
If you’re renting a city apt. without a car, 16% of your rent pays for parking - jseliger
https://qz.com/1029925/if-youre-renting-a-city-apartment-without-a-car-16-of-your-rent-pays-for-parking-you-dont-need/
======
counterpoint1
It's fascinating to see the massive propaganda campaign ridesharing companies
are launching against parking spots.

You do all understand that's where the massive wave of articles about changing
building codes and zoning rules to get rid of parking, both public and
privately owned, is coming from, right? Uber, Lyft, etc would love to make it
hard or impossible to use a privately owned car in urban areas.

Getting rid of the requirement to put parking will mostly just lower
everyone's quality of life- residents will take up all the street parking,
making it harder for shoppers to access stores, restaurants, etc, making brick
and mortar stores even further disadvantaged versus online retailers while
also causing more headaches as businesses are forced to actively police their
parking areas against use by non-customers.

But it'll be great news for ride sharing companies, as millions of people find
themselves unable to own a car while living in American cities which are
entirely designed to require car travel.

~~~
rayiner
There is no conceivable market failure here that would require regulation of
parking spaces. The market will build the amount of parking people want. If
the amount of parking goes down it'll be because the land is valued more
highly for other uses.

~~~
closeparen
Zoning and height limits are experiencing no such liberalization. Previously
we had a decent equilibrium system: low density but also a system of
transportation well suited to low density.

Now that system of transportation is being decommissioned, but we're still
stuck with low density.

How many hours of productivity must employers lose to their workers' long
commutes? Yet the market has not provided us with anything faster.

~~~
eesmith
"Previously we had a decent equilibrium system"

The system we had was not in equilibrium because:

1) The cost of maintaining the old system was predicated on a continuous
growth which hasn't occurred. This is the "Growth Ponzi Scheme" \-
[https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-
scheme/](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/) .

2) the Baby Boomers are now reaching retirement age. As they get older, they
will be less able to drive, making it difficult for them to live in low
density areas even if there were no infrastructure problems.

What does mandatory minimum parking have to do with workers' long commutes?
Presumably if employee time is important to the employer then the employer
will pay for parking spaces even if there were no minimum parking
requirements.

~~~
closeparen
If we can't even afford to maintain roads that serve our sprawling zoning
schemes, why on earth would we be able to afford any of the alternatives
(rail, etc) within our sprawling zoning scheme?

You cannot "fix" symptoms like car use without fixing the underlying problems
of car dependence.

Living in a car dependent built environment without the ability to use a car
is worse than the status quo, is the point. That's the world we're heading for
if we remove parking but continue to resist gentrification and upzoning.

~~~
eesmith
Do you agree with me that the existing system is not and was not in
equilibrium?

If you disagree then this exchange will go nowhere, unless you can convince me
otherwise. I think the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

A current approach to reduce the Ponzi road scheme is to switch to unpaved
roads and narrower paved roads. This reduces maintenance cost, though people
don't like it because it means they need to go slower. (Which also makes it
safer.) It also helps shift the balance between denser housing, vs. the sparse
housing available if everyone assume there will be fast transit.

As I pointed out in
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14801413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14801413)
, other countries have switched away from car dependency. It's not like it's
impossible, nor am I proposing a simple "fix" for car use. Removing or
reducing mandatory parking requirements is one one aspect of a much larger
systematic rethink that we need.

Your comments about resisting "gentrification and upzoning" seem to be about a
different topic. I'm all for upzoning, and 'resist gentrification' is a very
broad topic including solutions which have nothing to do with city planning.

~~~
closeparen
I am categorically not interested in the idea that freeways cost too much,
because public transit (at the level of speed, frequency, capacity, and
comfort that would be competitive with driving) also costs too much.

>It also helps shift the balance between denser housing, vs. the sparse
housing available if everyone assume there will be fast transit.

This is a fallacy. The limitations on housing density are driven by residents
of the urban core and inner suburbs. It doesn't matter to them how bad
transportation is for people who can only afford the outer suburbs. Increasing
the pain of living in low-density outer suburbs will not create more housing
in the urban core and inner suburbs.

~~~
eesmith
"Do you agree with me that the existing system is not and was not in
equilibrium? If you disagree then this exchange will go nowhere, unless you
can convince me otherwise."

------
stolk
So what if you don't have a car: No car, but a parking space assigned to your
condo/apt? Just rent it out to a neighbour with two cars, and you get those
$150,- per month right back. Problem solved. I rented an additional space in
my building for my motorcycle. Happy renter, happy parking-space-landlord.

------
Mz
I rented an apartment for five years that came with an assigned spot. I wasn't
there all that long when I gave up my car. All the neighbors were like "Yay!
Free space!" My rent did not drop.

I felt all kinds of shit all over. Parking spaces should be extra or people
without cars should get a discount.

~~~
chaosbutters314
Well, if they built the parking with the apartment I see no problem in the
landlord charging tenants for the spot and letting them sublet it with the
help of the landlord. If you didn't want the spot with the place, should've
chosen another one.

~~~
Mz
_If you didn 't want the spot with the place, should've chosen another one._

There is all kinds of stuff wrong with this statement.

A) It was the only apartment complex that met my needs.

B) I don't think there were any apartment complexes where a parking space was
optional.

C) As I said above: I had a car when I rented the place. I gave it up later.
That was not in my plans at the time that I rented the place.

~~~
JadeNB
> C) As I said above: I had a car when I rented the place. I gave it up later.
> That was not in my plans at the time that I rented the place.

Without commenting on (A) or (B), surely (C) is not a reasonable complaint? If
you rent a 2-bedroom, but then your roommate moves out, then certainly it was
not in your plans at the time that you rented, but just as certainly you
wouldn't expect your rent to go down. (I recognise that it's a different
situation, since no-one can readily use the other bedroom, whereas someone can
use the parking space; but what I mean is that "That was not in my plans" is
not in itself a justification for a rent abatement.)

~~~
Mz
It isn't a _complaint._ It is a _rebuttal_ of a completely ridiculous
assertion that I should not have rented the place to begin with.

------
ryanx435
Y'all complaining about the price of parking seriously need to consider moving
to a city with lower costs of living.

Ive got a 2 bedroom upper level duplex in Minneapolis with a 1 stall garage
and 1 additional off street parking space, located on a block with ample
street parking, and is only 1 block away from a bus stop on a major bus line
that i take to work, all for $1100 a month.

------
valuearb
As a libertarian who loves the freedom my car affords me, I hate that
governments are mandating building parking spaces. Let the market provide, if
everyone downtown wants to walk, ride a bike or take a bus/tram then more
power to them.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Isn't that freedom mostly an illusion? I suppose you can hop in the car for an
impromptu road trip whenever you like, but you are paying to license, insure,
and maintain the car 24/7/365... and most people can't take too many road
trips. But I am trying to picture the market providing if there weren't
parking requirements - would a neighborhood reach a point where car owners
wanting to move in would pay so much to park that it'd make sense to knock
down buildings and put up a parking lot? I suppose that would act as a sort of
brake on the whole cycle, since there'd be less housing.

~~~
valuearb
in my case work is 22 miles one direction, my daughters schools 15 miles in a
different direction. I live in a state that prioritized roads and because of
that my commute is fast and easy.

~~~
tmnvix
Assuming each workday you travel to drop your child at school, then to work,
then back to collect your child, then home, you will be travelling (15 + 15 +
22 + 22 + 15 + 15) x 5 = 520 miles each week.

I'm sure you have come to some other arrangement but holy shit that would be a
lot of time spent travelling each week. It's worth working out how much time
you need to spend at work to pay for the fuel, maintenance, and depreciation
involved because that is essentially also 'travel time'.

edit: Even assuming an average speed of 50km/h that is about 16.5 hours each
week. Including time spent earning the money to cover the associated costs
it's going to be over 20 hours.

~~~
valuearb
I don't pick up my kids from school regularly, but occasionally i have to. I
have to pick up a daughter from her dojo a couple times a week after work,
which is in between my home and work.

My average highway speed while commuting is 75 MPH. 90% of my commute is on
the highway.

Commuting also means i can afford a home in a one third acre lot, with plenty
of backyard for my kids and their dog to play in.

------
imgabe
Where is parking included? Every building in my city that has a garage charges
$200+ per month for parking in addition to rent.

~~~
didgeoridoo
I don't think they're talking about reserved spots. The issue is with the
government-mandated "parking requirement" that forces builders to account for
a certain number of parking spots per person as part of getting a project
approved. The analysis is about how much this requirement increases
development costs, which are then passed on to all tenants equally.

~~~
curun1r
I think GP's post was saying that they're not passed on evenly. Developers in
many cities have realized that they can satisfy the requirements _and_ charge
extra for those parking spaces, whether assigned or not. I've lived in at
least 2 buildings that had mixed assigned/unassigned parking and residents
could choose whether to pay more for assigned, but unassigned spaces still
cost extra. In both cases, not having a car would have saved me at least
$200/mo.

------
alphabettsy
Huh. The last two major cities I lived in I payed extra for parking on top of
my rent as did most others I knew. How’s it work in that scenario.

------
alphabettsy
Huh. He last two major cities I lived in I payed extra for parking on top of
my rent as did most others I knew. How’s it work in that scenario.

------
nmcfarl
UNH bnj

