
Let's build houses for people, not cars - dhritzkiv
https://noparkinghere.com
======
vinceguidry
I hold no love for parking minimums, and would love to see them abolished, but
proposals like "we should turn 10% of all current parking spaces into low-
income housing" just make me roll eyes.

That's not an actionable proposal, the closest that gets to an actionable
proposal is to demolish existing parking structures and either put public
housing projects on top of them or incentivize real estate developers to build
actual low-income housing.

Telling real estate developers to build low-income housing in areas where they
could easily build high-income housing is, well, let's just say cities promise
this all the time and developers never do it.

"Build more housing" is probably the answer to the homeless problem, but the
ownership issue needs to be fixed first. The author made all these cute
graphics of studio apartments superimposed on parking spaces. Cool, I like
density, my condo is 650 sqft, like 3 or 4 spaces without egress.

Are we talking about literally taking parking from existing owners and
building housing on the bare pads? Are we talking about building vertically on
top of them and leaving the space underneath for cars? I'm not saying these
are bad ideas. But can we fully bake them first? So a politician can actually
hand it to a bunch of legislators and come up with something he can actually
put on his platform?

Sure let's abolish the minimum. But that won't do a darned thing to help
congestion and the housing shortage other than make LA more like Atlanta where
there's an island of density around a bunch of ugly sprawl with more dense
pockets springing up in the periphery. We're still waiting for market
conditions to fix the city. And market forces don't care about what we want.
Promising low-income housing in desirable real estate markets doesn't work but
is the only thing politicians can put on their platforms that people will vote
for.

~~~
timerol
"we should turn 10% of all current parking spaces into low-income housing"
wasn't a proposal on the site. It was more of a demonstration that, if we
could do that, we would satisfy the entire deficit of low-income renters that
currently exists in LA. The actual policy proposals were at the end:

1\. No universal parking minimums. Developers choose how much parking the
market requires.

2\. Parking Maximums in Transit Oriented Communities.

3\. All new parking garages must be built with a flat floor and a high enough
ceiling to allow future conversion into office, studio, or living space.

4\. 20% of parking spaces must include EV charging, with the rest install
ready.

5\. Garages must include an equivalent number of bicycle/micro-mobility
parking spaces.

I would say suggestions 2-5 get progressively worse, but suggestion 1 is
really good and backed up by the data presented.

~~~
nradov
Suggestion 1 is terrible unless it's combined with a limited permit scheme for
street parking. Otherwise you end up with a mess where everyone buys a car
anyway, then ends up circling the block around and around hunting for a space.

~~~
novok
Eventually people learn to not do that anymore, like many do in downtown areas
today... Eventually they might reduce the amount of cars they have, because
doing that is a pain in the ass. Or they pay for their parking spot vs.
freeloading on 'free' parking.

------
pr0duktiv
Zurich had this problem, the city was built before cars were a thing and thus
it is inept of handling much traffic. The authorities decided to
disincentivize driving cars by blocking roads and reducing available parking
spaces [0] while offering good public transport. Worked well, now only 17%
commute by car.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zürich_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zürich_model)

~~~
partiallypro
That's well and good, but the sticking point is "the city was built before
cars were a thing." The US is already heavy with sprawl and it's a reality
that we have to live with. I'm not sure how to put that cat back in the bag.

~~~
grecy
Block roads and build better public transport.

Just because it's difficult and will require some pain in the short term, it
doesn't mean we should do - and therefore _improve_ \- nothing.

~~~
mises
But public transport is simply not as good for now; ramming it down people's
throats is not a solution. It is crowded, unclean, slow, and noisy. I have to
listen to some one else blaring his music, or some fat guy taking two seats.
Or some smelly guy who can't be bothered to shower. I suddenly have to plan my
schedule around my transportation, rather than my transportation around my
schedule. Maybe we should focus on making it a _better option_.

Also, why would you block existing roads? That's a ridiculous proposition.
There's a difference between building something better and just forcing every
one onto something worse. The market is stronger and smarter than any
government, and will try as hard as it can to circumvent any thing you pass.
Why not have the invisible hand do your work for you? Make it a better option,
and people will use it.

~~~
helen___keller
> Maybe we should focus on making it a better option.

I think everybody agrees with this until it comes time to talk taxes and then
everyone with a car says they're happy with their commutes and they don't want
to pay for somebody else to take a train, don't want a whole lane for a bus,
and so on. So instead you get some meaningless token effort and everybody goes
on driving

Making driving "worse" (or at least refusing to invest to make it better)
gives transit a competitive advantage. Optimizing for personal cars gives cars
a competitive advantage, which is the story of the 20th century

> Also, why would you block existing roads? That's a ridiculous proposition.

It's not even remotely controversial when I've seen it done, like downtown
streets in Boston made pedestrian only. The vast majority of people (who are
on foot) love it.

~~~
briandear
Why can’t the people that want transit be the ones that pay for it? If public
transit were in high demand, it would seem like it shouldn’t be charging a
subsidized fare.

Making driving worse does give transit a competitive advantage. However, if
transit were so desirable, why would it need to win by simply making
everything suck more? That’s not a very strong vote for transit. Transit
should win because it’s better, not because we have made all the other options
suck more. I suppose we could have snipers shooting at freeway cars if we
wanted to increase subway ridership right? However, that doesn’t make the
subway intrinsically better. It just means you have a lot more people unhappy.

I don’t understand why people are willing to make the largest number of people
unhappy in order to achieve some transit utopian fantasy. The whole debate
sounds like Marxism: let’s make everyone’s life suck equally. We don’t
actually want anyone to enjoy their car because then they wouldn’t want to
take our shitty bus. If your bus wasn’t so shitty (I am in the Bay Area, so I
mean that both literally and figuratively,) then maybe people might want to
ride your bus. My company has some private bus shuttles that are spectacular.
When possible, I prefer to ride those shuttles despite having a great car and
an easy drive. But riding the city bus? Heck no! I would need a hepatitis
booster shot as well as having to ride in dirty, uncomfortable surroundings
with crazy people. Not to mention waiting at a bus stop with those same sorts
of people — and stopping every two blocks for someone to get on or off.

~~~
helen___keller
Yeah I don't know what to tell you guy, where I live public transit is full of
average people who work average jobs.

------
thorwasdfasdf
Parking minimums are a big problem. But, it's just a part of a much bigger
problem: Regulation is strangling the life out of us. Regulation like zoning
and countless other regs prevents market forces from working the way they
should.

Have you ever heard of a banana shortage crisis or a jeans shortage crisis in
the US? No you haven't. The reason is because market forces are able to adjust
to changes in market demand. In housing, those market forces are bottled up
and stifled, preventing investments, preventing innovation, preventing
progress, preventing better solutions. We really really need to start looking
at regulations and find ways to get rid of the ones causing all these
problems.

ADDED: We've seen very little actual VC money or Research and development go
into improving the cost of creating Shelter (In fact, we haven't made any
improvements in this in the last 50 to 100 years adjusted for inflation). Much
of this is due to regulations. Other industries can find ways to reduce cost
but the mountain of housing regulations prevent any and all progress in these
areas. I'd argue Housing is one of the most critical areas that human should
be trying to progress in, as it's most important for human survival.

~~~
akmiller
Because in the absence of regulation, companies will be driven by the market
to do the "right" thing? This is not a problem in which the solution is likely
to be highly profitable (or even profitable at all) so I'm not sure why you
suggest that a free and unregulated market would lead to an improvement in
this scenario.

You mention zoning laws in particular. Those were designed for specific
reasons so what about them would you change? Surely you aren't suggesting just
to get rid of them all?

~~~
jgust
Nothing like buying a house and having a bus depot opened on the lot next door
a year later. #freemarket

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
nothing like never being able to afford a house ever at all. And when you
finally are able too, with a humungous mortgage and insane property taxes (due
to the high price you paid for it).

No-zoning means housing is much much cheaper, we're talking 100K - 800K
difference or more. With all the money you saved, you'd be able to buy another
house far away from that bus depot.

~~~
bronson
> With all the money you saved, you'd be able to buy another house far away
> from that bus depot.

> ... and have another bus depot opened on that lot next door a year later.

and so on.

~~~
jessaustin
Is this so common a thing, new bus depots? From "depot" rather than "station"
I'm envisioning Greyhound buses. I was under the impression that long-distance
bus ridership was stable if not declining...

Besides which, does anyone really deserve to live a certain minimum distance
from transportation options? Why would anyone dislike her neighbors that much?

~~~
jgust
Trees, meet forest. Bus depot, power station, factory, Amazon warehouse,
sewage treatment plant. They are interchangeable in the sense that you don't
necessarily want to live directly next to one, which is why to an extent
zoning exists.

------
crocal
This is all fine and good, but IMHO LA metro map says it all [1]. 6 lines.
What a joke. This mega city should have light or heavy rail metro pretty much
everywhere. It's even better if there are parking lots in abundance. Park &
Ride can be put into place more easily. So, it's obviously a political choice
and I am not sure more regulation on parking will have any significant impact
on this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail)

~~~
emsy
I'm from Germany and visited LA last month. I was riding the rail because we
usually use public transportation when visiting other countries. We wanted to
visit the walk of fame and it was a much nicer experience than hassling
through the traffic in LA. The traffic is borderline insane. The diamond lane
was almost empty because apparently everyone is driving in their own car. My
wife and I were under the impression that only people who can't afford a car
were driving the rail, but we don't know if that's true or not. The rail (and
bus) was certainly a much saner choice than the car. I've never seen such a
large city with such an underused public transportation. Meanwhile, you have 5
or 6 lanes running through the city, which makes the rail stops unbearably
loud.

~~~
miguelmota
I recently visited Berlin Germany and was impressed by how literally everyone
uses bicycles there.

~~~
roelschroeven
I once visited Berlin, and the tourist guide (I mean the book, not a person)
also talked about how many bicycles there were. Thing is, I didn't think the
number of bicycles was all that much different from what I was used to where I
live (Antwerp, Belgium) or from visiting other European cities.

Wait till you see Amsterdam or Kopenhagen!

~~~
dna_polymerase
Or Utrecht, for that matter.

In those cities riding the bike actually viable because there are bike lanes
or closed down streets just for walking or bikes. It seems to be a cultural
thing, most US cities are not that bike friendly.

------
xivzgrev
Ugh. Has this author ever visited LA? The entire city / culture is built
around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address
that, other than a few whimpy shoutouts to build more “convenient” public
transit. Apparently we can get rid of all parking in Hollywood because a
single red line runs through it.

In order for a public transit system to be convenient you need a LOT of
density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with
each other. That’s why a lot of people prefer cars. No one likes traffic or
emissions, and cars are way more likely to kill you, but damn are cars
convenient even in urban environments.

Any plan like this can have all these numbers talking about how much space
could be freed up but they need to address this fundamental problem, and this
article failed to.

Now what interesting is the rise of self driving cars. I’ve often see paid
parking lots and think within 20-30 years they will be out of biz. A few large
operators will emerge and park their cars overnight at some owned large lot
far out of the city to recharge, maintain, etc, and there won’t be much need
anymore. So that could be a path to what author is talking about, long term.
Of course does nothing for parking lot owners who just hold onto the property
speculating...

~~~
davidw
It's always amazed me that humans - even those without much 'high tech' \- can
adapt to environments as diverse as the arctic, Kalahari desert, or jungles of
Borneo, but god forbid the government stop mandating the precise number of
parking spots places need, because no one would be able to adapt.

~~~
jimmaswell
Ok, go live in the arctic without any electricity since it's so easy then.
Just because we can live in worse conditions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive
for improvement, and as may come as a surprise to some people, most people
like having parking available and find cars convenient.

~~~
davidw
I'd find it convenient to have no one else on the roads when I drive on them.

But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different
things.

Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to
exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some
developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it.
Others may not. They should be free to do so.

~~~
jimmaswell
It's a tragedy of the commons issue which is where these kinds of laws come
in.

I've yet to see any alternative to cars proposed that I personally find
acceptable, but some people do want to live that way for some reason. New
areas of the city being made without parking for those people would be fine if
there really is a demand for it but I wouldn't like moving somewhere and it
later becoming car-hostile.

~~~
davidw
You should visit a mid-size town in Europe sometime.

Where my family and I lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a "right tool
for the job" situation:

* We could walk to a grocery store, our kids schools, the doctor, a few cafe's, a barber, and a takeout pizza place.

* We could also walk to a tram that would whisk us downtown, which was way more convenient than driving and looking for a parking spot.

* We could ride our bikes downtown if the weather was nice, which was good for date nights when we wanted to be more mobile than the tram allowed for, and we didn't have the kids.

* We could drive (1 car for a family of 4) if we wanted to, say, go hiking somewhere out in the woods, or take a trip somewhere. There were weeks when the car would just sit there, though, because we just didn't need it.

Walking and biking are much nicer ways of getting around when stuff is
convenient to those modes of transportation. Less stressful, and it feels good
to move around. It's also _far_ better for the environment.

------
listenallyall
If I understand your argument, higher density, less space for parking, better
public transportation should help solve the lack of affordable housing. So why
are Manhattan, SF, London, Hong Kong among the most expensive places in the
world to live? Why is downtown <your city here> more expensive than the
suburbs?

~~~
xenocyon
Your question is a little like asking "If chemotherapy cures cancer, then how
come most people I know who have undergone chemotherapy tend to have cancer?"
If the cities you mentioned hadn't undertaken some pro-density measures they
would be even _more_ unaffordable.

BTW if I sound like I'm anti-density because of the "cancer" metaphor, I'm
not; sprawl is bad for the planet among other things, and well-planned
walkable dense cities are the best way for a burgeoning human population to
live in harmony with the planet and with ourselves.

~~~
listenallyall
No, its not like that. Dense, walkable cities create demand, chemotherapy
doesn't create cancer. If LA were to create an ultra-dense core tomorrow, more
people and companies would relocate there, bringing rents right back to the
level they are now, probably higher. The only people losing out would be
existing low-income people who got displaced.

NYC concrete jungle = "live in harmony with the planet"? Lol.

------
lazyjones
This nonsense gets repeated over and over again:

 _What you get is what you build. New roads just create more incentive for
driving. It 's been well documented over and over again that vehicle miles
driven increases proportionally to roadway created. Lewis Mumford famously
said “Building more roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening
his belt to prevent obesity.”_

It's not the roads that cause traffic, it's the convenience of driving. To
show how absurd the argument is, let's use it for housing - I'm sure it can be
easily "documented" that building housing leads to higher population figures.
So it must be bad, let's not do it!

~~~
CPLX
> It's not the roads that cause traffic, it's the convenience of driving.

Exactly. Roads make driving more convenient.

Build trains and that makes taking the train more convenient so you get more
of that.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

~~~
Spivak
Trains don’t solve the last mile problem in metropolitan areas. It’s just not
economically feasible to constantly run trains or buses that cover a
metropolitan area with less than 1 mile spreads and acceptable intervals.

I’m being generous that ‘walk a mile’ at source and destination would pass
muster for people with difficulties.

Making our infrastructure for cars better seems like a much better solution
honestly.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Taxis, shuttles, rideshare are a thing.

~~~
Spivak
Right, but the point is that all the solutions to the last mile problem are...
cars. Which is fine but if you're going to do that then what's the advantage
of not using it the whole way? The throughput of highways is great, there's no
schedule to follow, you don't have congestion and surge pricing at popular
stops with hundreds of people trying to hail a cab at rush hour, and if you're
price conscious gas is cheap and you can find perfectly usable cars for less
than $1k.

And you can use your car for more than just your daily commute.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Parking is the main difference.

------
johngalt
Moving from car centered sprawl, to dense transit oriented city isn't
something that can be done in one step. It's immensely complex, and changing
the direction of cities/governments is difficult even when everyone involved
_wants_ to change.

I'm reminded of whiteboard discussions where someone says we are 'here X' and
we want to be 'there Y' and simply draws an arrow between the two and says
'get started'. Assuming that all the important decisions have been made. Not
realizing that the all complexity is in the arrow.

That arrow going from car focused to transit focused cities needs to be broken
down into individual steps and those steps is where we need the brainpower
going.

~~~
WesleyLivesay
This is what runs through my mind everytime one of these articles shows up on
HN.

There is no easy way to undo decades of urban sprawl across the US, especially
when many cities have huge amounts of space around them to make this possible.

Also, one of those steps is probably sinking incredible amounts of money into
initially barely used public transit which is bound to be politically
unpopular.

~~~
Zarath
Eliminate or reduce mandatory parking minimums. It's pretty clearly implied
from the article given that's basically what's talked about.

------
gok
"The City of Los Angeles has the highest number of Lane miles per 1,000
persons in the US. "

Woah stop right there. That's the opposite of reality. Of the metro areas in
the contiguous US, LA is in fact _last_ in miles per resident:
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/h...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/hm72.cfm)

(The absolute least is Honolulu)

~~~
83457
Maybe they are talking about the city specifically while other is speaking to
the overall metro area?

~~~
gok
Ok I guess they're citing table 2 from this?
[https://escholarship.org/content/qt485983zw/qt485983zw.pdf](https://escholarship.org/content/qt485983zw/qt485983zw.pdf)

Which:

\- Uses data from 2000

\- Only looks at LA proper (not really meaningful)

\- Still doesn't support their claim. Miami, Detroit, Dallas, Tampa Bay, St
Louis all have higher lanes/person

I'm guessing they thought it showed LA being highest because it's first in the
table and didn't realize what column it was sorted by.

------
jordwest
I really enjoyed this video using Cities: Skylines to describe the problem
with parking minimums:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-
fZk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk)

~~~
NPMaxwell
That's a great video showing what planners are thinking!

------
ryannevius
Quoting the description from the Twitter meta tag on the site:

> Los Angeles has the space to solve it's housing and transportation problems,
> it just needs right priorities. LA County has more than 110,000 acres of
> parking, enough to pave over Manhattan 7.5 times. Turning 10% of these
> parking spaces into homes could easily satisfy the current 550,000 home
> deficit for low-income renters. More than $1 Billion is spent every year
> just building new parking in Los Angeles.

------
plankers
I like the article but this nit bugs me:

>Some residents can afford more expensive homes as a limited supply increases
demand, but those that can’t are pushed away into more precarious living
situations and longer commutes.

Limited supply doesn't affect demand, they're largely independent unless you
look at induced demand, but that mostly affects things like roads and power
lines. It should say something like:

>As demand rises, the limited supply increases price.

or

>As supply outstrips demand, prices become unaffordable for large segments of
the population.

It's just slightly wrong to indicate a causal relationship between supply and
demand in the housing market, which is kinda what this whole page is about.

------
Dan_JiuJitsu
This article is bullshit, written and funded by real estate developers who
want to build high density housing without concerning themselves with where
the people who live in that housing are going to park the cars they own. This
appears to rely on the fallacy that people are going to give up their cars to
take non-existent public transportation to bring their kids to school or get
groceries. The public transit that does exist is rife with drug addicted,
mentally ill homeless people. No fucking thanks!

~~~
Pfhreak
Except... people will? I've reduced the number of cars in my life, increased
the biking and public transit. My kid gets dropped off at school on the back
of a cargo bike, and I'll often walk to get groceries.

I use stuff like car2go, lime, lyft, etc. when I need a car or bike in short
order.

~~~
Dan_JiuJitsu
Sure that's you. One anecdotal example. As a data driven counter example, take
the number of card on the road in Los Angeles at a given time. I live in LA,
and there is a zero percent chance I expose my child to typhus on the train.

You are a very distinct minority.

------
csours
Serious question - what percentage of people do you think will be swayed by
these arguments? It's over 100 degrees during the day where I live (and it was
before global warming too). I don't mind walking, but that temperature is
dangerous for a lot of people, and inconvenient for everyone.

I really like the idea of density. I don't like big asphalt parking lots; but
I think the alternative is concrete parking structures.

Disclaimer: I work for GM, any opinions are my own.

------
proc0
Car culture is finally backfiring in large cities. It's fine to do this when
your city's population is small. You can have lots of cars and there is a lot
of space. But now cities like LA are paying the price of everyone thinking
they NEED a car and making it a cultural status thing. Imagine everyone
thinking helicopters were cool and everyone should have a helicopter when
they're 18 in order to get laid. It makes no sense, it's a transportation
vehicle meant to be useful. It takes you from point A to B and that's it.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Good luck convincing people not to buy ludicrous vehicles as status symbols,
or to keep up with the Joneses, meanwhile they're paying 12 or 15 or 20%
interest for these cars over 6 years because of financial ignorance.

I work in a hospital office building, the parking lot is a circus of wasteful
consumerism. The sheer amount of shiny, ridiculously huge F150s and luxury
vehicles and the obscene number of SUVs tells me people dont get a simple,
cheap A to B vehicle. They dont rideshare or bicycle or public transit. People
pay top dollar for comfort, status, and care nothing for finances or climate.

~~~
proc0
Right. Although if you can afford one, nothing wrong with that, but it seems
many cities are designed as if every individual has or should have a car,
which then forces people into that lifestyle. Then to get the most value from
your vehicle, you have to use it more, which means more sitting down, more
stress from traffic, more risk of accidents, etc.

------
miguelmota
Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around. I've tried
only Ubering for a few months and it was more expensive than owning a car. The
public transportion is half there but getting better. Bycling in the Santa
Monica area is safe but outside of that it’s more dangerous because of
oblivious drivers and road rage and LA streets are notorious for pot holes. I
see some new apartment complexes being built with underground parking right
below it which is the way to go but we do need more metros all around.

~~~
bobwaycott
> _Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around._

That is _exactly_ half the problem the article is attempting to address—and
the fundamental thought pattern that keeps reinforcing the problem. More space
dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without a car. More
housing units in areas currently taken up by parking means—theoretically, at
least— _less_ need to get around that large area on average if everything you
need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or train ride away.

> _The public transportion is half there but getting better._

Another point the article addresses directly—turning acres of street parking
into dedicated public transport lanes. Achieve greater levels "getting better"
somewhat overnight (if you imagined that it was different tomorrow).

> _... it’s more dangerous because of oblivious drivers and road rage and LA
> streets are notorious for pot holes._

Again, the article addresses this directly. So many cars on the road increases
traffic, which increases driver frustration/rage, as well as distraction and
obliviousness while plodding along through traffic. Turning parking into
dedicated walking and cycling areas would bring a huge increase in cyclist and
pedestrian safety (again, if you imagined it was different tomorrow).

> _I see some new apartment complexes being built with underground parking
> right below it which is the way to go ..._

The article spends considerable time arguing that this is explicitly _not_ the
way to go—parking minimums increase construction costs considerably, thus
decreasing available housing units, while simultaneously increasing housing
cost. Underground parking is incredibly more expensive than on-street parking,
which means the already increased cost of housing with on-street parking only
worsens.

~~~
lazyjones
> _More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without
> a car._

Not really. Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. And the
distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking
spaces.

> _More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking
> means—theoretically, at least—less need to get around that large area on
> average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or
> train ride away._

What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built
houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like
their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy
center of the city.

~~~
bobwaycott
My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article’s arguments. Did we read the
same article in its entirety?

> _Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles._

Not in the scenario argued for by the article.

> _And the distances you need to cover don 't get shorter if you remove roads
> or parking spaces._

Two things the article goes to great pains to make clear—the distances you
need to cover are a direct result of horrible parking policy, and the
distances become irrelevant as more space is given to denser development and
increased public transport options with dedicated space.

> _What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built
> houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like
> their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy
> center of the city._

All of the assumptions and data presented and explained at length in the
article. That newly built housing popping up in the place of vast, sprawling
parkings areas would fill with new tenants in Los Angeles does not strike me
as an outlandish conclusion. Have you lived there? Yes, some people like
living in the surrounding areas—but that’s somewhat forced by limited housing
supply and god-awful traffic. I don’t think I’m the only person born and
raised in LA who would have jumped at the chance to be right in the busy city
center, especially while younger. Most of my remaining family members in the
area would still do it. The rest moved away after 30+ years of being fed up
with the gridlock. City centers are vibrant, awesome places. Lots of people
would love to live close to work and play, and leave all the driving for when
they’re ready to get _out_ of the city.

------
ineedasername
First off, parking isn't flat & spread out. It is very often stacked &
condensed into compact areas known parking garages, some of which sit under
housing complexes and so take up no extra real estate at all. Presenting the
square acreage of all parking spaces like this is a grossly misleading way of
presenting the data. 10% of the raw acreage of _spaces_ is very much _not_ 10%
of the real estate used for parking.

Second, there _have_ to be many more parking places than there are cars,
otherwise you would never be able to move your car. You wouldn't find another
spot, because it would already be taken.

Third, even if we imagine a perfect system where you leave your spot, someone
leaves their spot and takes your spot, leaving an opening for you, that would
still ignore the fact that parking spots are not fungible. You can't
interchange them, one spot for another, and balance the equation. The spot in
front of your house/appartment is pretty much useless for nearly everyone else
that isn't a neighbor.

I don't have any comprehensive solution to this problem, but what I am pretty
sure of is that there's no single silver bullet solution that will massively
improve the situation. (or if there is such a solution & I'm just not smart
enough to find it, it's not going to be found in parking spaces.)

~~~
lmm
> First off, parking isn't flat & spread out. It is very often stacked &
> condensed into compact areas known parking garages, some of which sit under
> housing complexes and so take up no extra real estate at all.

Housing is very often stacked and condensed too, so x square feet of parking
is equivalent to x square feet of housing (or retail, or ...). Actually it's
even worse than that because LA's parking minimums require the parking to be
on the bottom floors - the ones that would be most valuable and convenient for
humans.

> I don't have any comprehensive solution to this problem, but what I am
> pretty sure of is that there's no single silver bullet solution that will
> massively improve the situation. (or if there is such a solution & I'm just
> not smart enough to find it, it's not going to be found in parking spaces.)

I'm more and more convinced that eliminating "free" parking is the silver
bullet. It's a massive distortion to how we arrange our cities. Once there's a
level playing field for parking to compete with other land uses, the market
can sort the rest out.

~~~
ineedasername
I see your point about residential being stacked as well. However the marginal
increase in supply of real estate by taking 10% of what's used by parking
hardly seems sufficient to make a dent in the supply/demand curve of the
market.

As for eliminating free parking, I think it would have a disproportionate
effect on people at the lower end of income. Everyone else can absorb the
cost. Even if that isn't the case, the effect would be to push more people to
mass transit. That's not a bad thing, but mass transit is already unable to
keep up with needs.

It would need to be accompanied by mass transit infrastructure improvements.
That would be a political hot potato, requiring either tax increases or
issuing debt via bond to pay for it in the short term until fares could cover
the costs in the long term. So add political & public awareness campaigning to
the solution. What looks like a silver bullet becomes ever more complex.

~~~
lmm
> I see your point about residential being stacked as well. However the
> marginal increase in supply of real estate by taking 10% of what's used by
> parking hardly seems sufficient to make a dent in the supply/demand curve of
> the market.

Well, the article claims a 20-33% increase in the number of housing units for
developments without parking, so say 2-3% more housing. IIRC the economists
reckon it's about a 2:1 ratio between supply change and price change, so a
4-7% drop in the price of equally valuable housing. That may not be
revolutionary but it would be a significant difference for a lot of people.
Cities put a lot of effort into policies with much smaller effects.

> As for eliminating free parking, I think it would have a disproportionate
> effect on people at the lower end of income. Everyone else can absorb the
> cost. Even if that isn't the case, the effect would be to push more people
> to mass transit. That's not a bad thing, but mass transit is already unable
> to keep up with needs.

Fewer private cars on the road would speed up buses (which would mean the same
number of buses could transport more people) and make cyclists safer, and it's
actually the lowest income people - those who are already living without a car
- who benefit the most there. And densification by replacing parking spaces
with homes and workplaces would reduce the pressure on all kinds of transport,
by making it easier for people to live closer to where they work.

------
pro_zac
On a related note, give this episode of Revisionist History a listen. It
details the property tax loophole that has been taken advantage of by LA's
country clubs for decades.

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-
spoile...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoiled)

------
sweeneyrod
> a single aboveground space cost $27,000

How did we get into this situation? According to this
[https://www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-does-
concrete-d...](https://www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-does-concrete-
driveway-cost.htm) a "high-end" contractor charges at most $10 per square foot
to build a concrete driveway, i.e. $2000 for a 200 sq ft parking space. Where
does the other $25,000 go?

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Your quote is for surface parking. Theirs is for above-ground parking. It is
much more expensive to build a structure strong enough to hold a bunch of cars
off the ground than it is to just pave a flat area.

~~~
sweeneyrod
Ah, I assumed above-ground just mean not underground but looks like that was
wrong.

------
phantarch
I just was recently introduced to this and other discussions on city planning
by a couple of great youtube series by donoteat1[1]. "Franklin" and "Power,
Politics, and Planning" are some of the best and most humorous examinations of
topics like parking minimums, public housing, gentrification, etc. I've come
across. The presenter is highly left-leaning, but also knowledgeable and backs
up his positions with data. Agree or disagree with his views, it's informative
either way!

It's opened my eyes much more to how cities are actually planned and the
problems posed by politics over the ages - the conflict between public good
and private interest, and how specific policies affect cities and their
accessibility to people of various economic statuses. Would recommend if you
enjoyed this article and want more related topics to learn about.

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdazs-6CNzSVv1J0a-qy4A](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdazs-6CNzSVv1J0a-qy4A)

------
Mikeb85
Parking minimums seems insane. Let the free market decide how many parking
spaces to build, it shouldn't be mandated by the city.

~~~
nostrademons
I think the logic behind it (which is somewhat born out by experience) is that
without parking minimums, residents just use street parking. There's an
externality there: street parking is provided as a public good so that people
can visit commercial establishments, friends, community centers, etc, but if a
developer can rely on the public good so that they can fit 50% more units into
an area and reduce construction costs, they will. Then the public good is
consumed by this private externality, residents take up all the street parking
spots that were intended for visitors, and nobody's better off except the
developers.

Much of San Francisco (where I've heard 50% of cars in the city at any given
time are looking for parking) is an example of this problem. So are many
immigrant neighborhoods where people double- or triple-up in units: street
parking is virtually impossible to find in my neighborhood after about 6:00
PM.

The logic behind "abolish parking minimums" is that then people will live a
car-free lifestyle and depend upon public transit, but in my experience that
isn't true. Even folks who _primarily_ use public transit and like to walk
often own a car, if only for grocery runs and the occasional weekend getaway.
Services like ZipCar help in that regard, but we're pretty far away from
abolishing private car ownership.

~~~
bagacrap
Street parking itself seems pretty dumb to me. The bandwidth on streets should
not be used up by idle vehicles. Even a single car parked on a block uses up
what could potentially be another lane. Is there any less efficient use of
space? Hopefully self driving cars will allow us to repurpose that real estate
since they can drop off passengers and go hide in a garage somewhere (or carry
other passengers around).

~~~
jimmaswell
I have mixed feelings about it. It can be fine but it needs to be handled a
lot more strictly. It causes a safety problem around here when all the parked
cars block the view around corners.

------
carapace
Go all the way, build _Arcologies._

> Arcology, a portmanteau of "architecture" and "ecology", is a field of
> creating architectural design principles for very densely populated,
> ecologically low-impact human habitats.

> The term was coined in 1969 by architect Paolo Soleri, who believed that a
> completed arcology would provide space for a variety of residential,
> commercial, and agricultural facilities while minimizing individual human
> environmental impact. These structures have been largely hypothetical, as no
> arcology, even one envisioned by Soleri himself, has yet been built.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology)

------
maerF0x0
> 551,800 home shortfall for low-income renters

There is also a shortfall of Ferraris for low budgeted car buyers. /s

I say this, in jest, to illustrate that part of the issue is the North
American perspective of the minimum viable living space. Many of our
regulations increase the cost of production to the point that there is no
viable solution at the price point that people can afford. I think we need a
rise of micro units to allow people to live where they can afford.

The capitalist side of me says "Why should a developer take a unit of
resources an intentionally make it generate less revenue?" The claim usually
goes that capitalism uses the constrained resources of a society at maximal
benefit...

------
pkamb
Have any (American) cities/towns simply turned an entire street into a
bike/pedestrian path? No cars or limited hours or local access only.

Similar to the old-railroad-to-bike-path conversions that are happening
everywhere, but for a normal street.

~~~
karmelapple
Yup! A variety of places do this, though I’m not sure if it’s to the extent
you have in mind.

Iowa City eliminated cars on roads in their downtown, and they have a vibrant
town square there now with plenty of restaurants, bars, shopping, ice cream,
etc.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ped_Mall_(Iowa_City)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ped_Mall_\(Iowa_City\))

Boston closes down Newbury Street a few times during the summer for the past
few years. [https://www.newburystboston.com/cd_listing/open-
newbury-2019...](https://www.newburystboston.com/cd_listing/open-
newbury-2019/)

~~~
pkamb
Yeah the "core downtown pedestrian zone" concept I'm sure is popular and
gaining more traction, which is great.

But I'm talking more about taking a random street that passes through the
entire town and removing cars permanently. Maybe a side street parallel to the
existing major car thoroughfare.

At the extreme end, say, turning an entire North/South avenue of Manhattan
bike/pedestrian-only.

------
thomasfl
The next wave of interesting startups will be shelter. Not housing that keep
people comfy at night, but effective walkable citylike places. Places that
take into account that the human race is very social. Places that makes it
easy to be friendly to the environment.

Poundbury in southern UK was nothing but greenfields. Now it’s a highly
succesfyl city that attracts people and businesses, despite 1/3 of the
buildings being affordable houses projects. Good cities reduces the
inhabitants need for long distance travels.

------
taurath
Zoning is the real problem. Other than Manhatten and a few big city downtowns,
I know of almost no continuous human scale places to live in the US.

Go to Vancouver - they have a good mix of housing but the core is ENTIRELY
apartments and condos and they have plenty of transportation. You can walk
around all day. I want this. Every asian city is condos and apartments first,
for every social and economic class.

------
Aeolun
Removing parking minimums, and imposing parking maximums will do more for
decent public transportation than any other thing that could be done.

------
stanski
I actually like the idea of parking minimums. But two parking spaces for a 2
bedroom apartment? Or a 1.5 for a one bedroom? That seems crazy.

I know there are exceptions (maybe someone running a business) but in general
anyone living in the city shouldn't require more than one car per household.

~~~
kalleboo
I don't understand why parking shouldn't also be left up to the market to
decide? If you want a parking spot, pay the fair market price.

I live in Japan where minimum parking is not regulated and it means that
people who don't need parking pay less rent. How is that not a good thing?

~~~
ajmurmann
The problem is that we see parking as a negative externality because everyone
ends up competing for street parking. As you pointed out, it's not a problem
in Japan. I believe that is because there is pretty much no street parking in
Japan. I love that!

I think the Crux of the problem is that most US cities are built with super
low density, targeting cars. The result is that it's super hard to put public
transit in that is actually useful.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
That's easy to solve. Just charge the market rate for street parking too. No
reason to give away the use of valuable land for free.

~~~
ajmurmann
I think that's a great solution, but not easy to implement. How do you
establish the market rate? Is it the highest price that will still lead to all
parking being filled? If so, how do you talk that price? Or more complicated:
how do you account for the price / value associated with other forms of issue
that are more unavailable? For example: what rent could be collected if the
parking spot was outdoor seating for a cafe? What price would a developer pay
to build more housing units? What m value is lost for society by not having a
strip of green?

------
intopieces
The people who live in the tents featured in this picture are not waiting to
move in to whatever housing should be built on those parking lots.

Even Singapore, with its famously stellar urban planning and extensive
government housing, has homeless.

------
pontifier
I've been thinking a lot about this problem lately.

I'd like to hear thoughts on the effect of an unlimited density, all uses
allowed, zone near public transit. I imagine something like the Kowloon walled
city.

------
theemathas
Does the title mean "Let's build houses for people, not build cars for
people", or "Let's build houses for people, not build houses for cars"?

Language is weird.

------
choeger
The problem is not the parking spaces. It is also not the roads. Take them
away and you only make life more miserable for car commuters. You need two
things:

1\. Attractive alternatives (really good, clean, fast public transport or
really good, safe, fast bike lanes)

2\. An incentive to not use the car for commuting.

The problem with 1. is that politicians find it much harder to create
something good than to make it's opposite worse. The problem with 2. is that a
car is a relatively expensive investment, so people will use it. You could,
for instance, introduce a flexible city toll that allows you 50 days of free
entering by car and serves as a PT ticket as well.

~~~
bagacrap
Isn't making it more miserable an incentive not to do it?

~~~
bluGill
No, that is an incentive to vote for someone else who will not make it
miserable.

~~~
choeger
Or, at some point, to reconsider this whole "government" thing. Policy that
obviously aims at making people's lives worse is hardly sustainable.

------
peterwwillis
The lede is buried:

To build more houses for people (that will be near jobs, businesses, and
schools), we _have to have_ better transportation. There simply is no
alternative.

------
whenchamenia
Meanwhile, my biggest house shopping concern is a garage. Even if you live
sans-car, it is super useful to have a work and storage space.

------
newnewpdro
You can live in your car, but you can't drive your house.

------
squarefoot
And you are definitely a cat lover if you misread the title as "Let's build
houses for people, not cats" and your first thought is "no way!" :^)

------
baybal2
What can I say about this. Parking minimums are not fair.

To the effect, they oblige poorer people without cars to pay for parking space
for car driving richer people.

~~~
hannob
Not sure why this got downvoted, it's obviously true. Rich people are more
likely to have cars than poor people.

~~~
Chris2048
Then why say "Rich vs poor" rather than "people with cars versus people
without"? Also, perhaps the rich find it easier to give up on their car, or
long commutes? Also, the Rich proportionally pay more tax.

~~~
hannob
I often read the opposite, where people claim a less car-friendly policy harms
the poor. I recently bothered to look up the statistics (for Germany, but I
doubt they're different elsewhere), they where pretty clear. I think it's an
important fact to have in mind: Rich people drive more cars.

~~~
Chris2048
> they where pretty clear

What was the conclusion?

Also, Rich people may _own_ more cars;

It's another question whether they drive more, whether they need to drive more
(or can choose not to), and whether they _park_ (in congested areas) more.

~~~
hannob
> What was the conclusion?

The richer people are the more they drive, the more likely they are to drive
to work and the more cars they have. The poorer people are the more they walk
by foot. Bikes are pretty evenly distributed among different incomes, public
transport is mostly a middle income thing (fewer rich and poor people).

It's in german, but it allows pretty extensive working with the data:
[https://www.mobilitaet-in-tabellen.de/mit/](https://www.mobilitaet-in-
tabellen.de/mit/)

~~~
maxsilver
> The richer people are the more they drive, the more likely they are to drive
> to work and the more cars they have.

That may be the case in Germany. In the US, the exact opposite is nearly
universally true.

Rich people own lots of cars, but they are less likely to need to drive them
anywhere. (In part, because Rich people already own all the best land in all
the best cities with all the best alternative transportation. And in part
because, Rich people outsource their driving to Taxis / Uber-Taxis / Lyft-
taxis)

Working class people are the people most harmed by the elimination of public
vehicle transportation. These folks, generally speaking, can not afford to
live anywhere where alternate transportation options might exist. And the act
of building new transportation for them, nearly always prices them out of
living in that place.

Since the article above is about LA, here's a specific example from LA, about
how LA's attempts to expand their bus/rail system are gentrifying out their
own ridership - [https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-
transi...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-transit-
gentrification-metro-ridership-20180220-story.html)

~~~
hannob
> That may be the case in Germany. In the US, the exact opposite is nearly
> universally true.

Any data on that?

At least the first Google results I find indicate a very similar correlation.
If I believe this [https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/08/how-income-and-
neighbor...](https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/08/how-income-and-
neighborhoods-affect-driving/) then definitely there's a connection between
"richer" and "more driving", though there's a bit of plateauing (i.e. the rich
don't drive more than the middle income), but the poor definitely drive fewer.

------
self_awareness
If people won't build 'houses for cars', the cars will start piling up on the
streets instead. I prefer cars to at least be hidden.

~~~
narrowtux
The end goal here is that people who live in big cities give up their personal
car. The journey there might involve this problem though and it depends on the
city to enforce new rules.

For example, my home town Hamburg (in Germany) is a bad example of too few
parking spaces being policed correctly. At some point, the drivers give up
searching for a free space that's still in a walkable distance from their
destination and will park illegally, which leads to one of 2 lanes being
permanently blocked by resting traffic. Apparently the police doesn't care
about these illegally parked cars.

There are lots of cheaper and more space-efficient alternatives for personal
transport, which were mentioned in the article.

It's also possible to rent shared cars for the rare case you actually need a
car (if you want to transport large furniture for example).

Speaking from my anecdotal experience, not owning a personal car works pretty
well, I commute to work with an electric bike in 20 minutes (which is actually
quicker than taking the train or driving a car and then look for a parking
space). If I want to buy furniture and I can't transport it with my bike, I
can still rent a car.

On top of not having the dreadful experience of having to search 10-20 minutes
for a parking space every time, it's also a lot cheaper.

~~~
atemerev
Well, I am absolutely not interested in giving up my car. It is my private
space and enabler of my freedom of movement, without relying on external
services and timetables. It adds a lot of value to my life. If my city becomes
too unfriendly for me and my car, I will have to move elsewhere.

I work from home, though, and I don’t use the car for daily commuting.
Commuting is the main driver of most traffic problems in the cities, so
there’s that.

~~~
esoterica
If you want to keep your car then you should pay the full cost (no free roads
and parking for you to use) and externalities (carbon, noise/particulate
pollution) of car ownership. Car owners currently receive trillions of dollars
worth of market distorting subsidies from the government.

~~~
atemerev
I pay the road tax, car tax and fuel tax on that, so I’m fine, thanks. There
are no government subsidies for cars in Europe. Parking here is also quite
expensive.

~~~
esoterica
I don't know where you live, but in most countries those do not cover the full
cost of car ownership (don't forget to include the externalities of carbon
emissions and noise/particulate pollution).

~~~
atemerev
Switzerland. My car is regularly checked for compliance for low emissions
standards. Tram line near my house produces much more noise pollution compared
to cars.

~~~
esoterica
If those emissions standards are so rigorous why is climate change still
happening?

> Tram line near my house produces much more noise pollution compared to cars.

Now divide by the number of passengers and try again.

~~~
atemerev
> If those emissions standards are so rigorous why is climate change still
> happening?

Mostly because of the Chinese industry. Also coal and gas electricity
generation. Nuclear power is the solution.

> Now divide by the number of passengers and try again.

Doesn't work like that. You can't divide noise. There's a threshold level.

~~~
esoterica
Do you think 1 car generates the same amount of noise as 100 cars? 1 tram is
not a replacement for 1 car.

------
black_13
Wont happen Decision makers have nice homes and nice cars and a self
congratulatory philosophy that says the status quo is just ok dokey

------
tehChromic76
Towns and cities too please!

------
stjohnswarts
Sounds like a socialist policy. It's not good. What LA needs is more
competition and less zoning to lower prices and allow better results.

------
jodje
convincing. any petition up for signing?

------
sova
Great site, I just noticed that when trying to link my friend the www. version
of the site doesn't work -- please fix =)

~~~
sova
[https://www.noparkinghere.com](https://www.noparkinghere.com)

------
kube-system
I feel like this author has not experienced living in a city where there was
not enough parking to meet demand, and not enough public transit to make up
the difference. It causes its own set of horrible problems.

People will not give up their car if they still need it to go to work.

You have to have the public transportation system _before_ you remove parking
spaces.

Otherwise you’re going to make the problem _worse_ , not better. If you remove
parking first, people are going to avoid dense areas even more, which is the
opposite of what you want to solve this issue. You want to encourage people to
live and work in denser areas, not encourage them to move further away. On top
of that, you’ll get illegal parking which causes property damage and poses
risks to public safety.

~~~
jdm2212
No one (in America) ever builds public transit without demand for it. And even
when there is demand for it, it's a struggle. So you have to get rid of the
parking first.

~~~
kube-system
If you remove parking before the transit problem is solved, you’re going to
make the problem worse by further discouraging density. People will continue
to use whatever transit that works to get them to the places they need to go.

If you block drivers from accessing an area _without any alternatives_ ,
you’re simply going to kill any economic activity in that area long before
anyone demands transit. People will individually seek alternatives elsewhere
to continue their daily activities before they organize and demand political
change. People will always make decisions based on where they need to go
_today_.

A building with no parking and no public transit, doesn’t have a bunch of
people hanging around it demanding a 10 year transit project. They don’t have
10 years to wait. They need a place to work/shop/live _today._

------
whalesalad
The irony is that anyone who has ever tried to go anywhere in LA can never
find a place to park.

I maintain that the problem is not "we need more housing for all these
people!" rather, "we have too many people!"

Why do we have so many people so densely packed? That is the problem we should
solve for, not treating the side effects of density. Lower density is what we
want, less people in any given square mile.

In other words, we shouldn't be trying to live near major population centers.
We shouldn't have to. Our notion of 'work' is/needs to change to reflect that.
LA, NY, SF, etc... historically became huge because it needed to be that way.
Remote work is becoming more and more common. Regular work is being automated
away by software or machines.

I made this argument once before and was totally shot down because I didn't
articulate it properly ... but who wants to live in a densely packed apartment
complex in the middle of a noisy city? Sure, some people LOVE that, and they
should have every right to choose it. But... a lot of people HATE that and are
forced to do it, because it's all they can afford. That is the problem that we
need to change.

~~~
aqme28
LA is hardly dense though.

~~~
whalesalad
I grew up here. I live here. What makes you think it’s not dense? “LA” is
HUGE. Parts of it are dense, parts of it are less dense.

When most people think of LA they need to think in the context of the entire
county. There are ten million people living here, that’s more than the entire
state of Michigan.

~~~
CapricornNoble
LA is 3,100 ppl/km2. [1] Tokyo is double that. [2]

It's all a matter of perspective. Personally I've been living in Asia so long
that most places outside of New York feel under-developed to me. Just sticking
to major first-world cities and the most obvious example of Tokyo blows LA's
density out of the water. If we dipped into less-developed metropoli, we could
throw, say, Manila into the conversation at [20,000;70,000]/km2 and then LA's
density looks positively quaint.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo)
[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila)

------
mises
What makes any one think that taking away parking will increase poor people
housing? That seems to be the biggest shortage. Why would I turn my parking
into housing I run at a low profit or even a loss, rather than up-scale luxury
housing? I can make more money off that. And forcing a certain number of units
of poor housing will only decrease supply further. I have yet to see evidence
to the contrary.

Secondly, there are cities where aught but driving is not practical. See
Houston; when I lived there, I had to drive often one-hundred-fifty miles per
day to different places. There is also no one center; I may have one client in
the woodlands, one in Bellaire, one in Sugarland, one in the Ship Channel. How
do you propose to fix this? it is too big and too dense for the traditional
"hub-and-spoke" model to work, too hot for scooters or bicycles (it regularly
hits one-hundred-five degrees this time of year).

~~~
bluGill
If you can build and fill luxury apartments I don't know why you would build
apartments for the poor: the profits are higher in the luxury apartments.
California has a big problem in that they make it too hard to get the permits
to build anything so everything that goes in is luxury apartments (they force
low income housing, but this is forced)

However what if we changed things: you could easily get the permits you need
to build whatever. After a few years the market for luxury apartments will be
saturated. Now when you look at the do I build lower cost apartments, or
luxury apartments you build the lower cost wins because your expected income
from luxury apartments is zero.

Actually the above isn't true in good cities either: all new apartments are
luxury. 10 years latter they are out of style, but it is cheaper to rent them
for less than to remodel to whatever the latest style is. After 50 years they
are low income housing because only low income people will accept the dated of
a style. LA hasn't been building enough for long enough that this can't come
into play.

