58
Developers, housing advocates and environmentalists celebrate new North Carolina bill banning parking minimums (www.whqr.org)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm not sure how this uplifting? Without adequate public transit, or at least massively improved walkability it will cause private lots will charge more and just make it harder to get places including your home.

I'm sure property developers are thrilled though. I can understand that perspective. They're gonna save so much money flooding the neighborhoods with street parking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, as someone who lives in a neighborhood that's currently being threatened with infill redevelopment it's not uplifting news. The neighborhood was not designed with car-free or high-density living in mind, public transit access is poor and shops are not nearby. So if a house gets replaced with an eight-family dwelling without garage space that means eight cars parking on the street. There's simply not enough street available for everyone to do that.

    I'm all for low-income housing and less reliance on cars, but it's important to account for the full context of the situation instead of ramming through partial solutions that only make things worse. That way you turn people against stuff. In my city I've seen half-assed initiatives for bike lanes and reducing single-use plastic that ended up intensely unpopular and I suspect harmed those things more in the long run.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    Yea this is a very bad idea.

    I have friends in NC, visit them occasionally, this is not going to work, and just cause more problems.

    Good job idiots pushing this in a place where it won't just not help, but will significantly increase problems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    there's always the bike. i think our perspective differs a lot as those fortunate enough to be housed. having more people in place brings them together, and it's only those who don't have cars that would buy housing without parking. the ladder has steps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    This measure will not ban parking. It just means that it's now up to the market. Previously, home buyers were forced to pay for parking. Whether they wanted it or not. Even if they didn't have a car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, that's not how it works in reality though. The new multifamily homes that have gone up in the last few years replacing old unkempt houses in my neighborhood with an exemption to parking have made it impossible to park even with our neighborhood being a "restricted parking zone" that requires an annual pass to park. My lot is too small for a parking spot and I have one car, not out of choice, but necessity since even in a very progressive city, the transit is crap (partly due to the federal government killing the money we were planning on using to enhance it in retaliation for not checking immigration status on people arrested but released for not having actually committed any serious crime). So even though I pay $60/year to street park, I often still have to park several blocks from my home. And single family homes with off street parking are still by far more common. Unless the pubic transportation is funded enough to eliminate the absolute impossibility of living without a car, it does no good to just force said cars onto the street. "The market" you speak of is developers, not homeowners. New development will just not plan any homes with parking, because the few sales they may lose to no parking is far outweighed by doubling or more the number of hones they can build. People who buy the new homes and don't live in the neighborhood won't know how impossible it is to street park until after the homes are all built which could be a year or several after signing a contract.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I've seen this first hand where I live. That's not how it works at all.

    A developer decided to build a 30-unit building with businesses on the ground floor, downtown, with no parking, in a city that is already lacking parking facilities, and we have busses and trams.

    It was quickly a shit show, and suddenly the city decided it was a bad idea.

    No fucking kidding?

    As corsicanguppy said, we have regulations from learning lessons the first time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago*

    Yup relatable situation. I lived briefly in a car dependent city, lacking parking requirements and yep. Lots of townhouses, with lots of cars, and no where to put them. Loved parking blocks away after a long night at work. Quick trip to the store? 15 minute walk to the car, 20 minute drive into city center, 15 minutes to find paid parking garage and then another hike to the store's door.

    It's nightmare stuff. Lawmakers need to embrace and fund proper alternative transportation first - then they can work on minimizing parking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    As a disabled dude who genuinely needs available, close parking (be it visiting friends or going to the bank), I hate this. Sure it's great for some people, but if I have to park a quarter mile away and take a half-hour struggling each way, it's dogshit.

    If there's a clause for handicapped parking, fine, but if not or if that clause has any exclusions at all, it can fuck right off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent