this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
315 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

12701 readers
747 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
 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/20/opinion-broadway-upzoning-parking-chicago/

"If the city becomes more dense, where will people put their car?!!" he asks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Increasing density without also reducing dependence on car ownership just increases the vacancy rate or makes people leave the cars they need in places that make it everyone’s problem.

Cite a source for this claim, because otherwise I'm inclined to remove your comment as misinformation. I have never heard of a single instance ever in which a multifamily housing development went vacant for lack of parking.

[–] PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Can we not mod on vibes like the other place? Like I agree with you on this issue but that doesn't mean I want you to mod away the opinions I disagree with that are not malicious.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Maybe not a single dwelling, but imagine NYC, which IS highly walkable. Now imagine how dense it is, but without walkability. Without public transportation. Without bike lanes. NYC works because it has those things.

[–] DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Since when is the uptown Chicago neighborhood unwalkable and lacking transit!?

Moderator: by all means please delete disinformation.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago

First of all, it has those things because it has density. They become viable because of the density, not the other way around. Insisting that it has to be done backwards is a common NIMBY trope.

Second, what you wrote isn't a citation.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Its a pretty obvious conclusion.

or makes people leave the cars they need in places that make it everyone’s problem.

My my forgotten city its hard to go downtown due to lack of parking and it kinda keeps it in disrepair. University students want to save money on parking, so they clog a near by park.

Its kinda harsh to just remove a comment that makes sense and is not even against the premise of the community.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The complaint that people will park in places other people don't like is just an argument that parking isn't restricted enough. If you don't want street parking to be used, remove it! If you don't want students parking in parks, stop them!

My my forgotten city its hard to go downtown due to lack of parking and it kinda keeps it in disrepair.

First of all, well-designed places that look in disrepair are often still more productive than the "pretty" car-centric development they get replaced with.

Second, perhaps the real problem with people living downtown isn't its lack of parking, but rather the people living too far away. Increase the density of the housing near downtown such that more people live in walking/biking distance, and you solve the problem.


Its kinda harsh to just remove a comment that makes sense and is not even against the premise of the community.

The claim that a housing development will remain vacant because it doesn't parking is a false statement of fact, despite the commenter's characterization of it as an "opinion." I gave him the opportunity to show proof, but he chose not to. The argument he made is also repeating a common NIMBY bad-faith argument. Whether he himself intended to write in bad faith or not, that adds up to misinformation, and misinformation is uncivil (violates rule 1).

By the way, just as an example of the sorts of judgement calls I'm making as a moderator: this comment was expressing a similar misconception, but was not removed because it didn't make quite that level of specific actionable claim.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The complaint that people will park in places other people don't like is just an argument that parking isn't restricted enough. If you don't want street parking to be used, remove it! If you don't want students parking in parks, stop them!

Exactly, so no solution. And does not help our movement to end car dependence.

Still doesn't change my critic to your modding in that instance. Abusing public parking else where is a problem, and doesn't spur calls for public transit. Not sure why we need a citation on an obvious conclusion.

From other comments its clear you are the one misunderstanding what was said and your hubris is blinding you. Bad look for our movement. Makes us look childish.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Still doesn’t change my critic to your modding in that instance. Abusing public parking else where is a problem, and doesn’t spur calls for public transit. Not sure why we need a citation on an obvious conclusion.

"Not providing parking causes the housing development to remain vacant" is a lie, not an "obvious conclusion." If you think I'm wrong, prove it by citing an example of a housing development that couldn't find tenants or buyers because of lack of parking.

The part about causing parking problems elsewhere is not why the comment was removed.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Look, I think you are going off topic a bit. I understood the comment to have said that if we don’t expand transit infrastructure we should not expand housing. They then made an a priori case that doing so is just straining already over used infrastructure. Which makes sense and don’t see why the citation is needed.

Said infrastructure includes parking lots and connection to public transit. If you don’t hook up the new construction to public options, then people will drive. And when there isn’t extra parking they will just park where ever. That means other business they are not visiting. Parks they are not visiting. Blocking parking for neighborhoods they don’t live in. That is how I understood that comment. It seems I am not alone in this reading the rest of the comments either. It is a conclusion that does not need a study. Worst of all it does not mean people will ask for more public options it just re-enforces the trend that we will want more parking.

Quite frankly you should get over your hubris and having someone else read the comment to see if you walked away with a mis-read. I think you are good natures, but you are doubling down on an L take that no one was making.

The comment was not even a pro-car talking point the way you are making it out to be. Just saying we need to be prudent with our city planing. Ironically what strong towns is about. Please don’t miss the forest because of the trees.

E: Commented this on the wrong side of the thread lol

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."


H.L. Mencken

The notion that you have to have transit beforehand (or at least simultaneously) in order to justify density is that kind of answer. It's intuitive, but it's wrong. Short of master-planning an entire new community from the top-down, like they do in China maybe, density always


always


comes before transit. This is because if you don't already have density-induced traffic problems demonstrating the need for transit, The Powers That Be use it as an excuse to never build it! That's just how city planning and transit planning in America work, and it's not going to change no matter how ass-backwards any of us might think it is.

In reality, there are three options when planning new development:

  1. Refuse to build the new development because it's too dense and would ruin the traffic.
  2. Insist on including a fuckton of parking and maybe even turning the adjacent street into a stroad in the name of "capacity."
  3. Build the new development without the fuckton of parking, knowing full well that it's going to make driving there suck, because you understand that the public will Deal With It and adjust by walking and biking more.

Only one of those three options (edit: option #3, if it isn't blindingly obvious from context) is good urbanism; the other two perpetuate car-dependency (either because of sprawl or because you've created urban canyons of car sewers lined by parking decks, respectively).

"Option #4, build mass transit along with the development" is not and never will be on that list. Insisting on it is equivalent to picking option #1. Mass Transit only becomes a possibility after the area has a well-established pattern of picking #3, and even then it takes years or decades after that.


If you've been around as long as I have, having spent decades not just online but especially IRL in planning meetings, listening to people arguing for mythical option #4 even though you know (because they've also been at the meetings for years) they understand the above perfectly well and are absolutely NIMBY concern trolls whose actual preference is #1, you'd become more skeptical of the argument.

But even then, it wasn't just that general misconception / 'comment difficult to distinguish from trolling' that caused me to remove the comment. It was the addition of the much more concrete, specific, and easily provable (if it had been true) claim that development without parking causes vacancy -- not traffic/parking problems for the surrounding area, vacancy for the development itself, specifically -- and then refusal to prove it after I gave him the opportunity, that pushed it over the edge.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In reality, there are three options when planning new development:

Refuse to build the new development because it’s too dense and would ruin the traffic. Insist on including a fuckton of parking and maybe even turning the adjacent street into a stroad in the name of “capacity.” Build the new development without the fuckton of parking, knowing full well that it’s going to make driving there suck, because you understand that the public will Deal With It and adjust by walking and biking more.

Pretty much what the removed comment said (really just don't build if its going to exacerbate problems). Do you love to talk past people that are agreeing with the premise and making the movement look bad or what are you on about?

And really if you are in car centrist place (like i am) and parking sucks you won't buy a house or condo there either.

But again. I and others are telling you that we interpreted the removed comment to having made its case rather well and you are talking some fat Ls on discourse here. Please go back and read what the original comment was, what people have said about it, and that you are now de-railing it being too immature when called out.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Pretty much what the removed comment said (really just don't build if its going to exacerbate problems). Do you love to talk past people that are agreeing with the premise and making the movement look bad or what are you on about?

Again, I am disputing that premise of "just don't build if its going to exacerbate problems" and saying that everyone repeating it is wrong. The problems of car-dependency need to be exacerbated in order to force a break from the car-dependent status quo.

It's not a great analogy, but creating good urbanism is kinda like exercise: similarly to how you have to work the muscle hard enough to break it down in order for it to build back stronger, you have to deliberately build things anticipating walkability etc., even knowing that it will make traffic worse, in order to get the infrastructure supporting other modes of transportation to actually happen. No pain, no gain.

Edit: it suddenly occurs to me that when I wrote "only one of those options is good," you might have misread it as "only option #1 is good." That is not what I meant; option #3 is the only good one.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 days ago

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Don't have a source, just first hand experience. I work adjacent to multi-family construction and parking is one of the common items of discussion. It's treated as an ante item that they would love to dispense with, as developers would love for every square foot of their footprint to be spent on units or other spaces which can be directly realized as revenue.

But that wasn't the argument I was making, and, whether intentional or not, that's not what the person in OP's screenshot was saying. We were saying that there needs to be an examination of the local infrastructure to see whether it was able to support additional density before approving additional density. I'm not using this as an argument to say density bad, I'm saying that if the fucking water mains on the street don't support another hundred units of draw during peak hours then building a hundred units on that plot is a recipe for disaster unless the water main is upgraded first, and the same goes for the transit infrastructure.

Based on the downthread comments, it sounds like this area would be great for adding additional density so there's no problem there, but there should be a check to see if something is going to break if you add 300 car-dependent commuters to a city block someone was able to grab on the cheap because it had no meaningful access to the transit infrastructure of the area.