This isn't the way to get rid of cars. If public transit is still shit, people will still have cars. They will instead park on the roadside and be more unhappy that their parking isn't convenient.
post
I think this is one of the key quotes:
“It used to make sense to require parking in homes to avoid public spaces being filled. But this generates traffic because it encourages people to drive. Young people are also less likely to own a car. They may either opt for car sharing or renting.”
There's practically no free public parking in Barcelona. It's either for-pay or you have a resident permit.
I hope this frees up space, not just for sustainable transportation but also for more affordable housing, something Barcelona really needs ...
I mean, in an ideal world, this is great.
I think it needs a followup to at least track, possibly tax, residents of apartments which lack parking who also own cars. In small numbers it's no big deal, but it could quickly get out of hand.
I am curious to see if it plays out the way experts anticipate. I'd worry that cars are increasingly parked alongside roads, taking up space. I would love for parking to be a mandatory part of any real estate here in Germany.
The idea is to remove free parking on the road side as well. Taking up space from the public like this shouldn't be free. The end goal is to reduce the numbers of cars, not to put them somewhere else.
What do you think tax money pays for? And what do you think making building install parking is? Paying for parking….
If you remove the free parking and remove mandatory parking in buildings. Where would the parking be?
It's not free if it's deeded to the property.
Who paid for it? Not the person buying the building or unit. It was already installed, and if it’s street, that’s tax payer money.
Why would you need to charge for a deed? It’s something that’s already there, and what would that money go to? Someone’s pocket? Just charging for parking means squat. The only way it’s useful would be if the city is collecting it, but it’s always a third party and they give a pittance to the city if they even do. It’s almost always profit driving instead of community or for the benefit or the city.
And why is the street parking filled up? Well that would be because buildings don’t install enoughparking already…. Or they don’t want to pay, so they go somewhere else nearby…. There’s also nothing to stop someone from buying one of these parking feee units while owning a vehicle… the law doesn’t fix anything, it’s just feel good.
Charging for parking is an archaic system and doesn’t even solve anything, just makes other problems.
Hard no. Parking shouldn't be bound as a necessity to every real estate, but every car ownership (see Japan).
There of course is an argument to make sure there's enough parking per let's say square 100m for everyone who'd need it for their car (even more so if this free's up the damn road), but mandating an available car parking space for any real estate would go the wrong direction.
Just because parking isnt mandatory doesnt mean they wont build it. It will just match demand more closely.
Plenty of functional cities were built before parking was a thing. While they do have lots of on street parking, pre-1950s cities also have the best transit.
That's how it played out in my neighborhood. The less space for cars on private property, the more cars left out on the street. The cars become a problem without even being used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLqrMljdfU - Yes, this is uplifting news for all but the terminally car-brained.
top 50 comments