Cities should be designed like theme parks. Ample free parking on the outskirts for commuters, with mass transit and paths within. It’s just common sense.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
266 points (97.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
12872 readers
876 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
Why do you want car brains in your city at all?
Entrance by ytain, boat, and rocket, maybe pedestrian.
entry by dirigible only
No. Train has to be on the list.
One way I have seen some buildings smartly handle this requirement was making most of the bottom floor of the building a parking area. I have seen both garage and open-air versions of this. It definitely has to cost more to build the building this way, but at least you're using the existing space and building upward to add more units instead of wasting space around the building.
While it is indeed stupid, it's also valid because, well... when there isn't any public transit to speak of, these low income people are sadly going to be forced into needing a car.
That used to be a common design in Southern California called a dingbat. Unfortunately the local authorities considered them to be eyesores and now they're becoming very rare. The few that are still around are an excellent source of affordable housing to its tenants.
Normal looking house with a parking spot under it is an eyesore yet strip malls and walmart parking swathes are okay....
Eyesore wouldn't be how I describe them. Lots of TV shows and movies take place in them and always look cool as fuck. I never knew what they were called, thanks.
Yeah but it's myopic to treat both sides of that coin (the lack of public transit and the parking minimums) as if they are separate and unrelated matters. Both are policy decisions supported by the auto industry.
The average studio apartment in my area is 600 square feet. That is way too small of a space for a 2 bedroom.
600 omg what i wouod give...
Can't afford a car? That's ok, you don't have to buy one.
Better make sure you can afford a spot to park one if you want a place to live tho.
You don't have to buy one, but in North America your mobility will be severely limited unless your are able to live in a select few places, many of which are expensive because despite popilar american beliefs, it is quite desireable to be able to live car free.
I know it's common in my city, Sydney, for apartment complexes to build enough car spaces for the occupants. Part of the issue is that of they didn't have that requirement, none would be built, I steady putting extra pressure on street parking and public parking facilities. Residents of those complexes also have no entitlement to a parking permit, which older houses without spots do have.
Nowadays, in inner city with less car need, the spaces required is reduced, with some spots reserved for car share schemes instead.
So, like everything, blanket rules aren't great but rules are needed for a reason.
Part of the issue is that of they didn't have that requirement, none would be built
Good. Ban car parking.
putting extra pressure on street parking and public parking facilities
Don't build those either. Put the money that would have been spent on parking spaces into towtrucks.
As a non car owner, I'd love to agree. Banning car spots and cars is not yet feasible for most people. So, not having those spots available would make those kind of developments harmful for the rest of the community, further marginalizing them.
What is more likely to work is to make the regulation more flexible. So community cars count as 2 or 3 private cars. Then the complex needs less spaces.
Banning car spots and cars is not yet feasible for most people
Necessity is the mother of invention. "Destroy it and they will leave."
We could be like Japan where in order to own a car, you have to prove you have somewhere private to park it instead of just putting it on the street.
Which is the point of the requirement we're talking about, lol!
Im ok with it in my city if it had two modifications. They must never be seperated from units and besides any vehicle also storage pods can be parked there. For example where I live bike parking is restricted. Im not really complaining about my own place as we at least got specific rulings to allow bike hangers to be allowed (but the number is limited) on top of having some community bike parking racks. Which is much better than other places. To many places only allow cars to be parked/stored in the parking space.