[48snickers]

The reasons outlined on that thread are very specific to the Los Angeles area. Not that crazy regulations don't exist in SF, but the car-centric parking space regulations in Los Angeles are a huge part of the outlined cost. I don't think that applies broadly.

[loeg]

Car-centric parking space regulation is very common in American cities, not just LA.

[mandelbrotwurst]

I don't know this for sure, but as someone who lives in SF, I would guess that's less the case here than in LA. The city is much less supportive of private vehicle ownership (for good reason imo, but that's a bit off-topic) than most cities in the U.S.

[dkasper]

That's true now but up until the 2000s SF did have residential parking requirements for most of the city.

[ryandrake]

And thank goodness for that!

As much as everyone here hates cars, the unfortunate fact is we currently need them. If I could snap my fingers and be able to afford a $1.2M "starter home" within walking distance to work, trust me, I would do it in a heartbeat. If there were any politicians serious about building useful public transit, I'd vote for them. But, for now, at least in most metro areas (where the jobs are), most people can only afford to live in places where you need a car to get anywhere.

[davidw]

We should be free to choose how much parking we need, and pay for it:

http://www.bendbulletin.com/opinion/5249862-151/guest-column...

[mantas]

I live in a country where very little parking is required and whatever parking is built is either free-for-all or come at a huge price. People cheap out, but still expect to drive.

The end result is parking in grey-legal spots, parking in too narrow streets making it dangerous, parking in ex-greenery-now-sandy-parking-lot and whatnot. And lots of bad blood between neighbours who took whose spot :) Yes, there're rules to fine such behaviour. But it'd be political suicide to enforce those rules because everybody breaks them.

[davidw]

There was some of that where I lived in Italy, very little in Austria, and it was all much better than having vast, empty parking lots sitting there while house prices climb and climb.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0492073,-121.3266077,3a,75y,...

Is a pretty common sight in the US. What a colossal waste of land!

Here's the book everyone cites on the issue:

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193...

[ckrailo]

I don't think a parking lot in rural Bend (or any rural American town) is the best example to use. People in Bend are going to rely on cars a lot more than people in downtown Portland and property is likely cheaper + regulated less.

Here's the first lot I found in Portland... nice, waterfront parking!

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5319709,-122.6711514,3a,60y,...

[mantas]

Oh, I'm definitely not advocating for such massive parking lots. Just saying that having little parking lots sucks too. I'm talking about soviet times bloks with parking for 0.2 car/apartment or so.

By the way, over there housing costs climb regardless of little parking required. Apartments in central locations (= walkable/bikable to most offices) cost a shitload of money compared to houses in suburbs. Especially once you step in family-sized market.

[CanSpice]

This is a bit false. It assumes that the cost of living is driven solely by housing. There have been numerous studies done that show that the total cost of living doesn't change much between city and suburbs. Housing costs are higher in the city, but they're largely balanced out by lower transportation costs and house upkeep costs (apartments are cheaper to heat/cool than houses, for example).

[davidw]

Here you go:

"A cheap home isn’t affordable if it comes with high transportation costs."

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/06/the-problem-with-how-...

[ryandrake]

My transportation costs (including the purchase price of the car, all gas and maintenance) are an order of magnitude less than the home price delta between where I currently live and where I'd have to live in order to give up my car.

[closeparen]

This cannot be stressed enough. Too many people on HN seem baffled by car culture, or think it's some kind of conspiracy, but the answer is right here. Savings on land prices for getting far from the center are massive, the costs of manufactured goods like cars are tiny, and the solution that urbanism offers is is only to raise the price on the latter.

[thescriptkiddie]

No, fuck that. "Drive until you qualify" is not a sustainable model.