[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/ .

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 , 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."

[eesmith]

I'll explain the last statement. I mean that gentrification occurs even in places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam with no required parking spaces.

Two ways to slow gentrification are to limit the increase in rental rates, and increase the power of the tenant's union to veto changes that the landlord might wish. I don't believe these are typically part of city planning, though I can see how they might be included.

[closeparen]

Gentrification is the movement of white, educated, upper-middle class suburban dwellers into urban neighborhoods.

Reducing car dependence requires exactly that. Any policy which prevents or reduces gentrification necessarily preserves sprawl, because that is where would-be gentrifiers currently live.

[eesmith]

This is incomplete, in several regards.

1) there is rural gentrification

2) part of the gentrification of London is due to foreigners who buy London property as an investment but don't live there, and only visit for 1-2 weeks a year. Nor do they rent it out. A policy which prevents that sort of ownership would reduce gentrification without increasing sprawl. This is what B.C. is attempting with their new tax.

3) Gentrification exists in places like Oslo where migration to the city does not from suburban dwellers but from residents of smaller cities and rural areas.

4) It's more generally applied to "middle class", and not specifically "upper-middle class". Ruth Glass's book which introduced the term specifically says "One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes -- upper and lower."