this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
1362 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

10393 readers
479 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1362
The issue is not space, but how we move through it (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I wish we'd just do non luxury apartment high rises with underground parking in HCOL areas. Then there is room for green spaces, and more people can be accommodated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Parking is always expensive, and even more so for underground. The counter argument is that you can build much cheaper without, so the units can be more affordable.

I don’t entirely buy that, since developers could already choose less high end finishing for more affordable units and they usually don’t.

Also, “less parking” is not the same as “no parking” and that hinges on their being useful transit or walkability. I know that’s one of the points of a district like this, but this is why you do need to think big, so that an individual developer can make the choice

See also “transit oriented development”. Boston is one of the cities that has been pursuing that idea. Recently it was extended into the suburbs with new higher density zoning being a requirement for every community served by the regional transit authority

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

All that goes up are luxury units that nobody can afford and it is usually the same stick built BS that is inefficient in use of space and adds more tarmac

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Sure, but zoning has some effect - developers will build to maximize their profit within what is allowed by zoning.

  • if zoning allows multiple units, they maximize profits by building as many as they can
  • if zoning requires less parking, they may maximize profits by replacing some parking space with more units (assuming sufficient transit to allow them to sell)
  • if zoning creates areas of higher density, a town center type of area can create a synergy that draws more people, more profit.
  • while not everyone wants to live in a town center or a large building, more housing supply can drive down prices for everyone: supply and demand

I’m not claiming zoning is sufficient nor does it act quickly but it can be a tool for improving livability, setting the conditions for developers to profit more by building what the town benefits from.

Currently zoning is mostly a weapon enforcing the status quo, but it doesn’t have to be