this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
189 points (92.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

12455 readers
1773 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 CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
189
If you want to build apartments and homes in Nashville, you are required to build parking for cars. Otherwise, the city council will kill your project. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Oneser@lemm.ee 59 points 2 weeks ago (27 children)

While the fuck cars sentiment is as important as always, planning rules like this have a few goals which aren't all so malicious, including stopping projects decoupling their parking space and selling it for extra, or avoiding 30+ cars all over the sidewalks once everyone is moved in.

Planning codes tend to try and anticipate a community's immediate vicinity needs. The best approach though would be "$x000 per unit to provide and maintain local public transport facilities and routes"

[–] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

including stopping projects decoupling their parking space and selling it for extra

They already sell it for extra, those parking spaces are never free and you always pay for them

OP posted another article with more details on it: !https://lemmy.world/post/31486375

From the article:

Construction costs run from $10,000 per parking space in a surface lot to $70,000 per space in an underground garage. That gets baked into what developers must recoup from tenants and buyers, whether they own a car or not. The rules drive up the per-unit cost to build affordable housing (in New York, affordable units near transit are exempt from parking minimums, but the rules still apply elsewhere). And they often require more parking than people actually use.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

$70,000 per space in an underground garage.

i was old enough to remember people buying 2 bed rooms apts in third tier cities for this kinda of money.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

i think that is a really smart idea as a transition. not having parking minimums within x meters of public transit is a great start because a lot of public transit is shit in usa (no funding, etc).

i hate being forced into owning a car in my neighborhood and wish i didnt need one for basic everyday things, but if there were no parking minimums where i live then it would be a shitshow while waiting for some kind of public transit to never be built.

i agree with this as a starting transition goal : D

load more comments (24 replies)