Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Well, the reality is that there's a wide variety of lifestyles out there. The 1950's nuclear family tends to be disproportionately brought up but only a small percentage of households are two adults with children, and in Halifax they tend to live in houses. We should let people choose what they want rather than telling them what they want. By extension, developers should have the flexibility to build what their tenants and buyers want.
A lot of households don't even have more than one person in them. Most single people living in small 1 bedroom apartments probably don't want to pay for 2 parking spots if they also get guest parking. Furthermore some people can't drive at all, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for underground spots they can't use (this is tens of thousands of dollars per space).
When it comes to parking the city has adopted heavy-handed parking minimums and forced developers to build regardless of if that's what tenants and buyers want or not. Questioning this isn't anti-parking or anti-car. The minimums weren't brought in for the building occupants either, they were brought in by NIMBYs who didn't want new construction around them and, if they had to tolerate it, wanted to prevent competition for on-street parking they are not entitled to.
|
I have no idea what the city's parking minimums are, and would be interested to see the data. That said, by the reactions here, this building will be way above the minimums, so... I see it as a choice as supported by your third sentence. Besides, the actual case is probably the point that Takeo brought up as being more of a business case necessitated by the footprint.
My opinion, as mentioned, is that it is good to have lots of parking available for those that want it, but it's not the best choice for everybody - however they can choose to live somewhere else. IMHO, that neighborhood is plenty walkable, for sure, but isn't located near any major centres of employment, and thus people living there will likely have some sort of commute to their place of employment. And... they might choose to use a car to do that, unless the city gets off its butt and vastly improves the transit system.
You're absolutely right, it's not about forcing your choices on anybody else, but as a free society having choices is a good thing, so why not allow people the choice of living somewhere where more than one person can have a car? And, why not have buildings with no parking for people who choose not to, or can't afford, or can't master the techniques of driving, or whatever.
FWIW, it's not limited to any particular lifestyle actually. Mulitiple car dwellings are not limited to 1950's style family situations. A car is a convenience, a luxury to some and a necessity to others, or even a hobby. But it is something that anybody, regardless of family situation or orientation, has the freedom to choose, if they can afford it. So it could be a standard family, or a couple, or roommates, or a single person who has a regular car for commuting and a sports car to enjoy on nice days. Pigeonholing people based on ones biases usually doesn't accurately describe what's actually happening out there...
I'm not really saying anybody is being anti-car, but a comment like mine is usually followed up with some sort of anti-car or anti-boomer or anti-whatever sentiment. I'm all for all types of mobiilty, whether it be walking, transit, bicycle, accessabus... or car. People are usually better off when they have the option of changing their location when they want or need to. However, oftentimes enthusiastic users of 'other methods of transportation' openly express anti-car opinions... so the elephant is in the room, why not mention it?