411
Chicago will no longer require new buildings near transit to include parking.
(chi.streetsblog.org)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
411 points (98.6% liked)
Fuck Cars
12831 readers
684 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tragedy of the Commons.
There was not "plenty" of parking. That's why the town had to step in and start enforcing the parking rules that were ignore before.
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply to parking because the parking still exists after exploitation. The public utility must degrade (the parking spots disappear after using them) for the tragedy of the commons to apply.
DrunkEgnineer is correct: in a free market with two prices for the same item, the one with the lowest price will be sold first. There was plenty of free on-street parking, so the paid parking was not preferentially picked.
Parking rules can also be enforced with money and not who owns the private property next to the public property. That is, charge for street parking at the supply-demand equilibrium.
@pc486 @Duamerthrax Parking does degrade though. Lots need resurfacing and sometimes stabilization to prevent sinkholes and garages can collapse altogether. We're already starting to see serious structural problems with decks built in the mid-late 20th century that are buckling from a combination of age, lack of maintenance, and not anticipating that they'd be filled with oversized SUVs and pickup trucks, many with electric batteries making them even heavier.
Parking is not a finite and limited resource. Road surfaces can, and regularly are, refurbished and established. That's why parking is not a tragedy; it's not a resource that is lost forever.
I think you do bring up a good point though: who pays for parking lots and street parking when it does need help? Is it only the home owner in front of the street or is it a general fund expense from local sales taxes? Double points if you can answer who is then allowed to park in that publicly-paid parking spot.