Unless people are driving their cars from the adjoining suburban areas and want to park somewhere?
Like not saying parking lots are awesome but with such car centric infrastructure oftentimes they’re more useful than a hotel. Which will come with its own set of folks looking to park somewhere so compounding that whole issue or finding a place to park.
Nevertheless, in general I agree that it’d be nice if we had way less cars and the parking lots that go with them.
Virtually every American city already has an incredibly excessive quantity of parking, so I doubt removing a single parking lot is really going to change that.
Driving is incredibly harmful to cities. Making it more difficult is a net benefit even if a small number of suburbanites will be inconvenienced. I wish there was another way, but there really isn’t. There won’t be enough demand for alternatives if driving is too convenient due to all of the subsidies society provides for drivers, including excessive parking spaces in city centers.
The best way to allow suburbanites to enter the city is bike infrastructure for closer suburbs and rail or brt for more distant ones. If we’re concerned about those people then we should focus on expanding those things rather than preventing urban neighborhoods from getting better for the benefit of people who only visit them.
And yeah a hotel isn’t ideal since it’s also for visitors but it generates a lot more revenue for the local area than a parking lot does. And it does that without as much harm as a parking lot causes.
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It’s literally the worst land use possible.
Unless people are driving their cars from the adjoining suburban areas and want to park somewhere?
Like not saying parking lots are awesome but with such car centric infrastructure oftentimes they’re more useful than a hotel. Which will come with its own set of folks looking to park somewhere so compounding that whole issue or finding a place to park.
Nevertheless, in general I agree that it’d be nice if we had way less cars and the parking lots that go with them.
Fuck 'em. They should get a bus pass.
Virtually every American city already has an incredibly excessive quantity of parking, so I doubt removing a single parking lot is really going to change that.
Driving is incredibly harmful to cities. Making it more difficult is a net benefit even if a small number of suburbanites will be inconvenienced. I wish there was another way, but there really isn’t. There won’t be enough demand for alternatives if driving is too convenient due to all of the subsidies society provides for drivers, including excessive parking spaces in city centers.
The best way to allow suburbanites to enter the city is bike infrastructure for closer suburbs and rail or brt for more distant ones. If we’re concerned about those people then we should focus on expanding those things rather than preventing urban neighborhoods from getting better for the benefit of people who only visit them.
And yeah a hotel isn’t ideal since it’s also for visitors but it generates a lot more revenue for the local area than a parking lot does. And it does that without as much harm as a parking lot causes.
Can’t do handbrake turns in the snow on a hotel
Not with that attitude.
I like your energy
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
I’d make a Trailer Park Boys joke but I’m having a hard time enjoying it anymore
Got you dawg
“They could pay them $20 to fuck off”