• CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    “More affordable” by cutting out amenities like how McDonalds makes their burgers “more affordable” by using meat paste to make the patties. These people will still own cars and need to park them somewhere and I’m sure these wealthy developers are also building private parking garages on the side so that they can charge these residents a monthly subscription for something that used to be included in their purchase.

    • Aatube@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots. check out the very third photo in the article (the overhead view of a parking lot), its first example of a housing development benefiting from the change. notice how less than half of the spots and thus less than a quarter of the land was being used

      plus, for housing, the parking minimum’s only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft2. family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home

      These people will still own cars

      not necessarily

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots.

        That’s like “saving time” by not installing electricity or smoke alarms. What a boondoggle; especially in car-dependent America!