Solarpunk Urbanism

1789 readers

1 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.

Checkout these related communities:

!15minutecity@slrpnk.net

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Why Does This Building by the Subway Need 193 Parking Spots? (Yes, Exactly 193.) | New York and cities across the country reconsider decades-old parking rules. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7 to c/urbanism

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In New York and elsewhere, the rules typically take the form of ratios [of parking spaces to retail and housing] that have been copied from one city to another, handed from one generation of engineers to the next without much study or skepticism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dumples@midwest.social 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Removing parking minimums from new construction is a great method to slowly remove parking as a need to happen. This gives a great quick turn solution with a longer legs since only "needed" parking will be added as the surplus decreases.

I do feel that reduce car use requires both removing of incentives to drive (like free unlimited parked as an assumption) as well as adding other transit options. I know personally that if I know parking is going to be bad I start considering all my options since driving is such a default option. We need it both ways. Especially since adding more transit options are not going to be built unless people use them. People will use them if they have to which brings pressure to make more and better options. This works best when the people who need to use them are affluent and powerful. We need both

[–] BastingChemina 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A good way can be to keep the same amount of mandated parking minimum but allows that up to x% (30%, 50%, 90% ?) of this parking can be replaced with secured bike parking (with precise specification on what is a secured bike parking, the same way as there is specifications for a car parking spot width, length ...).

This way this gives a choice, either the shop owner decide to ~save a fuckton of money on land and construction cost~ be environmentaly friendly and build bike parking instead of car parking spot, or he can still spend money on a huge parking lot if he is really against bike.

~ be sensitive to the environment and build bike parking

[–] dumples@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

Bike parking is good for everyone. Also super easy to do

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's what we're gradually do over here in Norway, new apartment complexes does not even have 1 parking place per apartment, you have to buy one for about 40-60k usd if you want one

There's no requirements for guest parking either, which can be a pain. But basically everyone who wants to park needs to pay for it.

They also removed free street parking. People are whining that it will kill the towns, because people can't park in town for free, but not happened yet

[–] dumples@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Its fine to have free parking where there is space. There are less and less space so people might have to pay for parking but it should have people focus on none car options.