[mjevans]

I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable storage container in the spot.

The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct layer from pedestrian areas.

It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above such a garage.

In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground, aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such. (Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.)

Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.

[jvm]

I can see you have a lot of interesting ideas, and I think people should be allowed to make developments like what you're describing, but I can't imagine how you justify requiring it, and you don't seem to attempt to do so when you respond here.

A requirement is a very expensive way of foisting a certain lifestyle on everyone, regardless of whether they want it or not. You can't just say "oh it would be nice," you have to actually justify why it's okay to force people to do things this way, and making housing much more expensive.

[JumpCrisscross]

Meh, people who want Cara can park outside the urban core like we do in Manhattan.

[mjevans]

I'd be more amenable to living in such an area if there were a dedicated sub-level(s) for services (water, sewer, power, data; and transport; especially of packages) and free public transit /within/ the core and out to the parking structures (preferably with some form of real security).