Report a Comment

How would the community be placed at risk? No one has proposed to outlaw cars or parking. The only proposal has been to not mandate parking minimums, leaving it up to the property owner to decide. Commenters on this thread have also pointed out the large costs of parking construction.

It's great that everyone knows their neighbors. However, don't you wish that the community was laid out in a way such that it was not essential to give rides to those who don't drive?

By this sentence: "Walkable communities and space for cars are antithetical to each other." I meant that the more space you give to cars and traffic, the farther apart the stuff for people becomes. The farther apart things are, the less convenient it is to walk. The car becomes essential rather than a nice thing to have. I argue that should not be the case. A driver's license should not be required to perform the daily functions of life. Contrast your neighborhood with Capitol Hill or Logan Circle or Bethesda. No car necessary in those places becase everything, including transit, is in a roughly 10 minute walk. A resident of one of those places chooses whether or not they want a car. They choose how often they use it. Contrast that to a place like Bowie or Leesburg. Very different. Because everything is so spread out, you are a prisoner in your house without a car. In his book "Option of Urbanism", C. Leinburger describes car dependent and walkable places in terms of Floor Area Ratio (FAR). That makes sense in describing whether distances are on a human or automobile scale.

This passage from one of my above comments is a decent response to your question:

"Cars aren't going away. And, truthfully, that's ok. I own one. I use it to go to places where there isn't transit. However, we should not be building our places for cars. We should build them at the human scale for human beings. The car should be the guest in a human environment, not the other way around. Most of what we've built since World War II has been for cars, with humans being the interlopers."

Here is another passage from an above quote:

"With more housing in the same urban grid, there is more demand for businesses. With more businesses, there is more amenities in walking distance. With more stuff in walking distance, there is less need to drive. With less driving, there is less demand for parking. With more density, bus/rail transportation to get to places out of walking distance becomes more practical"

Here is a quote that describes where parking fits into the equation:

"Remember, free parking is not free. We all pay for it, whether we use it or not. Any parking structure is costly (as highlighted in previous comments) to build and maintain. Those costs get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, regardless of whether or not they drove to the store. There are also the externalities of pollution from the runoff and extra traffic congestion that resulted from discretionary car trips that were induced by the convenience of the parking lot."

Here is a quote (also from one of my above comments) that sums up part of why I think the way I do:

"It just so happens that car-dependent infrastructure is far more expensive for society [than a walkable street grid]. I am advocating a fiscally conservative position."

by Cavan on Nov 28, 2008 2:04 pm • link • report