this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
171 points (93.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12168 readers
789 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
171
If you want to build apartments and homes in Nashville, you are required to build parking for cars. Otherwise, the city council will kill your project. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago

The alternative to resident parking isn't street parking but to provide residential parking as determined by the developer and purchaser. You're not going to sell a condo if there's no parking and prospective buyers need to drive. Likewise you'll make better sales if you sell a condo without parking for a lower price to people who don't/can't drive. Let your local developers work with their civil engineers to figure out the best bang-per-buck of housing to parking spot ratio with each property they work on. I'm sure there would be fewer spots built near transit and downtown but fully loaded with parking on the edge of town; a nuance often missed in one-size-fits-all regulations.

Also the alternative to private parking is not necessarily street parking. You can:

  • Lease a local parking space (a developer builds parking but it's not included with an apartment/condo/town home purchase).
  • Lease a spot in a public parking lot.
  • Lease a neighbor's parking spot.
  • Lease car time on a car share.

Street parking shouldn't be free anyway. Free parking limits developments from building parking! Why would they build an expensive spot when there's plenty of "free" parking instead. Even post-sale you'll see the effect of free street parking. Look at your neighbor's garage. Do they park their car in there or do they use it for storage and instead park on the street? Free street parking is free real-estate.

The problem of "not enough street parking" can be solved by internalizing the price of parking. For example, San Francisco adjusts meters up and down until spots are between 60% to 80% filled. Price adjustment also signals the true cost of driving to the driver of the car rather than spreading their choice's cost across everyone in the city/county/state.

Street parking also takes up space that could be used for protected bike lanes.

I agree! I'd rather street parking not exist. See the thread on Japan's zero street parking strategy for their solution to parking (spoiler: it doesn't include parking minimums).

However, a small side note. You don't necessarily need protected bike lanes if your streets are slow enough, which is often a desirable feature of residential neighborhoods. The oft-cited Netherlander's civil engineering calls them "fietsstraat" (cycle street). San Francisco calls them slow streets.