and cheaper to build new housing by eliminating requirement for unneeded parking spaces by Responsible-Bath2778

Yeah if anyone thinks that all the new residents of all the new units without dedicated off street parking will just all decide en masse not to have cars, they’re delusional.

8

ik1nky t1_ith1zws wrote

Buildings with at least one parking space per unit (as required by zoning codes in most U.S. cities, and in San Francisco until circa 2010) have more than twice the car ownership rate of buildings that have no parking. If parking is provided on-site for free or at a reduced price (typically, $100 per month), then households appear to take advantage of this amenity. In contrast, households without access to on-site parking are more likely to forgo car ownership altogether.

There’s tons of research on parking minimums that show that they increase car ownership, increase traffic, massively increase costs, prevent transit oriented development, produce less pleasing buildings, reduce green space, etc. parking minimums should be abolished.

6

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith421b wrote

these people don't care about data or facts. They will just say "thats not Cambridge -- its different here" to ignore what you just shared.

​

Supply and demand isn't complicated.

8

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqac1v wrote

>Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.

As I posted above. Turns out supply is in fact complicated when it cannot be economically provided.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqc28g wrote

Your father was a city planning engineer, so of the the generation of city planners whose single minded goal was to maximize car usage and infrastructure in cities? You realize that generation of “City planning” Is how we ended up in this mess, right?

The whole premise of your argument continues to rely on your belief that everyone that lives here owns a car which is factually untrue.

as I posted elsewhere, the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused.

Cambridge has an explicit policy outlined in numerous laws passed by the council to reduce the number of vehicles in the city. Restricting supply and giving people other options is part of the point. Sorry.

2

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqjbde wrote

" the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused." is preposterous on its face. Where are these spots? What days and times of days are they unused? For what duration? Are there reliable transit options to/from these spaces? No. Otherwise parking where it counts in Cambridge - within a short walk of the vast majority of units - wouldn't be such a royal PITA.

Also, no. For NYC, he was mostly on the public transit side (think airports and light rail). So, no. He was very much trying to fix what Robert Moses and his ilk wrought. He also knew that we live in the real world where stuff already exists. Or doesn't.

The thing is you're living in a fantasy world. You keep striving for perfect, as if we're building cities from the ground up from scratch. Except we're not. Let's be real. The T absolutely sucks. It just does. Rail, buses, commuter rail. It all completely sucks. And bicycling isn't realistic for most commuters for 3-4 months every year (and I say that as someone who rides nearly 365 days/year). People giving up their cars en masse in Cambridge just isn't a realistic outcome, sorry.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqjxka wrote

The statistic comes the city council itself clown. If you have a problem with it then email them.

Glad you fall back on to the “everything else sucks because all we’ve designed for is cars, so we can never have anything else ever again” argument.

The minimums have been repealed. I suggest you vote in the next election if you’re so upset about it.

2

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itr6b2n wrote

Please point out where I said I was upset about it. LOL. Talk about clowning.

As for their claim, I stand by it being preposterous as anyone who spends a meaningful amount of time in Cambridge - with or without a car - knows.

0

FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqa2oq wrote

Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.

There's a reason Manhattan works so well without car ownership.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1oc7 wrote

If there is no where for them to park their car, they won't really have a choice will they? Or, developers can respond to market demand and build parking.

​

People can decide to live in cambridge and enjoy for what it is -- a dense, walkable city -- or fuck off to a suburb. Stop trying to turn this city into a shitty suburb.

1