Parking lots as economic drains

Role of Cars and Parking in Urban Life

• Many argue that abundant, cheap parking and car-centric design “kill” city centers: they consume huge amounts of land, reduce density, lengthen trips, and undermine street life.
• Others counter that in many North American cities, if you make driving and parking harder before alternatives exist, people simply stop going downtown and shift to suburban malls or other districts.
• Several note COVID-era remote work plus high downtown parking costs as a major blow to already fragile cores.

Alternatives: Transit, Walking, and Mixed-Use

• Popular proposals: mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods; strong rail and bus networks; bike infrastructure; congestion pricing; and banning or severely limiting free on‑street parking.
• Examples cited include Japanese cities, Dutch cities, Copenhagen, and specific car‑light districts, where rail and density reduce car ownership and surface parking.
• Some suggest partial or full car bans in cores with park‑and‑ride, but others warn that in places without robust transit this can devastate downtown business (Buffalo is mentioned as a cautionary case).

Parking Policy: Minimums, Pricing, and “Commons”

• One side defends parking minimums as protection against “free‑riding” on public street parking; the opposing view says minimums force wasteful land use and suppress more productive buildings.
• Many see correct pricing of curb parking as the right tool: meter and district permits calibrated to demand, possibly very expensive in high-value areas.
• Debate over whether surface lots impose negative externalities comparable to pollution, or whether their benefits (accessibility) often outweigh lost opportunity.

Land Value Tax and Economic Framing

• The discussed article’s framing—parking lots as “negative value” compared to buildings—draws both support and skepticism. Some call it just a way to describe opportunity cost; others find the math hand‑wavy.
• Land‑value taxation is widely discussed: advocates say current property tax regimes reward holding valuable land idle and punish improvements; critics fear using tax policy to “force” redevelopment and displace long‑time owners.

Equity, Accessibility, and Lived Experience

• Strong disagreement over whether de‑parking and de‑car policies are “ableist.” Some disabled or mobility‑limited commenters say cars are essential; others note many disabilities preclude driving and thus depend on transit.
• Families with kids: some describe car‑free or car‑light parenting (bikes, transit) as entirely feasible in well‑designed cities; others insist suburban homes plus cars are the only practical option where they live.

Implementation Strategy and Nuance

• Common ground: drastic overnight changes are risky. Several advocate gradual reductions in surface parking, replacing it with housing and mixed‑use, plus structured or underground parking where needed.
• There’s agreement that “let the market decide” only works if zoning, parking mandates, and tax policy stop distorting land use toward cheap surface lots.