[mhenr18]

Parking minimums in residential areas are one of the few times I think they can make sense.

Suppose there is enough on-street parking for other non-residential uses. You don't want these spaces being constantly used by car owners who are living in apartment complexes that aren't meant for them. As a local government, you have to play the game of not letting them park using parking restrictions while potentially also managing by-laws that allow residents to get parking permits that let them bypass some restrictions.

This doesn't really apply in high-density urban areas, but I could see it being tricky to manage in growing areas.

(Although, I guess from a non car-owner's point of view you wouldn't care about whether other drivers are being inconvenienced by a lack of parking, because the knock-on effects wouldn't affect you.)

[yardie]

If this was a suburb or mid-urban than no one would care. But the complaints are about parking minimums in super dense urban zones. Where developers are marketing them as walk to work, commuter friendly residences. The reality is the streets are desolate canyons of parking garages. Where parking is an additional expense that you can't get out of.

[oftenwrong]

Parking minimums cat still be damaging in not-so-dense areas. For example: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/20/we-forbid-wha...

[rootusrootus]

In my city all the parking is below the building on several levels below ground, ground level is all mixed retail/residential. It sounds like you've got a problem with zoning, not parking.

[alistairSH]

Even if that's the case, that parking is still priced into your rent whether you use it or not. The building needs to built taller or take up more of the plot. The parking needs maintained. It's bonkers for a city to require parking at buildings that are accessible by transit. This is a case where the market should be left alone to deal with supply/demand.

[nitrogen]

Or, the building can rent the excess parking to daily/monthly parkers at market rates...

It's just as bonkers for a city to shut out everyone who can't use transit.

[oftenwrong]

If the restaurants in my neighbourhood choose to not serve hamburgers, are they shutting out people who eat hamburgers? If hamburgers are in sufficient demand, a restaurant will choose to serve them. If the government forces all restaurants to make 1000 hamburgers a day, it will tank the market value of hamburgers, and force non-hamburger-eaters to pay more to cover the losses from making an excessive amount of hamburgers.

When the government forces all developers to build parking, and provides free or severely underpriced parking on streets, it lowers the market value of off-street parking. Developers are forced to price-in parking development and maintenance.

Developers will still build parking where residents need parking. If they didn't, they would have trouble selling/renting their property. There is no need to force them. In cities around the world, we still find private parking in absence of parking minimums.

[donretag]

Not all soil types allow for underground construction. There are numerous cities in the US with no basements or other underground structures since the soil will not allow it.

[rootusrootus]

So put the parking on the second level and keep the first floor for small retail. It's really not a hard problem to solve.

[SECProto]

In my city the parking is below the building on several levels below ground, requiring months of blasting to get through the bedrock, and significantly driving up the cost of the building itself.