teddyone t1_ixcghsw wrote
Reply to comment by Goldenrule-er in Why can't Cambridge manufacture their own insulin for its residents with Type I diabetes? California is going to manufacture its own insulin. by [deleted]
Ah yes what will the Children do without parking
Goldenrule-er t1_ixkbwxx wrote
Every child with a parent who can no longer afford to give them public education in a decent system is a child that has a harder shot at realizing their potential, you flippant, ignorant simpleton. Go back to chatting about super smash brothers with the other speaking apes.
teddyone t1_ixkwrub wrote
Poor kids growing up without parking… never stood a chance SMH
Goldenrule-er t1_ixluudh wrote
Take a look at how property values work smart guy. Removing parking is a ply so developers can sell more luxury condos. Cars aren't going anywhere, they'll just get greener. I'm a cyclist and I've been hit twice. It'd be nice with fewer cars but removing parking minimums doesn't change their necessity for the population, it just makes it harder for the disabled to have accommodating housing and jacks up housing costs that much faster (meaning fewer less-socioenomocially-advantaged kids will have access to decent education).
teddyone t1_ixm3loh wrote
ok jokes aside i don’t see the economic argument for how parking minimums make for more expensive housing.
Parking minimums = harder to build more housing. Your per unit cost goes up to build, so it’s harder to build more.
Harder to build more housing = price of housing goes up.
We invest billions of dollars in our public transit system and making it accessible to disabled people. While it isn’t perfect, if you live close to a T station, you do not need a car.
Look at NYC. Would it make sense to have parking minimums there? No. Because it would be insane to add that overhead to building new housing when there is an accessible public transit system in place.
Until we remove more barriers to building new housing, the price will continue to skyrocket. Remove legislation that blocks new housing. Remove zoning, remove parking minimums
Goldenrule-er t1_ixn6k2m wrote
Sales selling for higher amounts raises area cost of square footage, not construction cost.
Selling more condos raises the costs, not removing necessary parking minimums.
More sales of increasingly priced luxury condos = raised costs of housing, not cost of construction. So clearly eliminating parking and adding 6-12 more "luxury" condos acts to raise housing costs. That increase of availability in no way lowers the forever demand so doesn't stem, but increases housing values.
ANYONE living in Boston or Cambridge with a job they need to be at reliably knows you can in NO WAY rely on the MBTA. The MBTA as an organization is one of the greatest amalgams of incompetency and corruption that anyone can point to. I mean come on. They are currently under federal direction for turning their act around because they couldn't stop actually killing their ridership.
Anyone arguing against parking minimums either walks to work or works from home, doesn't have kids and is not elderly or disabled.
teddyone t1_ixocvj6 wrote
I know it’s a little counter intuitive but Apartments being fancy doesn’t make them expensive. It’s the scarcity. The “luxury” apartments of 5 or 10 years ago are normal market apts now. If developers build 100,000 “luxury” units right now, prices will fall for everyone because that’s 100,000 fewer people to compete against for housing.
Also I have taken the T to work for years. It sucks sometimes, but it could be a lot worse. If you want to live in a city center, don’t expect a parking spot.
Goldenrule-er t1_ixoz3vk wrote
This market will never satisfy demand for housing well enough to lower costs.
I often outwalk the bus on a 3 mile walk to/from work.
Parking minimums are .5 spaces per unit. No one is being forced to buy parking. There just isn't enough.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments