[jjav]

> This is self-correcting.

It can't be if the regulation prohibits building parking for each home, as in this case.

Building housing units without parking just externalizes the problem and makes the whole neighborhood worse. People still need a car, so if they can't have parking they will have to find it on the streets somewhere, which is worse for everyone involved.

I've lived in a neighborhood where apartment buildings didn't have enough parking for residents, it was not pretty. Constant fights over parking, vandalized cars, people circling four hours looking for a spot. Nothing good came out of that.

[CalRobert]

This is a good reason to charge appropriately for street parking.

[jjav]

> This is a good reason to charge appropriately for street parking.

How would that solve it? There still aren't enough spots.

If you do unreserved spaces through parking meters or resident window stickers, people are still stuck doing all the same things (circling for hours, getting into fights).

To solve that you'd need to have reserved street spots so people are guaranteed which spot is theirs. So now you have to staff up enforcement and towing so the spots they reserved is available. But wait.. so we're back to dedicated spots, but in a less convenient and more cumbersome way. So to solve that, just have the apartment buildings themselves provide the spot for each resident. So we're full circle back to where we started.

As long as cars are needed (in the US, they are needed) the optimal solution is for each housing unit to provide it built-in, instead of externalizing the problem onto the neighborhood.

[CalRobert]

So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal?

Anyway pricing means that people can allocate the scarce resource of land in a city efficiently.

[jjav]

> So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal?

That's a good question, difficult to answer in the general sense.

At the individual level the answer seems very easy. Of course I wouldn't want it to be illegal to live however you want or configure your apartment however you like, with or without parking! You do you.

But what about the next owner? If the very first owner gets to spec the apartment however they like (before it gets built) and opts for no parking that's fine. But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene. Multiply this by all the units and over time it's a problem.

Because ultimately housing lasts for a very long time. That new building is likely to stand there for a century or more, so those initial decisions of how many parking spots it has vs. units will last for a very long time, far beyond the preferences of the first buyer. So it's not that easy.

[CalRobert]

"But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene"

OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.

Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

[jjav]

> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.

See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency.

> Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.

I'm advocating the exact opposite.

I'm saying it never works well if residents have to participate in the street parking scene because residents are by definition there every night/day, so they need a dedicated spot. And the optimal way to provide that, is for the building they live in to have a spot for them (which they pay for, in either rent or mortgage).

That's why mandated parking minimums are still the best compromise solution. Anything else just externalizes the problem which is worse for everyone.