Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Goldenrule-er t1_iteqwxx wrote

Every vehicle that is parked onsite is a vehicle that doesn't sideswipe a cyclist or kill them opening their door while parking everyday instead on the street. Removing minimums is guaranteed to injure and kill people who wouldn't have otherwise been at risk. It's that simple. Cars are not going to vanish as much as cyclists like myself would wish for. They will only become greener.

−3

houseofnoel t1_itg9l7h wrote

Don’t you think there’s a logical flaw here? Vehicles don’t stay parked, they move around on roads where they also endanger cyclists regardless of where they park. And every zoning regulation we keep or pass that makes it cheap and easy to own a car in a city, promotes more cars in the city, and thus more overall danger to cyclists (and pedestrians—we exist too).

And long-run, mass car ownership in cities will never vanish if we keep blocking dense housing development, as the totality of local zoning regulations (of which parking minimums are a part) actively do.

6

houseofnoel t1_itg9yfb wrote

Also copying a comment I posted elsewhere on this thread, because I think it’s important to understand the economics of housing here:

Imagine the US government told auto dealers they could only sell 100 cars a year. Which cars do you think they’d focus on selling? Toyota Corollas? Of course not, they’d sell exactly 100 luxury vehicles, where the highest profit margins are. However, auto dealerships are free to sell as many cars as they want, hence we end up with all sorts of cars on the road, at all sorts of price points. Don’t you see how it’s the same with housing construction? That the totality of local zoning laws limit the construction of new housing so much that developers only build luxury units? But if it was even half as easy, legally, to build and sell housing as it was cars, then they’d collectively build and sell a lot more housing units? Taking away parking minimums is one small step toward removing the barriers to mass housing construction. In my hypothetical, it’s like letting auto dealerships sell 105 cars instead of 100. Yes, they’ll still be luxury cars, but that’s only because you haven’t relaxed restrictions enough.

3

Goldenrule-er t1_itit3hq wrote

This is so dumb. There are greater margins for luxury condo sales. If more housing could be constructed in an indemand market such as this, you'll have more overpriced luxury condos-- unless it's gov mandated. Car dealers aren't even close to the situation Cambridge is in. Dealerships have allllll types of buyers. Your analogy isn't even remotely close. Quit spamming.

0

houseofnoel t1_itj3ci2 wrote

Dealerships have all types of buyers but housing doesn’t? I don’t think you grasped my analogy at all—the literal point was that car dealerships aren’t in the same situation because we DON’T heavily regulate the manufacture and sale of cars. The margins for luxury condo sales are so high BECAUSE new development of ANY kind is so restricted. I’m not spamming, it’s what any person with a basic knowledge of business or economics would tell you.

Edit: Also, if your concern is too many cars in cities, isn’t the logical solution to BAN MORE CARS (rather than ban more housing, which at best indirectly affects the number of new cars in the city)?

5

ik1nky t1_itgau10 wrote

Every mandated parking spot leads to a new car added to Cambridge. More cars in Cambridge leads to more vehicle miles traveled which increases danger to cyclists. The data is 100% on the side of reducing parking minimums = fewer cars and lower home prices.

6

crazicus t1_itqe07s wrote

Sideswipes and doorings happen as a result of poor bike infrastructure, not because people don’t have parking in their buildings.

1