[ipaddr]

You can't have a car parking space and a children's park in the same place: you must make a choice.

They also provide utility. If you remove parking spaces near a children's park less children can/will visit. You need a balance.

[ciceryadam]

Tell me you are an American, without telling me you are an American.

You can reach a children's park on foot or by taking public transportation, so ideally there's no need for a parking lot right next to it.

[ipaddr]

You can visit your local park hopefully you live in an area with one. You can invest time using transit to get to another park. Traveling during rush hour would be difficult. Traveling with many children or younger children adds a difficulty. Being disabled or older or worse disabled with children more difficult. For the young, childless, plenty of time on their hands or live next to a park of course walking a few steps is a no brainer.

But it's like buying a gym membership across town with the idea that you would walk everyday. You aren't going once winter hits.

Not American but have been young and took transit and walked everywhere but also seen seniors in wheelchairs who stopped going to the park after they stopped allowing cars to park.

[andrepd]

What percentage of people driving around in their 3-ton trucks are disabled? This is an argument for fewer cars, not more: so that people who truly need it can use it more efficiently.

[fennecfoxy]

Disabled etc spots are different imo. But most sane places have a mixture of parks/shops/other facilities within the bounds of a small neighbourhood that are easily walkable for most.

[eru]

You can also use a bike or take a cab etc.