Pretty persuasive! Though also (I think) a pretty good illustration of why developers will almost always try to include some on-site parking even if it's not mandatory. In this case it seems as if they decided that completing construction on an unpleasant apartment building would be more profitable than walking away from it mid-project, and then persuaded the city to let them complete it.
Which city was this, if you don't mind saying? About how many units in your building? Was there any attempt by the city to manage the curbsides with permits etc? I'd think that'd be part of the solution in this case.
The author's follow-up, Parking and the City, is a mere 534 pages and more readable. (Part of the reason Shoup has been so successful as a policy change agent is that he's a gifted writer.) Still goes for an academic price, unfortunately. https://www.amazon.com/Parking-City-Donald-Shoup/dp/11384971...
Agreed that the recreational biking infrastructure in NW Arkansas is great, but not enough Fayetteville people bike for transportation for that to be a big part of this outcome. It's just 1% of all commutes, for example. Compare that to 4%-10% in university towns that use a lot of on-street bike lanes that take you more directly to destinations: Eugene, Corvallis, Bozeman, Madison, Fort Collins, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Ann Arbor. (Not saying those cities are perfect either, to be clear.)
It's true that shitty bike lanes on auto-oriented streets are shitty, and that off-street paths are great. But lanes and paths are not the same thing, and neither of them is the reason this policy is working in Fayetteville.
Folks interested in this subject should consider joining the Parking Reform Network for connections to a bunch of people working on the subject around the world: https://parkingreform.org/
Which city was this, if you don't mind saying? About how many units in your building? Was there any attempt by the city to manage the curbsides with permits etc? I'd think that'd be part of the solution in this case.