428
Chicago will no longer require new buildings near transit to include parking.
(chi.streetsblog.org)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
428 points (98.6% liked)
Fuck Cars
12729 readers
534 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 Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don'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 topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do 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:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't get why laws like that are a thing at all. This is a near perfect example of something better sorted out by the free market instead of government regulation. Some people want a house or apartment with a parking spot, other people don't need it, so a free market system ought to cause both kinds of housing to be built as there is demand.
the answer is most likely lobbying. induced demand is a thing and car companies know it. I'd be shocked if these laws weren't originally written by a car company representative.
Maybe, but one would think companies that build houses have a lobby too.
They can charge more for the place if it has a parking garage or lot with it. It’s like how I was looking to buy a laptop recently and a bunch of them came with a wireless mouse or a year long subscription for Microsoft office. I didn’t want or need those things, but they bundle them into the laptop so they can say “look at all the stuff you’re getting! Give us more money for this stuff you don’t want!” The parking availability makes the property more valuable technically, so they can charge more for renting or buying
When I was looking for an apartment, one apartment I was considering came with a parking space, and they explicitly told me that if I didn't need a parking space, I could rent it out to someone else. I probably would have done that if I had ended up moving there (which I didn't, for a different reason). Not sure if that is a thing in many places.
If entire society is conditioned to need a car, then that is not the battle the builders fight.
@humanspiral @schnurrito The entire society is not conditioned to need a car. In many large US cities, particularly those that were built mostly before freeways and minimum parking requirements, around 30% of households don't own cars. A massive PR campaign by the auto industry, combined with classism and racism, has convinced much of the middle class that everyone needs a car, but statistically that belief is not supported. Even in rural areas about 7% of households are carless.