[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.