[lxm]

Couldn't read the article due to paywall, but an underground/overground parking structure is more expensive per square foot (due to reinforcement and earthquake safety requirements) compared to residential square feet, so developers are always trying to wiggle their way out of parking requirements, which just externalizes the problem to nearby streets.

Turns out people who buy cheaper units still need/want to drive, or occasionally have friends or family who arrive by car.

The end result is a bunch of nasty comments on local Facebook groups and NextDoor, comments on a-holes who hog the spots with their commercial trucks or RVs and people parking out for days just to save themselves (or their friends) a spot.

Eventually residents get enough and lobby the city council to zone their streets as "resident parking only".

[URSpider94]

You have a right to disagree, but modern city planning experts tend to agree that parking minimums are bad policy that artificially subsidize personal autos.

Developers should put in exactly as much parking as their customers are willing to buy at market rate. Street parking should be paid, either by meter or though market-rate annual permit costs.

Forcing urban drivers to pay full price to have a private car is the only way we will push enough money into other modes of transportation to make them economically feasible.

https://medium.com/@ezheidtmann/minimum-parking-requirements...

[prostoalex]

> Street parking should be paid, either by meter or though market-rate annual permit costs.

Totally agree with this. The problems arise when things don't start that way, and developers quickly monetize the opportunity to offload those costs to someone else.

Buyers usually shop on $/sq.ft., not on $/sq.ft + parking availability, so raising awareness among buyers would help balance the market out.