Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by viknesh 765 days ago
The article does a good job of addressing the nuance, but the headline and most attention grabbing parts of it don't.

Most of the new housing built may have been illegal under previous parking rules, but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.

The article/quotes acknowledge this,

> “It’s impossible, really, to tie a specific code change to changes in the market,” explained Brennan Staley, a strategic advisor for Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development. Other local regulations, housing prices, and international finance markets all play a part in the real estate market. Michael Hubner, who works on long range planning in Seattle, agreed: “It’s very difficult to point to a causal relationship.”

and also note that off street parking is still present in the majority of new housing

> In both cities, the majority of new buildings still included off-street parking voluntarily

2 comments

> but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.

Yes, you can build anything with an infinite budget. In practice, budgets aren't infinite and increasing costs means fewer projects will get built.

> but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.

Cost is a very real and important constraint. You can't just throw more money at a problem if the problem is that you cannot profitably provide a good at a price that is affordable. You cannot change the price the market will bear, but you can cut your costs by lobbying your city government to cut parking minimums.

Right. If either bankers or developers will not make a positive return, they will simply do nothing.