View Single Post
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 7:48 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,961
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
If you believe that going car-free has the momentum and is the way of the future, then why would we insist on investing in large amounts of parking in brand new buildings that will be around at least a good 50-100 years?
It doesn't matter what I believe, but as I see it the general trend among young people is to shy away from the car. But it isn't going to happen overnight, it's a trend that will probably take 50 - 100 years to play out, but then a lot can happen in 50 -100 years that could change everything - like flying cars, or nuclear-powered bicycles, etc. As Keith said, let the market decide. If people want parking spaces with their condos, then the developers will provide spaces.

That's not just letting things run a natural course, it's actively reinforcing the status quo.
Actually, the suggestion of some type of legislation to restrict car use sounds like the opposite of letting it run its natural course. It sounds more like coercing people to make a choice against their will.

I'm sure there are plenty of existing buildings with parking for people who wish to move downtown and continue focusing their lives around the car.
"Focusing their lives around the car" sounds a little extreme. For most people a car is a tool they use for a purpose, much like a refrigerator or a stove.

If I choose to cook my dinner every night, I'm not focusing my life around the stove, I'm just using it to cook my dinner. However, I may choose to not cook dinner and eat out instead - that's a free choice I could make. If I get rid of the stove because I don't always use it, then I've limited my options. If somebody forces me to get rid of my stove, then they've limited my options.

Likewise, if a person chooses to walk or take take transit instead of their car a similar analogy could be made.

Regardless, how I see it going - if people transition into downtown living - they will likely use their cars less and less until someday they will probably decide the expense of the car isn't worth what they are putting into it. Then factor in the younger generation coming up who will not want to get their car license and will likely never own cars. It will transition, IMHO.

It may result in some empty parking garages in the future, but if that happens I'm sure there will be an enterprising person who will find a way to repurpose that space, either for storage, warehousing, hydroponic agriculture (4-season urban farming), or whatever.

Cities always evolve this way, they are built to fit the needs of the current generation, but then the buildings and infrastructure have to be changed to fit changing needs. I see this as running its natural course. Again, if needs have already changed to make a no-parking building viable, then it will be built.

Making the effort to include automobile provisions in new developments isn't being neutral, because if parking spaces are automatically built and included in the price of the unit, then the fact that the new condo owner will already have been forced to invest that money in order to buy the condo and has the parking space there ready to use encourages them to use it.
I highly doubt that somebody will buy a car because, you know, they just happen to have a parking space. Also, does not a new condo owner have to purchase their parking space separately? Therefore, if they don't want a parking space they won't buy a parking space.

Again, that said, if you want to make it difficult for people to take their cars downtown, they will still do it. The end result is that, well, you've just made their lives more difficult.

I appreciate the discussion.
Reply With Quote