Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko
Tell that to people in places like Montreal, never even mind most of Scandinavia. I can't deny we're at sunk-cost levels of car dependency, but it can't go on forever.
And NIMBYism doesn't inherently have anything to do with transit; lots of NYC's NIMBY commuter-rail suburbs are car-dependent places, but e.g., there are far fewer surface parking lots in Manhattan than Center City--definitely proportionately, and maybe even absolutely, I dunno. Driving a car throughout Metro Portland is just too easy.
I don't think developers having or not having to include bike parking is much of a factor in that problem.
|
If it's not much of a problem then smart developers will install them because it sells their buildings better, and the cost is low.
I just meant NIMBY as everyone has a cause, and these have added up to increasing the cost of building housing. I don't know the specifics of what costs what, other than the total cost is too high partially because of the combined requirements forced on developers. Is it bike parking, car parking, design aesthetic, water runoff, tree requirements, etc? I don't know. But surely they add up.
I never considered Montreal being a city that most people travel by bike in the winter. Surely downtown is dense and walkable and an amazing city, but as percentage of it's nearly 2M residents?
Plus these cities grew up as function of their time, not due to excellent public planning. I'm a bit skeptical of trying to mimic these old cities through costly coercion of planning theory du jour, rather that the natural state of the time; outside some guidance through zoning etc to ensure you don't become Houston.