[HN Gopher] No minimum parking requirements? No problem for Faye...
___________________________________________________________________
No minimum parking requirements? No problem for Fayetteville,
Arkansas
Author : jseliger
Score : 113 points
Date : 2022-02-23 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sightline.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sightline.org)
| dizzant wrote:
| It is good to see support for better urban planning on Hacker
| News. Issues of urban planning and city design often escape
| notice of the popular milieu due to the banality of local
| politics, but are nonetheless important.
|
| One of the lasting impacts of our lives is the places we build.
| Make America Walkable Again.
| eterevsky wrote:
| US has minimum parking mandate for businesses? Why?!
| mchusma wrote:
| I do recommend the book "The High Cost of Free Parking." The
| podcast EconTalk did an episode with him too.
|
| It's very clear to me after reading these that government
| enforced parking minimums and free parking should go.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| I considered getting that book until I realized it's 733 pages.
| Is it worth at least reading some sections of it?
| johnatthebar wrote:
| The author's follow-up, Parking and the City, is a mere 534
| pages and more readable. (Part of the reason Shoup has been
| so successful as a policy change agent is that he's a gifted
| writer.) Still goes for an academic price, unfortunately.
| https://www.amazon.com/Parking-City-Donald-
| Shoup/dp/11384971...
|
| Henry Grabar is working on what will hopefully be a more
| popular-press approach:
| https://twitter.com/henrygrabar/status/1156649614596038656
| stevage wrote:
| Ohhh is this why in American cities you see so many free standing
| restaurants with parking all around them? I always find them a
| bit weird, we don't have many like that here in Melbourne.
|
| Usual pattern here if driving to restaurant is spending a long
| time looking for a park then a long walk. It's good to get the
| exercise afterwards
| vletal wrote:
| I am perplexed that this makes headlines. Even the free market
| has spoken. People pay premium to live in a more dense areas
| where the stuff they enjoy and interact with is within their
| proximity.
|
| Interesting how successful the car manufacturer lobby was in the
| US, transforming whole cities and life styles of ordinary
| Americans for generations.
| cortesoft wrote:
| It makes headlines because almost all cities in the US still
| require a minimum number of parking spaces per building, even
| if it doesn't make sense.
|
| Even if it is common sense, it is new and rare, which is
| newsworthy.
| viro wrote:
| Then why was there a mass exodus during the height of WFH? Data
| seems to show that people pay that premium to reduce commute
| time. Let's not forget full remote was a lot harder to get
| before covid.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| That's because the HN urbanist crowd is a very small and
| vocal minority. The vast majority of people WANT to live in
| suburban or rural areas. Only 19% of Americans want to live
| in a dense urban environment. [1]
|
| [1] https://pewresearch.org/social-
| trends/2021/12/16/americans-a...
| bluGill wrote:
| People have no idea what they really want. They however
| know how they live now, so when asked they will say they
| don't want to change.
|
| Where someone lives is a compromise. Everyone wants the
| best of ALL words: the dense urban area with a subway
| entrance on the same street, plenty of shopping and other
| entertainment. They also want a ski lift up a mountain,
| finish your day ski day in your own backyard, and a
| tropical beach in the front yard, among the other benefits
| of rural living. That is physically impossible no matter
| how much money you have, so you make the best of what you
| can get even though it cannot be perfect.
|
| With the current situation of the US subrubs are the best
| compromise, but as things change different compromises
| become better. Right now dense areas are a lot more
| expensive for a lot less space, and often that space comes
| with the problems of living in a very old building.
|
| Note that change will not happen overnight. Even if 30000
| square foot apartments (intentionally be absurdly large to
| make the point) in neighborhoods with good schools was free
| it would take a lot of time for people to move even though
| the rent savings would allow for more than enough other
| lifestyle changes as to make it a better compromise for
| most people.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| The numbers in the survey are linked are where people
| want to live, not where people currently live. More urban
| residents want to move to the suburbs/rural areas than
| vice-versa.
|
| 60% of Americans prefer living a a community with larger
| houses and having to drive miles to get to school,
| stores, and restaurants versus having smaller houses and
| businesses within walking distance. Urban residents are
| divided almost evenly and 49% of them would prefer to
| drive miles to get to businesses if it meant that they
| could live in a large house. [1] I suspect the
| discrepancy with the previous survey is because both
| scenarios had the participants living in houses and if
| they were asked to pick a walkable apartment community or
| the car-dependent house community the number of people
| who would pick the denser community would be lower. The
| data is clear, more people prefer the suburban and rural
| car dependent lifestyles than the walkable urban
| lifestyle. Making arguments that people just don't know
| what they want is incredibly condescending and
| controlling.
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
| tank/2021/08/26/more-americ...
| mperham wrote:
| No one is arguing against suburbs. We are arguing that
| car infrastructure (roads 100% devoted to car traffic,
| free curbside parking and parking lots everywhere) should
| not be subsidized. You want to use a car? Pay for it.
| Otherwise free car infrastructure destroys the vitality
| and livability of wherever it spreads.
|
| Suburbs existed before the car. See "Streetcar suburbs"
| on youtube.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| The point is that it isn't a bad thing if a local
| government listens to their constituents and builds what
| they want instead of building what a online vocal
| minority of people who don't live in their area want.
| Your argument about subsidies is only logical if you also
| advocate for no non-use-based taxes and the privatization
| of all services like healthcare, schools, and transit,
| since if one shouldn't have to pay for some things they
| don't use or want to use, then they shouldn't have to pay
| for anything they don't want to. Transit is also far more
| subsidized on a per user level than roads are, and I
| would be perfectly willing to pay the unsubsidized cost
| of car infrastructure (and so would most drivers), but I
| suspect that you wouldn't like having to pay the
| unsubsidized cost of transit. Car infrastructure also
| doesn't destroy the livability of an area, as shown by
| the survey results above; no one wants to live in an
| unlivable area by definition and most people want to live
| in areas you would deem "unlivable".
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Where someone lives is a compromise._
|
| Yup, it's generally just a balancing of priorities and
| trade offs. For me, having to drive everywhere I need to
| go would make me really sad, so I chose an urban
| environment, in a neighborhood where there's a good mix
| of residential and commercial, that is decently well-
| connected to public transit. But that means I have to
| deal with more noise, crime, and homelessness, and don't
| get to have a yard, despite higher living costs.
|
| But that's my trade off, and others don't prioritize the
| same things I do.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| It wasn't just the car lobby. Folks in charge of state / local
| DoT's have huge influence. Many people know about Robert Moses,
| just how politically powerful and influential he became, and
| how he deliberately used civic infrastructure projects as a way
| to try to redline particular populations.
|
| Similar dynamics still go on. Where I live Portland is
| overwhelmingly the major metro area, but the Oregon DOT is run
| out of the state capital, Salem, a much smaller and much more
| suburban community a bit south of the metro area. Despite
| supposedly being qualified professionals, it's clear ODOT sees
| things entirely in a car centric way. The only projects they're
| excited about pushing forward are freeway expansions. Portland
| is rather emphatic on NOT wanting that, but rather a multi-
| modal transit network that actually works with the density we
| have. In recent years ODOT has gotten so tired of the popular
| backlash on their projects in Portland that they've started
| playing deceptive games around the public notification process
| to try to sneak stuff through without pushback.
|
| This whole nation just somehow lost its mind over the ideal of
| a car centric suburban lifestyle. And yes, some of that was
| straight up racially motivated, in the trend of white flight.
| But there were lots of things that fed into it imo. And to be
| fair, there are plenty of people who do like a suburban
| lifestyle where they live on a culdesac and have to drive to a
| strip mall for routine errands. But if you look at the overall
| migration pattern, all the growth is happening in the 20 or so
| major metro areas, and in particular in the ones that offer the
| combination of high income jobs and a more urban lifestyle. Yet
| somehow all these DoT's across the nation are still acting like
| the dream of the 1950s is their only priority.
| mwt wrote:
| To take nothing away from the power of the manufacturers, I
| wonder to what extent local dealerships have had influence. In
| suburbia and mid-sized cities, the owners of dealerships tend
| to have a big say in local politics.
| exabrial wrote:
| YES, but.... there's a whole part of this that is missing.
|
| Bentonville and Fayetteville have built almost 1000 miles of bike
| specific, particularly Mountain Biking specific trails, right
| through town.
|
| This is not the faux "bike friendly" BS crap with "bike lanes"
| that painted in traffic that everyone ignores... These are not an
| attempt to squeeze bikes into an automotive infrastructure and
| all the other crap politicians pull... these are trails through
| the woods, backyards, down neighborhoods, paralleling sidewalks,
| etc. This is making Biking a first class citizen.
|
| Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive
| traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies
| on instagram or playing their friends in wordle. If cities want
| actual change, they need dedicated infrastructure for bikes, and
| these two cities have shown that it absolutely works.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Minneapolis has a lot of bike paths through its city parks
| (there are a lot of parks in Minneapolis: the chain of lakes,
| the Mississippi river, etc) and they really enhance the city
| when snow isn't on the ground.
|
| They enhance the use of parks, they don't make parks more
| noxious, they increase property values, they keep the city
| valuable.
|
| E-bikes are going to magnify the value of cities with good
| biking infrastructure. All of a sudden car trips become bike
| trips, and there are no concerns about hills or headwinds or
| towing a burly of stuff: the electric motor handles some or all
| of the required needed power. Need to haul ten bags of
| groceries and a kiddo up the big hill on the Mississippi? the
| electric motor will get you there.
|
| It hopefully will reduce the amount of surface area dedicated
| to cars, and switch those over to more parks and more
| recreation.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Minneapolis takes biking seriously. In huge amounts of snow
| and horrible weather!!
|
| Weather down there seems even more conducive.
|
| My dad can bike from their house to downtown in 15 minutes
| (more like 30 as getting older). It's amazing. Completely
| protected separate bike lane going through old rail corridor.
| I can bike to whole foods from there too without having to go
| on a busy street.
|
| They are expanding light rail there too but seems like
| similar to most cities it isn't great yet. Hopefully we'll
| see more density around the stops. My city Denver feels the
| same it's not actually used as much as it could be.
| bluGill wrote:
| e-bikes in parks need to be limited in speed though. Don't
| turn our parks into dangerous for pedestrians bike freeways.
| Bicycles in walkers do not mix very well, while it isn't as
| deadly as a car, getting hit by a bike still hurts.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on
| instagram or playing their friends in wordle.
|
| You will eventually get hit by someone who punishment passes
| you and is dangerously negligent because they've dehumanized
| you, and they just don't care if they do violence to you, and
| its you're fault because you're slow.
|
| Or you will get hit by people who simply don't register bikes
| and consciously or unconsciously think that bicyclists must
| yield to cars, sometimes turning left in front of you with no
| time for you to stop.
|
| Or you will get right hooked by someone who just passed you a
| second earlier and that is too long for their minds to track
| the fact that you're still there, or they again think they're
| entitled to drive however they want and you need to yield to
| whatever they do.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I bought a dashcam for my car because of bicyclists:
|
| 1. randomly wandering out of the bike lane and into the car
| lane
|
| 2. stopped in the middle of the car lane around a blind curve
|
| 3. drafting 3 feet behind the panel truck in front of them at
| 40 mph
|
| 4. riding two or three abreast, with the 2 or 3 well into the
| car lane
|
| 5. continuing to cycle at 25 mph in the bike lane while the
| traffic is going much slower, and there's a right hand turn
| coming up (it's difficult to spot these bikers while driving)
| johnatthebar wrote:
| Agreed that the recreational biking infrastructure in NW
| Arkansas is great, but not enough Fayetteville people bike for
| transportation for that to be a big part of this outcome. It's
| just 1% of all commutes, for example. Compare that to 4%-10% in
| university towns that use a lot of on-street bike lanes that
| take you more directly to destinations: Eugene, Corvallis,
| Bozeman, Madison, Fort Collins, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Ann Arbor.
| (Not saying those cities are perfect either, to be clear.)
|
| It's true that shitty bike lanes on auto-oriented streets are
| shitty, and that off-street paths are great. But lanes and
| paths are not the same thing, and neither of them is the reason
| this policy is working in Fayetteville.
| tombert wrote:
| In NYC, a lot of people (especially cops) seem to be under the
| impression that bike lanes are just extra parking.It's pretty
| irritating because going around them involves getting on the
| street, which isn't usually an issue, but occasionally roads in
| NY get extremely busy, and people in here seem to lack the
| ability to read speed limit signs (at least in Brooklyn).
| bluGill wrote:
| In some places the towing companies are directly allowed to
| tag and tow illegally parked cars, and inpound them until a
| fine is paid. You need to be very careful about corruption
| (that is they don't tow legally parked cars), but towing
| companies could help you as they make money from illegally
| parked cars.
| tombert wrote:
| That might work on civilian cars, but I doubt that a lot of
| towing companies are going to risk towing a cop car, no
| matter how corrupt they are. I'm certainly not brave enough
| to tattle on them.
| ahoy wrote:
| I think thats because, for all the progress NYC has made in
| installing bike infrastructure, they've done basically
| nothing to reduce the number of cars on our streets.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There should be a banner for any transit discussions that
| state you cannot optimize environments for both individual
| cars and non individual car transportion.
| tombert wrote:
| It's strange, because NYC is simultaneously overpopulated
| with cars, but is also one of the only places in the US
| where you can reasonably live without a car (I don't have
| one).
| Kluny wrote:
| It's even stranger when you realize that probably only
| 20% of trips in New York are conducted by car, and yet
| they are by far the largest physical presence everywhere
| you go. Actually quite obnoxious.
| bitcurious wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/nyregion/nyc-
| congestion-p...
|
| https://mashable.com/article/nyc-city-council-lyft-uber-
| cap-...
|
| Two specific policies, but there's also just the fact that
| every bike lane/pedestrian street/bus lane/low speed
| limit/etc. makes the city less car friendly and at some
| point that makes a difference.
| meetups323 wrote:
| > Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive
| traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies
| on instagram or playing their friends in wordle.
|
| And what's worse, I've had drivers stop to yell at me for
| riding on the (completely empty) sidewalk when crossing a
| narrow bridge busy with car traffic. As if hundreds of bikers
| don't die every year from getting whacked by careless drivers.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| I can do you one better, I've been yelled out by drivers for
| riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the
| way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying
| to cycle in the US.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| Because bikes DO NOT belong on roads. Getting hit by a car
| while you're on a bike is deadly. A bike running into a
| pedestrian on a sidewalk is an inconvenience.
| xerox13ster wrote:
| Having lived in Bentonville, the trails are absolutely
| meaningless if there aren't sidewalks off the trail with which
| to get to final destinations.
|
| I was a pedestrian cyclist there from 2017-2020 and I
| frequently was walking or riding in the roads or ditches when
| the sidewalk ran out. Sure, I could get across town, but when I
| get there, who knows if there's sidewalks?
|
| If I wanted to go grocery shopping and be on a sidewalk/bike
| trail, I had to go an extra mile out of my way to go under the
| overpass and through the community college to get to
| neighborhood market. That trip was already a mile if I rode
| along the road, so double the distance. That's not making
| cycling a first class citizen! That's hiding cyclists from cars
| who are the real first class citizen. I know, I grew up there.
|
| Fayetteville and Rogers get this right(ish), Bentonville wants
| to pretend they have it right so talent will move there for
| Walmart after Walmart spent decades making sure brain drain was
| inevitable by keeping the area "small town" (they bragged about
| this during my corporate orientation) and fighting density that
| could have naturally precipitated good pedestrian and biking
| infrastructure.
|
| And the separate bike lanes through the woods are not some
| grand way to make cycling first class they are NECESSARY or the
| rural drivers who come into the "city" would be playing chicken
| games and trying to run cyclists off the road. When I grew up
| this was a common thing to joke about!
| black_puppydog wrote:
| > who knows if there's sidewalks?
|
| Living in Europe this question doesn't compute _at all_. Such
| a foreign idea to even contemplate. If it doesn 't have a
| sidewalk, it must be a country road or a highway right?
| Couldn't happen in a reasonably densely populated area...?
| reaperducer wrote:
| What a strange thing to read. I've been to dozens and
| dozens of urban places in Europe that have streets without
| sidewalks.
|
| Or in many of the places, the sidewalks exist, but are
| useless because cars are allowed to park on them.
|
| I've never understood how people in wheelchairs are able to
| get anywhere in most of "civilized" Europe.
| GordonS wrote:
| I've been all over Europe, and I think the only places
| I've seen streets without pavements (sidewalks) is in
| historic town centres.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think it's a little weird to reply to a counter-example
| with, essentially, "well I've never seen that, so it must
| not be a big deal".
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Jup. And these historic town centers are increasingly
| pedestrianized anyhow. so technically they're _all_
| sidewalk and _no_ space for cars. :P
| uoaei wrote:
| One word: stroad
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
|
| USA seems to be unique in the case that they think this
| design constitutes a _finished product_.
|
| Edit: the Not Just Bikes youtube channel has great content
| regarding contemporary urban planning. Here's their video
| about stroads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
| standardUser wrote:
| To be fair, Latin America has it far worse in terms of
| lack of sidewalks, even in wealthier urban areas.
| bluGill wrote:
| Sidewalks went out of style in the 1960s, and a trend that
| started reversing around 2000. Developers have learned that
| people like sidewalks and do use them so they are building
| them again to attract people to build on their lots.
|
| That said, the purpose of said sidewalks is to exercise
| your dog, or let your kids ride their bikes around. They
| often don't connect up to anything in a useful way (other
| than nearby parks and maybe elementary schools - but only
| if they are very close)
| yardie wrote:
| Sidewalks went out of fashion because developers thought
| they took away property sq footage. So a 5000sqft SFH lot
| became 4800 sqft. But then homeowners realized if kids
| don't have sidewalks they'll play in the streets.
|
| If they could get away with it developers would drop
| sidewalks completely. It's only because cities and towns
| started mandating it that they became fashionable again.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| > They often don't connect up to anything in a useful way
| (other than nearby parks and maybe elementary schools -
| but only if they are very close)
|
| What should it connect to? Thanks to zoning there is no
| Cafe you can go to or a small supermarket or anything
| else in the vicinity. Not even public transport which
| then might bring you elsewhere.
| tdhz77 wrote:
| Found the person that worked at Walmart.
| mikestew wrote:
| Good job! But if OP hadn't mentioned in their comment that
| they worked at Walmart, would you have still figured it
| out?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's a big deal because it's shovel ready for improvements.
|
| When the Feds someday allocate billions to bike
| infrastructure, they'll get the sidewalks, etc.
|
| Imo securing rights of way that can be a framework for a
| future system is key.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Fayetteville is less than 100K people, and the entire metro area
| (the so-called "Northwest Arkansas" region) is about 500K people.
| It seems small, self-contained, and isolated.
|
| I live in Alexandria, a famous historical neighborhood in the
| Washington DC metro area. Alexandria proper has about 160K
| people, in a metropolis of 6-7 million, and Alexandria attracts a
| large number of outside visitors from around the region because
| of its notoriety.
|
| I think that eliminating parking requirements for businesses is
| an interesting idea worth consideration. But I wonder how far
| this can really be taken in my city. We already have high and
| problematic overflow of visitor parking into residential
| neighborhoods. I wonder if Fayetteville can pull this off
| primarily because of its size.
| thebradbain wrote:
| > But I wonder how far this can really be taken in my city.
|
| It can and should be taken to 100%. Even Los Angeles and Dallas
| - much bigger cities than Alexandria - are studying eliminating
| parking minimums.
|
| Practically, eliminating parking minimums does not mean there
| will be no parking built: developers will still include enough
| parking that makes sense (and sometimes that's - gasp - none!)
| for a project, because in real life a large apartment buildings
| with absolutely no parking makes just as little sense as an
| apartment building with twice the number of parking spaces as
| tenants, especially in an urban area where car ownership is
| certainly not 100% (or in some neighborhoods, much less than
| 50%). This is something that almost every other major city in
| the world figured out long ago.
|
| Philosophically, parking minimums are only something Americans
| think is necessary because it's been that way for so long. Why
| don't we have bike rack minimums? Parking maximums?
|
| Anecdotally, my single family home in Los Angeles technically
| has a parking minimum of 8(!) cars, due to weirdness with the
| zoning laws. I live right near transit and don't even have one
| car. I'd love to replace part of my driveway with a deck and
| expanded backyard, still leave a few spots for guests, and it
| would effect literally no one, but doing so would mean my home
| is no longer up to code.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > Even Los Angeles and Dallas - much bigger cities than
| Alexandria
|
| Well... LA is huge but Dallas is not that much bigger than
| DC.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I don't think it is a fair assumption to say that reducing the
| number of available parking spots will automatically mean it is
| harder to find parking. If there are fewer parking spots
| available, fewer people will try to drive and park there. There
| is an induced demand that more parking spaces provides.
|
| Now, will that mean less people in the area? Maybe, or maybe
| they will use alternative transportation.
| anamax wrote:
| > There is an induced demand that more parking spaces
| provides.
|
| Increased parking does not increase demand, it satisfies more
| of the demand that has always been there.
| cortesoft wrote:
| What makes you so sure of that?
|
| Parking inducing demand is pretty well accepted in the
| urban planning community:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/study-
| the...
| kevincox wrote:
| > I wonder how far this can really be taken in my city. We
| already have high and problematic overflow of visitor parking
| into residential neighborhoods.
|
| The problematic thinking is that the cars need to be here in
| the first place. If it is easy to get to the residential
| neighborhoods by walking, biking or public transit then most of
| these cars don't need to exist.
|
| Of course it isn't easy. It takes a long time to shift habit,
| culture and perception. But the upsides are great. It is easier
| and faster to get around, less people getting hit by cars, less
| noise. Plus there are other benefits like I can go out and
| drink without worrying how I can get home or who is the DD.
| geofft wrote:
| Not disagreeing, really, but - habit, culture, perception,
| _and infrastructure_. Minimum parking requirements, and more
| generally streets designed around cars, are a form of
| infrastructure. I 'm not saying it's a _good_ form of
| infrastructure, but it is one. Local government needs to
| invest in alternatives: pervasive sidewalks, well-designed
| protected bike lanes so that people who are interested in
| biking but worried about being hit - which is over 50% of
| adults in US metro regions, see
| https://jenniferdill.net/types-of-cyclists/ - actually decide
| to bike, legal use of e-bikes, intersection designs that
| don't prioritize high-speed cars, reliable and frequent and
| ideally 24-hour public transit with dense stops (so probably
| buses and bus lanes), and so forth.
|
| And yes, to be fair, habit and culture and perception play
| into this too. Cities build this infrastructure when people
| demand it and can convincingly argue that it will get used.
| Potential bus stops are more useful when there isn't a
| parking lot separating the bus route and the store people
| want to get to. Useful sidewalks are a natural consequence of
| commercial districts designed to be accessed by
| foot/bike/transit instead of by car, and so forth. But it
| does take both of these.
| kelnos wrote:
| Also consider that many places in the US aren't conducive
| to pervasive, year-round cycling. I know there are some
| places in the world where people cycle in 85F and 30F
| weather alike, but I don't think most Americans (especially
| if they are visiting a city with a different climate than
| they're used to) would be interested in a freezing cold
| trip, or one where they have to take a shower when they
| arrive.
| falsenapkin wrote:
| I didn't even know that minimum parking was an issue, where else
| can I read about this? How prevalent is it in other cities? It
| sounds like some 50s/60s era white flight policy permanently
| enshrining cars into city life.
|
| I've been to Bentonville (~2016) quite a bit for work, always
| said I'd go to Fayetteville _next time_. Bentonville wasn 't
| anything worth writing about for how I want to live but I can see
| it being an attractive place for quite a lot of people, I was
| kind of surprised by how underpopulated it seemed. I guess not a
| lot of jobs outside of the obvious few. Crystal Bridges was a
| great museum, the Ozarks are lovely. In general I felt a lot more
| positive visiting that area than I was expecting to.
| drivers99 wrote:
| A couple YouTube channels I'd suggest:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/notjustbikes
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/OhTheUrbanity
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/CityBeautiful
|
| If you want to go deep on parking policy, here's a talk by
| Donald Shoup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0gokb4rPik
| Cryptid wrote:
| the webiste Strong Towns has some good info on parking
| minimums:
|
| https://www.strongtowns.org/parking
|
| https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/25/parking-minim...
|
| Some more:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/to-save-t...
| mperham wrote:
| So much of American zoning code makes our suburbs into ugly,
| inhumane places. StrongTowns.org is a good place to start.
| Their blog is great and will quickly radicalize you.
| [deleted]
| johnatthebar wrote:
| good short video summary:
| https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/19/15993936/high-cost-of-f...
| radres wrote:
| Oh, those ugly looking parking spaces in front of every business
| was an enforced thing in the US?
| DannyB2 wrote:
| Obvious conclusion: since the removal of minimum parking
| requirements worked in this particular situation, they work
| everywhere for everyone in all situations.
| duxup wrote:
| This appears to already be a very walk-able kinda place.
|
| Not to say this can't be done elsewhere but this seems like a
| place that was going to be popular / this was going to work
| regardless.
| rogerdb wrote:
| These shouldn't be thought of as orthogonal issues. You can
| dramatically improve the walkability of a place by reducing the
| amount of space reserved for parking.
| uoaei wrote:
| City centers in forward-thinking European cities are trying
| things like this: forbidding cars from the central square and
| a few blocks' perimeter results in much calmer and more
| pleasant pedestrian experiences. Instead of roads for cars
| you have pedestrian boulevards, avenues, and alleys with
| greenery throughout and a distinct sense that you live _in_ a
| community, rather than merely _among_ it.
| andys627 wrote:
| Chicken or egg.
|
| The whole US was once walkable, then we massively subsidized
| driving for 2 generations, and now they are not walkable.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Cars are a fundamental requirement for living in most of America.
| The problems which arise from lack of parking is that cars become
| a nuisance fast.
|
| I lived in an apartment complex where the parking minimum
| requirements were...bent... by the developer and it was by far
| the worst place I ever lived. Basically, what happened was the
| complex was under development, and the soil couldn't support a
| parking lot where one was planned due to drainage. So parking was
| added to another section of the development, around 1.0mi or so
| down the road. Meaning one complex had 4 spots per unit, with the
| other had like 0.5 spots per unit, but it worked out to 2.25 or
| something spots per unit on average. (I know this because I was
| friends with the complex manager, and she gave me the details)
|
| The end result was people would park on sidewalks, in the middle
| of the road, in front of garages, double park, etc. It was a
| nightmare of epic proportions. People blocked in by assholes
| would blare their horns at 6AM. Others would intentionally "move"
| cars out of the way, which led to fights. There was a shooting.
| The fire marshal stepped in and started fining the complex, but
| they couldn't get people to stop, short of evictions.
|
| The people who paid ridiculous amounts of money for their town
| homes next door were so pissed off about people parking in their
| private community that the cops were constantly harassing people
| for trespassing. I faced this myself just by going for a walk.
|
| Why didn't people just get cars towed? Because tow trucks won't
| come out on someone's word. You actually have to go and tell the
| main office, then they have to call the tow company. But the
| thing is, the tow company doesn't tell you that, they just say
| they are "on their way," so you wait an hour or two for them to
| tow the car blocking you in and they never come.
|
| So yeah, minimum parking is bad. But no minimum parking when
| everyone ones a car is worse. You need space for cars
| _somewhere_.
|
| I say this as a person who absolutely loves walkable cities, and
| lives in a decently walkable one myself. We need to get rid of
| parking minimums, but we need to be smart about it. Maybe have
| the developers build parking in lots in designated areas on the
| perimeter of the development (kind of like those outdoor malls
| have)?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Seeing as this just changed six years ago, it's a bit early to
| start calling it a success. I spent a lot of my teenage years in
| Fayetteville, and remember parking sucking downtown and near
| Dickson. Ending parking requirements six years ago just means
| that they're six years into a project during which they're going
| to gradually make parking even worse, and see what happens.
|
| "And that's kind of the point. Business owners shouldn't have to
| be experts in parking regulations to decide if a site will work
| for them."
|
| If that's the point, it's a shit point. What other regulations
| shouldn't they be forced to read or think about?
| floatrock wrote:
| Shit point for who? The commuters who drive in from the outer
| burbs, or the people who live within the walkable area and
| provide the density needed to support a rich ecosystem of shops
| and restaurants within a close proximity?
|
| The point of this urban design trend is to not think of these
| regions as destinations, but rather as places you live in and
| so can _avoid_ the car trips in the first place. If you can
| walk there, why is parking relevant?
|
| Is it friendly towards the people who live in suburban housing
| developments who need a car to get anywhere? No. But those
| people chose to live in a place where you need a car to get
| everywhere, so they shouldn't be surprised their lifestyle
| isn't accommodated in districts that have made a conscious
| decision to be less car-centric.
|
| "But only the rich people can afford to live in the cute small
| downtown!" Great... that's telling you something about the
| market desirability of small, dense walkable regions. Why don't
| we get rid of more zoning codes and build more places that the
| market demands?
| fermentation wrote:
| Unfortunately you still need a car. Everyone in Fayetteville
| owns a car and you need one to get to any real grocery store.
| I think it's awesome that despite the fact that everyone owns
| cars, the expansion from Dickson has been done in a
| pedestrian-friendly way.
| andys627 wrote:
| It's more about the city planners not having to be parking
| experts. Parking minimums are one of many subsidies to drivers
| in that they set a supply floor for parking spots. If driving
| is so popular then why do we have to shower drivers with money
| at every level of government?
| treis wrote:
| The restaurant mentioned likely relies on street parking for
| those that drive there. As a shared & city owned resource
| it's within the purview of the city to manage it.
|
| For the most part this story is overblown. Few cities have
| parking minimums in their cores these days. And you'll find
| few that support parking minimums there.
| Ekaros wrote:
| It would be interesting to see city ban all traffic in
| their area. No private or public vehicles, taxis, delivery
| trucks, busses or emergency vehicles. Just allow certain
| sized cargo bikes and like. The true only walking
| neighbourhood.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Uber, Chomp and 100 other modern innovations may have put the
| one-person-one-car idea in the dust bin.
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, by flooding our cities with 'zero-person-one-car' traffic.
| (An Uber driver going to a pickup point is a car on the road
| that is, effectively, transporting exactly zero people.)
|
| From a fewer-cars-need-to-be-built perspective, it's an
| improvement. From a traffic/GHG emissions/more-roads-need-to-
| be-built perspective, it's a regression.
| lkbm wrote:
| Not sure we'd need more roads. Nearly every road in my area
| could add a lane by simply eliminating street parking on one
| side.
|
| (Pickup/dropoff might be annoying with no parking lane, but
| honestly, they use the bike lane for that more often than the
| parking lane.)
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| All good points. But not related to parking, which was the
| OP's point.
| thehappypm wrote:
| If Uber is working properly the amount of time drivers are
| alone should be very small.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-23 23:01 UTC)