Chicago author says the city must stop building new apartments if there is no parking. Finding space to park cars is more important than housing.

Davriellelouna@lemmy.world · edit-2 24 days ago

Chicago author says the city must stop building new apartments if there is no parking. Finding space to park cars is more important than housing.

InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 23 days ago

In reality, there are three options when planning new development:

Refuse to build the new development because it’s too dense and would ruin the traffic. Insist on including a fuckton of parking and maybe even turning the adjacent street into a stroad in the name of “capacity.” Build the new development without the fuckton of parking, knowing full well that it’s going to make driving there suck, because you understand that the public will Deal With It and adjust by walking and biking more.

Pretty much what the removed comment said (really just don’t build if its going to exacerbate problems). Do you love to talk past people that are agreeing with the premise and making the movement look bad or what are you on about?

And really if you are in car centrist place (like i am) and parking sucks you won’t buy a house or condo there either.

But again. I and others are telling you that we interpreted the removed comment to having made its case rather well and you are talking some fat Ls on discourse here. Please go back and read what the original comment was, what people have said about it, and that you are now de-railing it being too immature when called out.

grue@lemmy.world · edit-2 23 days ago

Pretty much what the removed comment said (really just don’t build if its going to exacerbate problems). Do you love to talk past people that are agreeing with the premise and making the movement look bad or what are you on about?

Again, I am disputing that premise of “just don’t build if its going to exacerbate problems” and saying that everyone repeating it is wrong. The problems of car-dependency need to be exacerbated in order to force a break from the car-dependent status quo.

It’s not a great analogy, but creating good urbanism is kinda like exercise: similarly to how you have to work the muscle hard enough to break it down in order for it to build back stronger, you have to deliberately build things anticipating walkability etc., even knowing that it will make traffic worse, in order to get the infrastructure supporting other modes of transportation to actually happen. No pain, no gain.

Edit: it suddenly occurs to me that when I wrote “only one of those options is good,” you might have misread it as “only option #1 is good.” That is not what I meant; option #3 is the only good one.