Why Does America Provide More Space for Storing Cars Than Housing People?(commonedge.org)
commonedge.org
Why Does America Provide More Space for Storing Cars Than Housing People?
https://commonedge.org/why-does-america-provide-more-space-for-storing-cars-than-housing-people/
101 comments
How did they become dependent on an object that cost them a fortune and ruins cities and enviroment?
Because the benefit is immediate, and personal, but the cost is deferred and distributed.
Because the cost/benefit analysis makes it perfectly viable or even cheap.
Even as someone living in a non-US city with supposedly good public transport, the cost of a cheap car + gas is ridiculous compared to the benefits.
Even as someone living in a non-US city with supposedly good public transport, the cost of a cheap car + gas is ridiculous compared to the benefits.
The power of large corporations and their marketing departments.
Specifically, GM, who lobbied hard about this starting in the 60s
If we consider restrictions and costs of housing as the cause of needing a car, it seems hard to conclusively assign blame to just the chicken or just the egg.
[deleted]
Because all of the proposed replacements entail substantial compromises, such as "not actually going directly from point A to point B", and because we no longer seem to have the ability to build infrastructure like transit for reasonable costs.
Because corporations brainwashed people very successfully.
It's a long story, but it involves the post-WWII economic boom, White Flight from the inner cities to the suburbs and away from the Black people in the cities (along with Redlining to keep the Black people from following them), the construction of Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system in the 50s, and many other factors I'm sure I'm missing.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted - this is a well researched phenomenon. The interstate system opened up access (ie, subsidized) land for single family residential. And yes, one factor why white people moved there was to get away from black people - and even enacted covenants to keep out black buyers and real estate agents practiced what was called “red lining”.
This was turbocharged by court losses saying that cities had to serve all of their citizens. Many white people were okay living in the same city with brown people as long as there were white neighborhoods with schools, pools, etc. only used by white people. Once black (or on the west coast, Mexican) people were legally allowed to use them, some cities shutdown city pools and many people moved to suburbs where the infrastructure was technically open to all residents but since things like the design & covenants were created to limit who lived there, it was de facto segregated.
Lobby
Because of the constant growth any real reduction in housing costs would have be temporary. Or it would have been in the 1945-2020 period.
Also, it would have created an environment that would have been totally unaffordable for families. Families don't work well in cities, because you need space. So that means a family of 4, with each kid a room, needs to pay 3-4 times the price a single person needs to pay, just for housing, while only making, at best, twice as much.
So families moved away. Families are also the ones that have the numbers, for voting, and the money ...
That, and stress in cities is 10x what it is in suburbs.
Also, it would have created an environment that would have been totally unaffordable for families. Families don't work well in cities, because you need space. So that means a family of 4, with each kid a room, needs to pay 3-4 times the price a single person needs to pay, just for housing, while only making, at best, twice as much.
So families moved away. Families are also the ones that have the numbers, for voting, and the money ...
That, and stress in cities is 10x what it is in suburbs.
Example from San Francisco:
In a shocking and possibly illegal act of public absurdity, eight members of the Board of Supervisors voted to stall the construction of 495 new housing units on the site of a parking lot in the South of Market neighborhood.
> They bemoaned the dreaded specter of gentrification, as if the site’s current use as a 176-space valet parking lot for Nordstrom’s shoppers provides any benefit for communities struggling with scarce housing options.
This got me
This got me
The block didn’t last too long. The project was approved in April 2023 after an 18-month environmental review:
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/06/07/build-buys-c...
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/06/07/build-buys-c...
Whether 18 months is 'too long' is a matter of opinion. To me, it seems like 17 months too long.
18 months doesn't sound all that bad by UK standards! Then again, this project has been in the pipeline since 2017. There's a right balance for housing policy somewhere between "approve everything" and "approve nothing", and hopefully California is finally starting to find it?
Why do we need to house the homeless in the most expensive part of the state?
It's a genuine question. Would love reasons instead of just downvotes.
It's a genuine question. Would love reasons instead of just downvotes.
I didn't see anything about this being to house the homeless. It just said affordable housing, which I assume is for normal working folks even tech people?
It just said affordable housing, which I assume is for normal working folks even tech people?
The term 'affordable housing' often refers to housing units that are offered at below-market rates. It's part of a government racket:
The government creates regulations and takes other actions that hinder developers from easily building new housing, thereby limiting supply and increasing prices for the units that are available.
At the same time governments enact policies to prevent landlords from raising rents to market rates. While this protects current tenants, it limits the availability of units for new residents, effectively pricing them out and meaning only a subset of the total rental stock is affected by supply and demand.
After these regulations create a landscape of high housing costs, governments then introduce 'affordable housing' quotas for new development projects. These are often aimed at appeasing certain voter demographics to win votes.
Here in the UK, affordable housing provision (10% nationally, higher in some areas) is a pretty standard policy. Generally speaking, it seems to work well, although sometimes developers can buy their way out of it by providing a contribution ("section 106") to the council towards building affordable housing elsewhere. And in a few cases there has been controversy around "poor doors", with the developer providing different entrances to affordable units so that well-heeled residents don't have to brush shoulders with the unwashed masses.
Thanks, I wrongly inferred it was for homeless housing from "housing units" somehow.
Your question has nothing to do with the proposed development in SOMA.
The government forces developers to reserve some % of units for 'affordable housing' but this development wasn't being built to house people who are currently homeless.
The government forces developers to reserve some % of units for 'affordable housing' but this development wasn't being built to house people who are currently homeless.
Would you want a slum - solely, solely for the sake of the argument - at the center integrated into the city and its culture, or far from the city where they'd start a new culture and own justice, distinct from that of the city...
zapdrive(1)
US is extremely car-dependent due commuting and
infrastructure spread out in the suburbs, which in turn
are caused by abandonment of cities for suburbs:
i.e. the conditions of life in suburbs outcompeted cities.
Fixing the root cause is fixing the cities Quality of Life
to compete with suburbs - going after symptoms(car-centric
culture) won't work.
Suburbs didn’t just outcompete cities, the federal government virtually subsidized them with cheap land (via federal interstate system) and mortgages.
Subsidies for suburbs go deeper. Spread out houses means longer water pipes, electric lines, transformers, etc., paid and maintained by local governments. You might pay more taxes for owning more land, but nowhere near as much as what you owe your community.
More details here :
Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
More details here :
Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
Yep, “The Growth Ponzi Scheme” is a classic:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
Suburbs are highly subsidized.
The quality of life only seems to outcompete cities because the quality of life in cities is lowered by the car centric culture.
If you want to know how good the QoL in a city can be, you need to visit a European city that is not car centric.
If you want to know how good the QoL in a city can be, you need to visit a European city that is not car centric.
Parking minimums cause cities to turn over a large percentage of their productive land to parking
You can't effectively build human centric attractive spaces without being hampered by the fact we've given the majority of public space to cars
You can't effectively build human centric attractive spaces without being hampered by the fact we've given the majority of public space to cars
It's 50x cheaper per square foot of parking than for housing.
I think we should bring back housing projects though. I'd rather increase state budgets by the 2% it would take rather than deal with homeless all the time.
I think we should bring back housing projects though. I'd rather increase state budgets by the 2% it would take rather than deal with homeless all the time.
They didn't make space for cars, they made space for people who own cars.
Climate town did a fantastic piece on this
Parking Laws Are Strangling America | Climate Town https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8
Parking Laws Are Strangling America | Climate Town https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8
Well when you give people a vote on "do you want more homes for new neighbours or unlimited free parking everywhere always?" people vote for the parking. Which is why US cities are mostly asphalt.
If I think about a walkable city, I keep on getting stuck.
Regardless of whether I get around during the week to a doctors appointment, my work, friends, etc I still will need a car.
Not being able to buy things in larger amounts means that you get taken advantage of, looking at price per X at your local grocer vs Costco.
Then during the weekend I want to go into nature. You cannot economically have public transportation to all those hiking trails.
Some of you might say: what about a rental for when I need a car? Lots of rental places just flat-out don't allow you to take the vehicle off of paved roads.
Regardless of whether I get around during the week to a doctors appointment, my work, friends, etc I still will need a car.
Not being able to buy things in larger amounts means that you get taken advantage of, looking at price per X at your local grocer vs Costco.
Then during the weekend I want to go into nature. You cannot economically have public transportation to all those hiking trails.
Some of you might say: what about a rental for when I need a car? Lots of rental places just flat-out don't allow you to take the vehicle off of paved roads.
One reason costco is cheaper is because they charge for a membership. It’s not that cheaper. Honestly it’s not even cheaper if you compare against a regular supermarket and you are willing to buy a different brand then the one offered at Costco
I have never seen a rental saying where you can or can’t go with a vehicle
I have never seen a rental saying where you can or can’t go with a vehicle
And with the rental:
https://www.hertz.com/rentacar/emember/join/gold/displayTerm...
> 5. PROHIBITED USE OF THE CAR NEITHER YOU NOR ANY AUTHORIZED OPERATOR MAY:
...
d. ENGAGE IN ANY WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MAY INCLUDE RECKLESS CONDUCT SUCH AS: ..., USE OFF PAVED ROADS OR ON ROADS WHICH ARE NOT REGULARLY MAINTAINED, ...
National:
https://www.nationalcar.com/content/dam/National/functional/...
> (10) Vehicle shall not be driven on an unpaved road or off-road.
Budget:
https://www.budget.com/en/legal-documents/rental-terms
14. Prohibited Use of the Car. ...
... 4) to be operated in a test, race or contest or on unpaved roads
Avis:
https://www.avis.com/en/legal-documents/rental-terms
14. Prohibited Use of the Car. ...
... 4) to be operated in a test, race or contest or on unpaved roads
https://www.hertz.com/rentacar/emember/join/gold/displayTerm...
> 5. PROHIBITED USE OF THE CAR NEITHER YOU NOR ANY AUTHORIZED OPERATOR MAY:
...
d. ENGAGE IN ANY WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MAY INCLUDE RECKLESS CONDUCT SUCH AS: ..., USE OFF PAVED ROADS OR ON ROADS WHICH ARE NOT REGULARLY MAINTAINED, ...
National:
https://www.nationalcar.com/content/dam/National/functional/...
> (10) Vehicle shall not be driven on an unpaved road or off-road.
Budget:
https://www.budget.com/en/legal-documents/rental-terms
14. Prohibited Use of the Car. ...
... 4) to be operated in a test, race or contest or on unpaved roads
Avis:
https://www.avis.com/en/legal-documents/rental-terms
14. Prohibited Use of the Car. ...
... 4) to be operated in a test, race or contest or on unpaved roads
A basic Costco membership is $60. Their chicken is $5 + tax. Same chicken at Safeway is $8.99 + tax.
So if you eat >15 chickens per year Costco is cheaper.
And even that is incorrect. Costco's chicken is 32oz, the Safeway one 28. Forgetting about taxes, Costco's is $0.15625 / oz, Safeway is $0.3210714285714286 / oz.
So now we have 2 equations, and we need to find the intersection:
* y = 60 + x * 0.15625
* y = 0.3210714285714286 * x
They cross at 11.37594799566631 chickens.
But larger chickens have larger bones, so let's keep it at 15. I definitely eat more than 15 chickens per year.
Then there's the issue of cost in general, while the house-brands of Safeway / Frys / Kroger / ... are cheaper, they are much more likely to have stuff added to it to make it 'bulkier'. A good example is Cottage Cheese from Walmart. They add a thickener to the liquid which allows them to sell you the same amount for less, but you actually get less cheese and more filler.
So if you eat >15 chickens per year Costco is cheaper.
And even that is incorrect. Costco's chicken is 32oz, the Safeway one 28. Forgetting about taxes, Costco's is $0.15625 / oz, Safeway is $0.3210714285714286 / oz.
So now we have 2 equations, and we need to find the intersection:
* y = 60 + x * 0.15625
* y = 0.3210714285714286 * x
They cross at 11.37594799566631 chickens.
But larger chickens have larger bones, so let's keep it at 15. I definitely eat more than 15 chickens per year.
Then there's the issue of cost in general, while the house-brands of Safeway / Frys / Kroger / ... are cheaper, they are much more likely to have stuff added to it to make it 'bulkier'. A good example is Cottage Cheese from Walmart. They add a thickener to the liquid which allows them to sell you the same amount for less, but you actually get less cheese and more filler.
Walmart chicken is the same price as Costco and you don’t need a membership
I don’t know if the cottage thing is true or not, but even if it is, it doesn’t make difference for the customer if their goal is to save money
I don’t know if the cottage thing is true or not, but even if it is, it doesn’t make difference for the customer if their goal is to save money
The problem with saving money is that they're replacing nutritious stuff with filler. So cheaper per oz, but you get a worse product.
This is trying to sound dystopian, but it fails because car storage is not suitable for housing. We also have more square footage of sidewalks than dwellings. So?
I don't get your argument. On an area that barely fits 5 cars and is not large enough for ramps and multi story parking you can build a skyscraper housing a hundred of people in comfort. So?
> Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap to build car parking
By that logic it would be cheaper not to build anything, so why is something built in the first place?
A hundred people in the space of 5 cars is unmeasurably better for the economy. Workforce, consumers, etc. If 2 of them open craft coffeeshops next door 98 of them won't need to go somewhere to get a nice drink, and so on. Once you don't need to cross 6 lanes on foot all sorts of possibilities open. Proximity is benefit multiplier at the same time reducing ecofootprint
> Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap to build car parking
By that logic it would be cheaper not to build anything, so why is something built in the first place?
A hundred people in the space of 5 cars is unmeasurably better for the economy. Workforce, consumers, etc. If 2 of them open craft coffeeshops next door 98 of them won't need to go somewhere to get a nice drink, and so on. Once you don't need to cross 6 lanes on foot all sorts of possibilities open. Proximity is benefit multiplier at the same time reducing ecofootprint
I was in Amsterdam a few days back and decided to take a look at the new automatic underground parking.
When land is expensive enough efficiency finds a way.
When land is expensive enough efficiency finds a way.
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying we don't have land? Or that we don't need money? Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better.
Everything you've listed sounds horrible to me. Tight shoulder to shoulder walks smelling each other's farts and bad cooking is a step backwards. If you want that, that's fine, there's plenty of land available to do that with. Go do that. It's obviously not popular or we would be doing that.
You're right, denser living is unpopular. It's so unpopular that we had to make it illegal to stop people from doing that thing they don't like.
I don't see how sarcasm futhered any point. If you're trying to ridicule, it's gone the other way. How can it be illegal of so many people are doing it? I wish it was illegal. I wish any bank and builder that proposed another high density unaffordable housing development to sell to foreign investors would be put in prison. Then we might actually solve something. What's really ridiculous is someone like you siding with the scum as of it's some higher moral code of conduct. But you only believe in that code by of conduct because banks and builders invested in washing your brain to believe that high density housing is somehow good despite it being the most destructive lifestyle towards the environment, homelessnrss, happiness, etc.
It's obviously not illegal. Everywhere that they try to make it illegal, builders and banks come in and lobby to ensure that they are allowed to further condense housing so that they can squeeze that much more out of every invested dollar and save on building materials in the name of "affordable housing" that none of us can afford.
Have you ever tried to convert a single family home in to a quadruplex?
I haven't. Let me know what I'm missing. If you're going to say the HOA stopped you, that's not a criminal law issue, that's a civil dispute. Meaning it's not illegal it's agreed upon by society to be annoying and deserving of a monetary disadvantage.
It's illegal due to zoning and parking minimums
Not in the US, but possibly in your city. But even then, I bet you can't show me the city code that prevents it. Why? Because it's ABSOLUTELY legal, as long as someone approves it for you. Who? Well, someone who sits on city council and approves it for builders and banks, not chumps like your broke ass trying to turn a fourplex. Of course you can't do it! They wouldn't want your affordable fourplex driving down the price of their bank buddies' loft apartments at a million plus downtown. This is a slam dunk example of why high density is a bullshit marketing front for REIT stock millionaires capitalizing on the destruction of environment, community, civil liberties, and freedom in America. Based on this comment, I must point out that you are your own worst enemy. Stop supporting high density housing if you want to turn a fourplex. That's not high density. Fourplexes have yards dude. Have you been to the city?
> Are you saying we don't have land?
Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps
> Or that we don't need money?
The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it
> Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better
Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers
Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps
> Or that we don't need money?
The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it
> Fitting 100 people in the space of 5 cars sounds a lot worse, not better
Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers
>Are you saying we should pour concrete over land as long as there's land remaining? Let's try to have a more nuanced discussion perhaps
Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from?
>The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it.
This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging.
>Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers.
Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?
Here's nuance. The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life. A back yard and a lawn, a 2 car garage, etc. And that's just Texas. Where are you from?
>The opposite, dedicating space to park 5 cars some of the time instead of 100 people living is the waste of money here. This doesn't even take into account damage to the planet from spreading people all over it.
This doesn't damage the planet. Building skyscrapers to line pockets of bankers so they can build so close together that trees and crops can't grow in the surrounding area is damaging.
>Only if you make it bad, I've seen some comfy skyscrapers.
Really? Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment? Did they plant forests in their balcony?
> The entire population of the world could live in Texas with an American quality of life
Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle?
> Crops can't grow
If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever.
> Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment?
Sounds like animal cruelty to me
> Did they plant forests in their balcony?
No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.
Yeah. Everyone would have sub 90 sq meters of space for everything, and there would be zero space for any sort of forest, park, a shopping mall or any roads for all those 8 billion cars. People would have to have drone deliveries for everything because roads would be gridlocked with all those cars and you won't get anywhere anyway. And better wear PPE mask outside at all times. Is that American lifestyle?
> Crops can't grow
If you spread 100 families on surface and give everyone 90 sq meters, that's all gone area for crops. Add infrastructure, electricity, piping, roads and junctions to handle private traffic. Add maintenance. But if you stack em vertically in the space of a medium sized parking lot the remaining space is all crops or trees or whatever.
> Did they keep chickens and goats in their apartment?
Sounds like animal cruelty to me
> Did they plant forests in their balcony?
No but a forest is available within walking distance. In your ideal world really no one leaves their designated box for a healthy daily walk? Ah right, I forgot about 6 lanes of traffic to cross.
The US has a density of 30 people per km2. When you apply your points to reality they look pretty ridiculous. There's so much land it's stupid to suggest anything about parking. It scares me that people like you vote based on ridiculous misconceptions like this one.
Homelessness has absolutely nothing to do with land scarcity or parking lots.
[deleted]
[deleted]
695,620 km2
It sounds like you might need some help with the math. Do you?
It sounds like you might need some help with the math. Do you?
Do you need help taking area of TX and dividing by world population? gosh
Why would you do that? Are you planning to use the extreme example that I used to show how much EXTRA land would be available outside of Texas to actually suggest that we all move there? That wouldn't further your point much, would it?
Yeah I am also trying to understand why you gave your extreme example, it doesn't help your point but it helps mine. If you put the entire planet population in the area of TX but build tall, people would live in better comfort than if you make it one large suburbia.
The extreme example shows that there is practically infinite land. And that having trees, grass, and nature between dwellings is far superior for the environment. Why you would want to destroy that unless you're an evil bank investor is not explained in your commentary. You don't seem to have a real point other than you poke fun at the example, as if you didn't understand it. But I know you did. You just don't want to admit it, obviously.
If it's infinite then why not give everyone 100 sq km mansion and fly to visit each other? It's not like we need to worry about sustainability or something right?
You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.
You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.
Worse than angry people living on the sidewalk and the margins of freeways?
Tight housing didn't solve that. In fact, everywhere there's a homeless camp happens to be right where there is tight housing. Because the corporations building your dream community of prison block housing is still charging a lot for it. It's not creating more housing for the poor. That's just what the developers' marketing agency told you. Housing shortages have nothing to do with land shortages. They have everything to do with banking and mental healthcare.
The angry people living on the sidewalk aren't there because parking lots are stopping them from building skyscrapers though
Depends on how affordable housing would be in those skyscrapers
If you have an engineering solution that can build skyscrapers on begging income, land prices aren't going to hold you back from being a billionaire...
I mean they would move in if prices got lower thanks to abundant housing
The closer the housing the more expensive. That's a stastistical fact that is very inconvenient for your bullshit.
Read up on supply and demand then welcome back to start making sense :)
Here is a simple write up from someone else, with links to some relevant research about the carbon footprint of high density housing.
https://humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-...
Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.
Specifically for housing in America, though, more houses don't lower the price. That's because the more housing is owned by an individual builder the more they control appraisal comps. Why do you think they have so much marketing to try to convince you that it's good for the environment? They are able to get zoning exceptions to build high density, high priced living. Pick any skyscraper residence in America. Nearly all, if not all, are far more expensive than surrounding suburbs.
You could, but that would cost several orders of magnitude more than a patch of asphalt for parking.
Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap-to-build car parking than there is expensive-to-build housing?
Why is it surprising that there’s more cheap-to-build car parking than there is expensive-to-build housing?
Parking can be very expensive to build. This is a great thread on that. https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...
This is interesting, but it's referring to a very small amount of parking space. Certainly not more than living space.
Parking is a very substantial portion of the space.
" So not only is 32% of your apartment just for your car and otherwise useless, but its also by far the most expensive part of that apartment to build." in the example linked, for reference.
" So not only is 32% of your apartment just for your car and otherwise useless, but its also by far the most expensive part of that apartment to build." in the example linked, for reference.
This is irrelevant. Expensive* parking isn't a significant portion. And the amount of space doesn't matter when the space is not limited.
The land on which car storage is built is suitable for housing to be built on it instead.
There is no shortage of land in the US. Have you ever been here?
There is within commuting radius of the places that pay well, though.
There's also a question of subjectivity here. Do you want to commute or live in a small expensive dwelling? Those are choices, neither of which have any bearing on connecting parking space with homelessness. Those are simply unrelated facts.
Learn to code and don't commute. And don't accept offers that force you to. The commute lifestyle is allowed because we allow it.
If I assume that remote work is as productive as in-office[0], then everyone in this position is now competing with worldwide [1] labour market.
Same applies to all office jobs.
Even to physical labour, if we have robot telepresence[2].
[0] IDK, might be?
[1] Or at least +/- a time zone or three.
[2] AI-on-the-edge robotics probably ends those things as human work opportunities.
Same applies to all office jobs.
Even to physical labour, if we have robot telepresence[2].
[0] IDK, might be?
[1] Or at least +/- a time zone or three.
[2] AI-on-the-edge robotics probably ends those things as human work opportunities.
You're exactly right. And that's why over 100k developers were recently terminated while foreign labor was hired. But don't feel too bad for them. Many were already immigrants from India and other countries who are simply giving their countrymen a chance to also gain entrance to the American market. The same chance they had to undercut someone else's pay.
Capitalism at its finest.
All the more reason to convert parking in to housing near jobs.
That wouldn't solve anything. The housing would simply cost too much to live near and you'd still need a car to leave the residential areas which are not near work areas even in downtown neighborhoods.
My commute to work downtown is actually shorter from the suburbs than it was when I lived and worked downtown.
Public transit was over an hour to go just 5 miles from the east side to the skyscrapers.
Now I'm 30 miles away and my commute is under 40 minutes.
You can't just put a blanket on the subject and claim victory. I think someone above mentioned nuance.
the land is probably used in the most profitable way. whether that's parking, housing, farming, or leaving it empty. it's not used for some hypothetical greater good.
That logic only works if you have some notion that any action that causes economic harm also causes harm to the party who takes it: like the economy is a magical game of tit-for-tat...
If I fund a REIT and buy up half the housing in some bumbling town to extract rent, and let those who can't afford it go pound sand: it can be profitable for me, yet be a net cost to the wider economy.
In fact, it can cost significantly more than the profit I gain: A couple of cases homelessness can end up costing the state millions over the next few decades in knock on effects, the extra rent my REIT extracts in rent ends up in less economically stimulating places than the local economy, etc etc.
In the end I can end up contracting the economy by 100s of millions and still profit, as long as that contraction doesn't overlap with my personal interests too much. Increased homelessness might lower the value of my properties, but the majority of the economic loss doesn't fall on me so I might even expand on that loss in value.
If I fund a REIT and buy up half the housing in some bumbling town to extract rent, and let those who can't afford it go pound sand: it can be profitable for me, yet be a net cost to the wider economy.
In fact, it can cost significantly more than the profit I gain: A couple of cases homelessness can end up costing the state millions over the next few decades in knock on effects, the extra rent my REIT extracts in rent ends up in less economically stimulating places than the local economy, etc etc.
In the end I can end up contracting the economy by 100s of millions and still profit, as long as that contraction doesn't overlap with my personal interests too much. Increased homelessness might lower the value of my properties, but the majority of the economic loss doesn't fall on me so I might even expand on that loss in value.
Car parking space being provided by commercial and residential properties is mandated by government regulation in cities, so it actually is closer to “the greater good” than “the greatest profit”.
Has someone coined "the greater bad" yet? If not I'm calling dibs.
Normally, yes it is, but in this case, we force people to build parking even when that is not the most profitable use.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar... shows the impact of parking minimums on housing costs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar... shows the impact of parking minimums on housing costs.
Car is an asset and people is sometimes a liability. (just describing a fact, not that I fully agree with this.)
More land is used for growing food than for housing people, too. So?
Why does America have more chairs than people?
Because cars are bigger than people...
They don’t make the connection between half of urban land (!) being allocated toward driving infrastructure and high housing costs. Landlords take the blame. Other problems caused by spatial displacement and only building infrastructure for cars include traffic congestion, oil dependency, climate change, and rising traffic deaths. Driving doesn’t scale well in cities. Besides insatiable demand for parking and congestion, people buy bigger cars to keep up with the crash safety arms race.