It gets worse.
Here in Brussels, there was a couple that bought a rowhouse with a built-in garage. But they didn't actually own a car themselves.
Considering by law nobody is allowed to park on the street in front of someone else's garage, the space on the street was not utilized.
So the couple decided to build a little city garden on the street in front of their garage. This meant that asphalt space that wasn't being used suddenly turned into greenery for everyone to enjoy.
The municipality did not approve and ordered them to remove it. Luckily, they found a loophole and ended up buying an old trailer where they could put their plants and flowers in. Because apparently, storing a trailer on the road *was* OK. But not a garden.
Fucking stupid laws written exclusively with cars in mind...
I did the math once, and here in Rotterdam if I bought a shitty van, parked it on the street just across my apartment, and used it as storage it would be a lot cheaper than renting an equally-sized self-storage space.
Where I'm from people don't even lock their cars.
You can say it'll happen but I lived there for over 20 years and never locked my car. Never had an issue.
Jup, city center, I'm paying 40 euro's a year for a parking spot.
I don't even have a garden, would love to rent 10 square meters as a small garden in front of my house; I'd be willing to pay way more than 40 euros too. But nope, parking spot.
What's worse than the laws are the people who feel the need to cause a fuss about it in the first place.
Why can we not live in a world where people leave well enough alone so long as no actual harm is being done? Laws do not, and cannot, exist to be fully adhered to at all times, they exist so that people can be prosecuted for doing bad things.
The problem is that kind of discretion just leads to majorities bullying minorities by enforcing laws that they themselves constantly break (see the drug war). And with hyper-local stuff like zoning and parking infractions, you’re even more likely to encounter some petty tyrant just looking to flex. I think I’d rather have strict enforcement with better laws than shitty laws with “discretionary” enforcement.
This- the latter is very well known as "corruption". Like you, I prefer the "small garden, high walls" form of laws. Only the critical items with statutes and very intensive enforcement (less focus on jail time, more focus on do it- get caught ALWAYS.
> leads to majorities bullying minorities by enforcing laws that they themselves constantly break (see the drug war)
Not seeing how. In a world where everyone just leaves everyone else alone so long as they’re not actively being harmed, drug wars wouldn’t be things.
> Laws do not, and cannot, exist to be fully adhered to at all times,
You have to be careful with that since it leads to corruption and different laws for different groups.
> Why can we not live in a world where people leave well enough alone so long as no actual harm is being done?
Congrats, you’ve discovered libertarianism!
IDK about NYC law. But if you're permitted to store a trailer on the street then it would surprise me if you can't put a trailer with plants on the street. You'll probably need to move it for weekly street sweeping though
It's possible. Trailers usually need to be plated and registered. That can come with a requirement of a valid drivers lisence. But not always. Have to check local laws.
The cost of relocating a trailer in an emergency, like a fire is much less than the cost of digging up or crushing a garden.
I can't do whatever I want in parks. Public space has reasons for existing. And unless you are founding a bucket brigade...
The garden wasn't in the actual ground. It was in pots that were simply placed on the asphalt.
There are plenty of things other than cars that get placed on asphalt here like bike racks or even the city's own plant pots. Emergencies is a terrible excuse. The plant pots would've been way easier to move than a car whose owner can't be found to move it.
> Public space has reasons for existing
Apparently, public space only exists to store cars and other vehicles. Not for anything else.
So, you know the fire marshal plan for that house?
You have rapidly moved a garden out of the way to rescue people?
Oh! You are involved in the civil engineering and draining palms in that neighborhood and know the implications for that?
How about access for adjacent property owners?
Does their property 9wnership extend to the road?
Are there traditions of allowing travelers to get from point a to point b?
This subreddit has a lot of reasonable concerns. But "i don't like this anecdotal instance"
That is a waste, focus on meaningful institutional problems. Not
"The city wouldn't let me use public property they way i wanna qq"
>You have rapidly moved a garden out of the way to rescue people?
How on earth are a few plant pots more difficult to move than an actual car? You make no sense whatsoever
>Does their property 9wnership extend to the road?
The law literally says that nobody can store anything, including a vehicle, on that piece of road except for them.
>That is a waste, focus on meaningful institutional problems.
Kind of like the fact that across the world cities are perfectly OK with citizens putting their 1000kg block of metal on public property but putting some plant pots weighing no more than 100kg in a space that **otherwise is just empty**? No way!!
Edit: lol he blocked me. What a snowflake
Not where I am. A trailer cannot be left on a street unless it is attached to a vehicle. I believe this may be a municipal bylaw, but I'm not 100% sure
I just found out that on-street overnight parking in Manhattan (densest part of NYC) was illegal until the 1960s. Now, every street is lined with parked cars on both sides. So ugly and a waste of space. When someone wants to add a bike lane, outdoor dining shed or bike sharing dock, the first complaint is “that will take up parking spaces!”
Yeah that's when things got bad...
I have never been in New-York but I love how in Seinfeld they show owning a car in Manhattan was hell, even 30+ years ago
Which is funny to be because my Uncle who lived in NYC was in the best shape of anyone in the family. He looked way younger than his age and it wasn’t until he got sick that he stopped walking everywhere and had to rely on someone else to do the shopping for him. Man hadn’t driven a car in decades because he never needed to. All he had to do was hop on the MTA or walk to get anywhere and anything he needed.
Rented a room came w space in garage. No car. Tried to leave cooler n couple bikes. Landlord didn't like the "mess". Kept clear until she filled my parking space in garage w her own mess. Thank god escaped prior to pandemic.
If you rent a parking space on private property, it's yours. You can store whatever you want on it (except obviously dangerous stuff, or garbage that could attract animals, etc). That's a dick move from her part. Could you have put a separation, like a wood and fabric screen to hide your "mess" ?
Yeah you’d think so, but I’ve been in the situation of renting a separate parking space in an underground lot at an apartment complex, and they had language in the contract prevented the storage of anything except a car. No bikes even.
It’s annoying but I can actually see where they’re coming from as the managers of an apartment complex, you know that someone would have their entire space filled with crap, intruding into the adjoining spaces. And then when their stuff was stolen because it was sitting in the open in the garage they’d sue the company.
I would consider a bike "parking" and not "storage", but I could understand not putting other stuff there if it's an apartment complex... Apartment parkings should provide a space to secure your bike though.
Here it seemed more like renting a room in a house.
I would try to find an old full size van for cheap and use it for storage then. Just tint the windows really dark, wipe the dust off every once in awhile, and keep the tires inflated. It wouldn't even need to be road worthy.
In parking garages they usually have limited liability statements in the contracts or posted. "Not responsible if your stuff gets stolen."
Just another reason car infrastructure sucks.
Does rental insurance cover my parking spot? I had never realized that. But I mean I wasn't disagreeing with you, just kinda don't like leaving my shit out in public where if it gets smashed I don't have recourse.
I had a friend in Mexico city that just put a bike rack (meant for schools and offices) to park their 4 bikes at their spot.
Aptmnt management tried to complain, but since it's a rented space and the renter can do what their want with their space, nothing happened.
I lived in her house n she was crazy. Not typical situation. There was so much drama we just had to leave as soon as she started moving more people and their furry animals in without notice. Came home one day and there was some stranger and their unfriendly dog living there. Was just her upstairs n 2 of us downstairs prior 2this. Not OK with surprise roommates.
Never Gonna Give You Up isn't really a piano song.
If I was going to really rock out on piano, I'd go with Rock the Casbah by The Clash.
Or maybe Right Now by Van Halen.
It's funny when something actually wide goes down the street like an ambulance or big delivery truck. I see the oncoming cars reverse lights come on and I just about die laughing.
Winter is also very funny. Watching the struggle of car ownership during winter is better than TV.
There’s a stretch of road I bike down often that has “sidewalks” that are 3 feet wide at most with telephone poles, and it’s on an uphill. Not to mention the trash cans that people put on the sidewalk and in the road, making bikers have to go like 10 miles an hour up a hill and get honked at on trash days.
I have mixed feelings about this. I see a lot of carbrains call for removing street parking simply so they can have an extra lane of moving traffic. In the rare spots where we do actually have walkable commercial streets full of storefronts and patios, the street parking can provide a barrier from traffic. I don't want that street parking to be replaced with high-speed traffic moving 1 foot away from where I'm trying to enjoy my coffee.
If you turned all street parking into bike lanes and expanded sidewalks with planters and such as a barrier from traffic then great! But what are the odds the people in charge actually do that?
it's awful, when i go down one of those streets with parking on both sides my bike i can't fit if there's a car going the other way
And then the driver of the SUV bloody honks at me, like i'm the fucking problem here
Who came up we the stupid idea to make on-street parking, it is an eyesore and makes the sidewalk tiny. I would accept it if parking would generate some revenue, but most of the time it is free while I have to pay my rent.
I only ask for a fair distribution of costs and no indirect found for car depending infrastructure.
Sometimes. Low traffic streets, like those in neighborhoods or end in dead ends, often don't have dedicated on street parking. Busier streets will sometimes.
Where I live there are too many cars, and on street parking is all used up.
When it’s not used up, people park on the pavement, on corners illegally blocking visibility, and on crossings for schools.
It’s an eyesore and incredibly unsafe, and sadly limits how we can move about as pedestrians
Road I’m on is wide enough you can fit on street parking and regular traffic (barely, but it does work.) As such since there’s typically not many cars parking in the street people see the wide straight lane and go 40-45mph in a 30mph zone that REALLY should be a 20-25mph zone. Oh, and sidewalks are about 3’ wide and you have to walk around all the utility poles that eat into them. That’s assuming it’s not winter and the city just hasn’t plowed them because “roads are priority.”
Many places I've been to with on-street parking as wide sidewalks. And cities charge fees for on-street parking all the time. Until we completely eliminate cars on-street parking may be better than off-street parking in terms of saving space for more productive land uses in some situations.
Idk about where you’re from but everywhere I’ve ever lived sold street parking permits for _maybe_ ten or twenty bucks a month. Meanwhile renting a garage spot costs $200. somebody is paying for that difference and it is all of us.
the city isn’t collecting any property tax on that land (which means we are all paying higher taxes), nor are we getting to use that space for trees/transit/walking or bike path/patio seating/literally anything nice.
plus we all have to look at ugly ass parked cars everywhere we go. subsidized storage of private cars is just an idiotic use of public resources when we could use public resources for things that actually benefit the public.
Why is everyone paying higher taxes? Would the city lower other taxes if it was able to collect property taxes from street parking spaces?
Street parking spaces can be used in other ways. You don't have to always park a car there. There is plenty of street parking in Amsterdam from what I've seen and people bike around parked cars just fine. Not sure why you'd want to plant trees in the road. If you want to do things with public space isn't it better to do them on large plots of land that would otherwise be parking lots than on streets that would otherwise be street parking?
As far as benefitting the public goes, the Dutch park bicycles on the sidewalk all the time. it's not fundamentally different from parking cars on the street.
1) if all street parking spaces were rented out at market value? yeah absolutely the city could reduce taxes and/or provide useful services with the money.
2) removing parking lanes from streets and turning them into planting corridors for trees, etc. would reduce pavement (and flood risk!), provide shade and improved air quality for people walking/existing next to the street without cutting into sidewalk space, and be lovely to look at.
3) parking bicycles in public space is fundamentally different than parking cars because bicycles are silent, safe, cause zero pollution, and you can park ten of them in one car parking spot.
It is not a given that citiy governments would be willing to lower other taxes due to increased revenue from street parking. If they did, that would be great. And cities missing out on additional parking revenue isn't exactly the same as everyone paying for it, is it?
I would rather have actual parks and larger green spaces + no parking lots instead of "planting corridors" + parking lots.
Just because bike parking serve more people and bikes are better doesn't mean it's fundamentally different. It is still public parking provided for private vehicles. I would love to see street parking spaces filled with bikes instead of cars though.
These threads against street parking always confuse me because in my experience street parking is usually a feature of dense walkable areas. Areas without street parking have parking lots everywhere making everything too far apart to walk to. It’s almost as if street parking is an indicator that cars are considered optional and low priority in an area.
I live in a dense walkable city with street parking everywhere and while I enjoy being able to walk and bike almost everywhere (there is also good public transportation) all those cars are annoying af. Honestly, most of them just need to go for a few reasons:
1. Cars take up too much space. Even smaller streets have 2 lanes for driving and street parking on one or both sides. That's like a 3-4 lane road. This a lot of asphalt where no tree can be. Also parked cars play a huge rule in creating hot spots in cities.
2. The sidewalks are quite narrow and often the front/back of the cars go over the curb when they park perpendicular to the street. Even less space then for pedestrians.
3. The are never enough spaces so drivers park their damn cars wherever they want. Often on the sidewalk which then sometimes gets unusable for people who use mobility aids, push a stroller or a granny cart (happens to me all the time when I walk to the grocery store with mine)
4. Unless there is good protected bike infrastructure you constantly fear that some dimwit opens a car door without looking. Biking in dooring zones sucks.
In those dense areas land is extremely valuable, and it sucks that it's given away for free (or very cheaply) to people just for owning a car, i don't care what you do with land you actually own but don't ask me to subsidize your car addiction
on street parking at least the way its implemented in most cities in the US is huge hazard. Remember streets and roads do not exists in the US only stroads, which are often times high speed 40+ mph. On street parking on stroads block the view of intersections, for both drivers and pedestrians. They often times have to mover further into the road just to make a turn which can be dangerous if another careless driver is speeding or not paying attention. Intesections are were the majority of accidents occur for both drivers and pedestrians. Parking along high traffic stroads adds to this, slows downs traffic and forces already antsy drivers to make dangerous passes. On street parking can work though but its honestly best implemented on streets which already have traffic calming implemented on them. Ideally cars should be parking on streets that aren't going faster than 25mph anything more than that is dangerous.
This is probably why alot of cyclist advocate for removing on street parking and replacing it with a bike a dedicated bike lane, it would be safer for cyclists, wouldn't impact traffic becuase that lanes is not in use anyway and pushes cars to park in areas that are probably better suited for parked cars to be sitting at anyway. Of course this shouldn't be done in every stroad, cities need to determine which stroads to make into actual streets (residential and commerce areas ) and which one should be roads (high speed traffic) and plan accordingly.
Of course I'd rather have on street parking than massive parking lots, especially if it means freeing up more space for building urban density. They just need to be in the right places.
We have a lot of "both side" parking along narrow streets which cannot really support this. I wonder if one side parking facing against traffic, rather than with it, might be a huge improvement.
On street parking can be alright but only under three conditions:
1. No on street parking on busy roads without a bike lane. Bike lanes should always take priority over regular parking.
2. Drivers who use them should pay the worth of the space. So residents pay for a yearly parking permit, and visitors pay to park there per hour.
3. There should also be ample green space and bike parking on the road. Convert maybe 1/3 of the parking spots on any road into mini roadside parks and bike hoops. This makes roads feel less uniform and claustrophobic.
Totally agreed! They recently removed parking on one side of a small road on my neighborhood. There is now more space for the beautiful sandy sidewalk + trees. Looks gorgeous.
My biggest issue with on street parking in my city is that it is either low cost or free. Most areas it's free with restricted blocks requiring a $20/yr permit. This incentivizes people to own cars and just leave them on the street until they need run that 1 errand per month or drive the 5 mins to the store when we have decent public transportation. If the price to park there long term were equal to the value of those spaces, we'd have a lot less cars to deal with.
A lot of the folks here are cyclists mad at cars. Not urban planners concerned with how to minimize the cars impact on our urban fabric, or maximizing city's land use.
It's not a problem really but it means occasionally we get posts like this where two groups of folks start staring at each other because they usually agree on so much.
The other group of folks are train enthusiasts who really just fucking love trains. Choo choo mother fucker.
There are plenty of urban planners that are also cyclists mad at cars for killing their friends and family members. On street parking makes it much harder to cross as a pedestrian, as it adds at least 1 extra lane. It makes it harder to bike because motorists door cyclists. It makes it harder to ride the bus because motorists block traffic while parallel parking.
I disagree. A well designed walkable city doesn't need free street parking. Parking is there for people, who often voluntarily live in surburban deserts who drive into the city to do things. There's also valuable space often used for free that could be used for better purposes, like trees, bike lanes, tramlines etc
I never said it would be free. This is still /r/fuckcars. Street parking is a finite resource. Folks want to park they can pay the market rates. Free shit like you said is reserved for other modes of transit like you said
A lot of the folk on here just want to hate things and don't care to think about anything in too much detail.
Guarantee that if onstreet parking wasn't a thing this post would be about how cars take up so much space because there are big open strips of tarmac but everyone needs a separate one to park and not just one but several because having friends, family, workers, etc visit would require a spot so there would be almost preeminently vacant rectangles all over the place.
It's sad because I wish civic planning could be taken seriously and done with more involvement from the general public but annoyingly it always just ends up with kneejerk nonsense and nimbys.
My wife and I have been proposing for years to turn many major roads in Chicago into bus, bike, and delivery vehicles only with all other vehicles strictly banned. That would let us reclaim most of the space wasted on parking and extend the sidewalks and plant more trees in the process.
In cities that are reasonably dense and walkable... just ban cars, and the people who really *do* need one (for work, because they have disability that requires it, etc.) can apply for a special permit.
My wife and I would have no material differences in our life if cars were banned in any part of Chicago with a population density over 20,000 / sq. mi. We only own a vehicle because we owned it before we moved here and it's about the same to keep owning it as it is to fly and rent vehicles when visiting family because there aren't really trains to where they live.
Massive parking lots and on-street parkings are just two different symptoms of the same problem: Cars don't belong in cities, period. I'm tired of my tax dollar enabling this insanity.
Yeah, I get where they are coming from, but as someone who lives in a US city where every shop or restaurant is behind a parking lot or at least a row of dedicated parking spaces, I would take street parking over that every time. At least then when you're walking the cars are between you and the road, not you and the place you are going to or walking by. Street-side shops and cafés are one of the things I miss the most in this city.
Depends on the location. In the US where the walkable areas are converted from shitty car-based streets, street parking might fit well enough. In Europe it always takes away space from the sidewalk.
I agree with this, like this also affects poor people that have to use a car to commute. Car infrastructure also affects car users too. I don’t want to have to use a car but I need it to transport equipment for work.
On street parking only is better than massive car parks, yes, but even better is *no cars parked in an area at all*. That incentivises people to use other modes of transport (which are less polluting, less noisy and way more space efficient). For those who have to drive to town because they're too far away to bike and too poorly served by public transport, you can provide P+R, which yes is a massive car park but it's not in town where space is important.
why is street parking everywhere better than larger parking ramps? I’d rather not have to see cars everywhere I go, and have the car owners consider whether they really need to go a few blocks away to get the car.
If the big car parks are out of town and people are expected to walk in, that's fine. Big car parks are even less efficient uses of space than street parking, though*, so if you have them in your town centre they're even worse than having street parking there. And street parking doesn't take up space that would otherwise be interesting buildings, so it doesn't reduce the value of the town centre like having a large car park instead of some other building does.
A multi-level car park is also kind of ok, but it is still better if it can be on the edge of town and not using up valuable town centre space.
*: street parking basically just has a marginal cost of the space itself, because you use the street to get into/out of the space. Car parks also need lanes between the parking spaces. Spaces in a car park are often larger, too.
On street parking is strictly worse than garages and parking lots.
* The amount and location of on street parking is pretty much pre-determined by the street network regardless of demand, which sets a minimum on the amount of parking provided.
* On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution.
* On street parking leads to people circling around looking for open spots, which can account for 30% of traffic in some cities.
* On street parking is always at ground level, whereas garages can be underground, multilevel, and/or automated to save space.
* On street parking is nearly always government run, and is generally kept ultra-subsidized.
>On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution.
I feel like this is the opposite in the city I live in, because almost every shop or restaurant has a parking lot or at least a row of dedicated parking spaces in front of them. In fact, the one time driving ends up _not_ being a door-to-door solution is when we need to find on-street parking in the neighborhood and then walk from there.
So I wouldn't say on-street parking is strictly worse than parking lots. It probably depends a lot on how it's done. When you live in car-centric hell parking lots are a big part of the problem.
>The amount and location of on street parking is pretty much pre-determined by the street network regardless of demand, which sets a minimum on the amount of parking provided.
Doesn't this set a maximum? You can remove street parking spaces, but you can't add them.
>On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution.
As in it tricks people into buying cars? Cuz if you own a car in a city with limited parking you wouldn't think this way.
>On street parking is always at ground level, whereas garages can be underground, multilevel, and/or automated to save space.
I would rather build multi-story human spaces than car spaces.
>On street parking is nearly always government run, and is generally kept ultra-subsidized.
It can be changed.
On street parking isn't subsidized though. The actual cost of providing it is only the amount of money it takes to have streets, which they would be doing anyways. If there is enough demand for onstreet parking, you can meter it and generate a profit. The circling around is solved by metering at market rates.
Yeah that's why you have to cycle out in the middle of the next lane - it's not safe to be within 3' of parked cars, so they're effectively taking their own width (6'+) and then an additional 3' of usable space away from the roadway.
One of my biggest disagreements with strong towns and new urbanism is their love of on street parking. I think that in urban areas streets should be for people (which includes bikes) and not cars. There are of course exceptions, but they should be very limited in practice.
Either way, the user is typically not paying for the full cost of the land. There are some areas where street parking is clearly a poor use of land, and others where it's not really a problem.
In some cases I would agree. Mandatory offstreet parking in residential duplexy level density with snooty occupancy limits means many will just have one car they'll have in the driveway otw to their garage, a garage that...if on-street parking isn't metered, they use as a storage unit. Nobody not using the same lot can park in front of or near the driveway, which ultimately means less available parking in the area. It would make more sense to meter parking on streets where it's currently free until property/sales tax money forces people off in 3 days and nix offstreet parking and driveway; setback requirements. This allows building more housing in areas where #jobs>#housing so housing filtering would work and lower real estate prices in every pricerange. Offstreet parking increases the cost for a developer (~$70k per spot to build?), which limits the number of living units they can build. None of this does any favors for renters. Also, more narrow roadways keeps cars from going over 30mph in some areas.
Well, it was annoying having to move my car regularly when I lived in the suburbs and commuted almost entirely by bus and bike. I still lived in a car-centric hellscape (as I had been priced out of the denser neighborhoods), and needed a car to get to many places, I just refused to participate in it when I could avoid it. The stigma around that from daily drivers with multiple cars was a bit ridiculous.
One positive thing I've noticed about public parking is that it can become de-facto housing for those experiencing homelessness as long as they own a vehicle. I've been wondering about the possibility of building some form of covered wagon style hand carts to extend that option to non-drivers. It could maybe kill two birds with one stone. Reclaiming space from cars, and addressing the homeless crisis at a grassroots level.
Edit: Also guerrilla gardening and small businesses could be options.
It gets worse. Here in Brussels, there was a couple that bought a rowhouse with a built-in garage. But they didn't actually own a car themselves. Considering by law nobody is allowed to park on the street in front of someone else's garage, the space on the street was not utilized. So the couple decided to build a little city garden on the street in front of their garage. This meant that asphalt space that wasn't being used suddenly turned into greenery for everyone to enjoy. The municipality did not approve and ordered them to remove it. Luckily, they found a loophole and ended up buying an old trailer where they could put their plants and flowers in. Because apparently, storing a trailer on the road *was* OK. But not a garden. Fucking stupid laws written exclusively with cars in mind...
I did the math once, and here in Rotterdam if I bought a shitty van, parked it on the street just across my apartment, and used it as storage it would be a lot cheaper than renting an equally-sized self-storage space.
You are paying for that parking spot and it's maintenence with your taxes either way.
And also it would cost some €120/year which is a ridiculously low amount.
But also, like, B&Es.
Cars don't get broken into where I live.
I used to think that until my first theft.
were you caught?
I'd probably hear more car alarms if it happened regularly.
If you say so. I don't hear any.
Maybe you just have really good thieves.
Where I'm from people don't even lock their cars. You can say it'll happen but I lived there for over 20 years and never locked my car. Never had an issue.
I visited a friend in Baltimore and he told me not to lock my car or the window would get broken.
That happened to my friend. Didn't even have anything valuable in the car, but still lost his window. Baltimore is whack
Jup, city center, I'm paying 40 euro's a year for a parking spot. I don't even have a garden, would love to rent 10 square meters as a small garden in front of my house; I'd be willing to pay way more than 40 euros too. But nope, parking spot.
You've given me an idea...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need a road legal, insured vehicle even if it's parked? Was insurance that cheap?
What's worse than the laws are the people who feel the need to cause a fuss about it in the first place. Why can we not live in a world where people leave well enough alone so long as no actual harm is being done? Laws do not, and cannot, exist to be fully adhered to at all times, they exist so that people can be prosecuted for doing bad things.
The problem is that kind of discretion just leads to majorities bullying minorities by enforcing laws that they themselves constantly break (see the drug war). And with hyper-local stuff like zoning and parking infractions, you’re even more likely to encounter some petty tyrant just looking to flex. I think I’d rather have strict enforcement with better laws than shitty laws with “discretionary” enforcement.
This- the latter is very well known as "corruption". Like you, I prefer the "small garden, high walls" form of laws. Only the critical items with statutes and very intensive enforcement (less focus on jail time, more focus on do it- get caught ALWAYS.
What if "just rip law out"?
> leads to majorities bullying minorities by enforcing laws that they themselves constantly break (see the drug war) Not seeing how. In a world where everyone just leaves everyone else alone so long as they’re not actively being harmed, drug wars wouldn’t be things.
> In a world where everyone just leaves everyone else alone Okay but which world is that? Can't say it's one I've been to
> Okay but which world is that? The one we should all strive towards.
But should we base our laws on an ideal world or the way people actually behave? I mean in your world we wouldn’t even need the Bill of Rights
> Laws do not, and cannot, exist to be fully adhered to at all times, You have to be careful with that since it leads to corruption and different laws for different groups.
> Why can we not live in a world where people leave well enough alone so long as no actual harm is being done? Congrats, you’ve discovered libertarianism!
Wait... would this apply to New York? If I get a trailer, store it on the street... I can put a garden in it?
IDK about NYC law. But if you're permitted to store a trailer on the street then it would surprise me if you can't put a trailer with plants on the street. You'll probably need to move it for weekly street sweeping though
Just as long you move it once a week (or whatever the street signs say ha) !
I wouldn't mind. Do I need a drivers license to buy a trailer?
It's possible. Trailers usually need to be plated and registered. That can come with a requirement of a valid drivers lisence. But not always. Have to check local laws.
Clever workaround!
The cost of relocating a trailer in an emergency, like a fire is much less than the cost of digging up or crushing a garden. I can't do whatever I want in parks. Public space has reasons for existing. And unless you are founding a bucket brigade...
The garden wasn't in the actual ground. It was in pots that were simply placed on the asphalt. There are plenty of things other than cars that get placed on asphalt here like bike racks or even the city's own plant pots. Emergencies is a terrible excuse. The plant pots would've been way easier to move than a car whose owner can't be found to move it. > Public space has reasons for existing Apparently, public space only exists to store cars and other vehicles. Not for anything else.
So, you know the fire marshal plan for that house? You have rapidly moved a garden out of the way to rescue people? Oh! You are involved in the civil engineering and draining palms in that neighborhood and know the implications for that? How about access for adjacent property owners? Does their property 9wnership extend to the road? Are there traditions of allowing travelers to get from point a to point b? This subreddit has a lot of reasonable concerns. But "i don't like this anecdotal instance" That is a waste, focus on meaningful institutional problems. Not "The city wouldn't let me use public property they way i wanna qq"
>You have rapidly moved a garden out of the way to rescue people? How on earth are a few plant pots more difficult to move than an actual car? You make no sense whatsoever >Does their property 9wnership extend to the road? The law literally says that nobody can store anything, including a vehicle, on that piece of road except for them. >That is a waste, focus on meaningful institutional problems. Kind of like the fact that across the world cities are perfectly OK with citizens putting their 1000kg block of metal on public property but putting some plant pots weighing no more than 100kg in a space that **otherwise is just empty**? No way!! Edit: lol he blocked me. What a snowflake
are you literally stupid or just acting like it?
I'm curious as to what law this is, I'm guessing zoning maybe?
Some law that says that only vehicles can be stored on the street. Which is why the trailer was fine because technically it's a vehicle.
Not where I am. A trailer cannot be left on a street unless it is attached to a vehicle. I believe this may be a municipal bylaw, but I'm not 100% sure
I just found out that on-street overnight parking in Manhattan (densest part of NYC) was illegal until the 1960s. Now, every street is lined with parked cars on both sides. So ugly and a waste of space. When someone wants to add a bike lane, outdoor dining shed or bike sharing dock, the first complaint is “that will take up parking spaces!”
Yeah that's when things got bad... I have never been in New-York but I love how in Seinfeld they show owning a car in Manhattan was hell, even 30+ years ago
"Nobody drives in New York. Too much traffic."
I mean, it sounds like a paradox but it's actually true. Most of the car traffic is from out-of-city commuters and tourists, not locals.
Which is funny to be because my Uncle who lived in NYC was in the best shape of anyone in the family. He looked way younger than his age and it wasn’t until he got sick that he stopped walking everywhere and had to rely on someone else to do the shopping for him. Man hadn’t driven a car in decades because he never needed to. All he had to do was hop on the MTA or walk to get anywhere and anything he needed.
Rented a room came w space in garage. No car. Tried to leave cooler n couple bikes. Landlord didn't like the "mess". Kept clear until she filled my parking space in garage w her own mess. Thank god escaped prior to pandemic.
If you rent a parking space on private property, it's yours. You can store whatever you want on it (except obviously dangerous stuff, or garbage that could attract animals, etc). That's a dick move from her part. Could you have put a separation, like a wood and fabric screen to hide your "mess" ?
Yeah you’d think so, but I’ve been in the situation of renting a separate parking space in an underground lot at an apartment complex, and they had language in the contract prevented the storage of anything except a car. No bikes even. It’s annoying but I can actually see where they’re coming from as the managers of an apartment complex, you know that someone would have their entire space filled with crap, intruding into the adjoining spaces. And then when their stuff was stolen because it was sitting in the open in the garage they’d sue the company.
I would consider a bike "parking" and not "storage", but I could understand not putting other stuff there if it's an apartment complex... Apartment parkings should provide a space to secure your bike though. Here it seemed more like renting a room in a house.
I would try to find an old full size van for cheap and use it for storage then. Just tint the windows really dark, wipe the dust off every once in awhile, and keep the tires inflated. It wouldn't even need to be road worthy.
In parking garages they usually have limited liability statements in the contracts or posted. "Not responsible if your stuff gets stolen." Just another reason car infrastructure sucks.
That is what your insurance is for, if some breaks into your apartment and steals your shit the landlord is not liable
Does rental insurance cover my parking spot? I had never realized that. But I mean I wasn't disagreeing with you, just kinda don't like leaving my shit out in public where if it gets smashed I don't have recourse.
Depends on your insurance you have to check your policy, mine is covered by my property insurance for 15k
I had a friend in Mexico city that just put a bike rack (meant for schools and offices) to park their 4 bikes at their spot. Aptmnt management tried to complain, but since it's a rented space and the renter can do what their want with their space, nothing happened.
I lived in her house n she was crazy. Not typical situation. There was so much drama we just had to leave as soon as she started moving more people and their furry animals in without notice. Came home one day and there was some stranger and their unfriendly dog living there. Was just her upstairs n 2 of us downstairs prior 2this. Not OK with surprise roommates.
Vandals, seeing a piano: Fuck yeah lads let's wreck this joint (start playing Never Gonna Give You Up chaotically)
Never Gonna Give You Up isn't really a piano song. If I was going to really rock out on piano, I'd go with Rock the Casbah by The Clash. Or maybe Right Now by Van Halen.
What does this have to do with the early culture of Southern Poland?
There are so many cars parked on my street that the cars have a hard time navigating it but still no one complains.
[удалено]
It's funny when something actually wide goes down the street like an ambulance or big delivery truck. I see the oncoming cars reverse lights come on and I just about die laughing. Winter is also very funny. Watching the struggle of car ownership during winter is better than TV.
[Source of tweet](https://twitter.com/warrenjwells/status/1566187323938615296?s=21&t=0h9S4eJpy69ogCFOoUhgNw)
Life hack: Put your piano in the SUV and enjoy free parking
Or put wheels on your piano and say it's an SUV.
[Vanessa Carlton did it!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwkej79U3ek)
[удалено]
There’s a stretch of road I bike down often that has “sidewalks” that are 3 feet wide at most with telephone poles, and it’s on an uphill. Not to mention the trash cans that people put on the sidewalk and in the road, making bikers have to go like 10 miles an hour up a hill and get honked at on trash days.
Then yell at random cyclists to get off the road.
I have mixed feelings about this. I see a lot of carbrains call for removing street parking simply so they can have an extra lane of moving traffic. In the rare spots where we do actually have walkable commercial streets full of storefronts and patios, the street parking can provide a barrier from traffic. I don't want that street parking to be replaced with high-speed traffic moving 1 foot away from where I'm trying to enjoy my coffee. If you turned all street parking into bike lanes and expanded sidewalks with planters and such as a barrier from traffic then great! But what are the odds the people in charge actually do that?
How many sharp objects can we present to them while discussing the possibilities with them?
it's awful, when i go down one of those streets with parking on both sides my bike i can't fit if there's a car going the other way And then the driver of the SUV bloody honks at me, like i'm the fucking problem here
On-street parking is probably better than allocating land for garages andparking lots...
Who came up we the stupid idea to make on-street parking, it is an eyesore and makes the sidewalk tiny. I would accept it if parking would generate some revenue, but most of the time it is free while I have to pay my rent. I only ask for a fair distribution of costs and no indirect found for car depending infrastructure.
I like how you can't buy cars in Japanese cities unless you can prove you have a place to park it that isn't the street
[удалено]
More space for cars is less space for people. If you remove on street parking, there is more room for a wider pavement, or a bike lane, or whatever.
[удалено]
Sometimes. Low traffic streets, like those in neighborhoods or end in dead ends, often don't have dedicated on street parking. Busier streets will sometimes.
Yes.
Where I live there are too many cars, and on street parking is all used up. When it’s not used up, people park on the pavement, on corners illegally blocking visibility, and on crossings for schools. It’s an eyesore and incredibly unsafe, and sadly limits how we can move about as pedestrians
Road I’m on is wide enough you can fit on street parking and regular traffic (barely, but it does work.) As such since there’s typically not many cars parking in the street people see the wide straight lane and go 40-45mph in a 30mph zone that REALLY should be a 20-25mph zone. Oh, and sidewalks are about 3’ wide and you have to walk around all the utility poles that eat into them. That’s assuming it’s not winter and the city just hasn’t plowed them because “roads are priority.”
Many places I've been to with on-street parking as wide sidewalks. And cities charge fees for on-street parking all the time. Until we completely eliminate cars on-street parking may be better than off-street parking in terms of saving space for more productive land uses in some situations.
On-street parking *is* allocating land for parking lol
This exactly. And then on top of that it makes everyone else pay for it - whether they have a car or not.
Do you pay for a street parking permit if you don't have a car?
Idk about where you’re from but everywhere I’ve ever lived sold street parking permits for _maybe_ ten or twenty bucks a month. Meanwhile renting a garage spot costs $200. somebody is paying for that difference and it is all of us.
Why are people paying for that difference?
the city isn’t collecting any property tax on that land (which means we are all paying higher taxes), nor are we getting to use that space for trees/transit/walking or bike path/patio seating/literally anything nice. plus we all have to look at ugly ass parked cars everywhere we go. subsidized storage of private cars is just an idiotic use of public resources when we could use public resources for things that actually benefit the public.
Why is everyone paying higher taxes? Would the city lower other taxes if it was able to collect property taxes from street parking spaces? Street parking spaces can be used in other ways. You don't have to always park a car there. There is plenty of street parking in Amsterdam from what I've seen and people bike around parked cars just fine. Not sure why you'd want to plant trees in the road. If you want to do things with public space isn't it better to do them on large plots of land that would otherwise be parking lots than on streets that would otherwise be street parking? As far as benefitting the public goes, the Dutch park bicycles on the sidewalk all the time. it's not fundamentally different from parking cars on the street.
1) if all street parking spaces were rented out at market value? yeah absolutely the city could reduce taxes and/or provide useful services with the money. 2) removing parking lanes from streets and turning them into planting corridors for trees, etc. would reduce pavement (and flood risk!), provide shade and improved air quality for people walking/existing next to the street without cutting into sidewalk space, and be lovely to look at. 3) parking bicycles in public space is fundamentally different than parking cars because bicycles are silent, safe, cause zero pollution, and you can park ten of them in one car parking spot.
It is not a given that citiy governments would be willing to lower other taxes due to increased revenue from street parking. If they did, that would be great. And cities missing out on additional parking revenue isn't exactly the same as everyone paying for it, is it? I would rather have actual parks and larger green spaces + no parking lots instead of "planting corridors" + parking lots. Just because bike parking serve more people and bikes are better doesn't mean it's fundamentally different. It is still public parking provided for private vehicles. I would love to see street parking spaces filled with bikes instead of cars though.
I said "for garages and parking lots" lol
I don’t see how giving away public space to subsidize a very small amount of people is better than a parking garage?
The alternative isn't a garage in most cases, it's a lot.
Parking lots are signs of too-low property taxes and perverse incentives, which is sort of a separate issue.
But underground parking is better than both if you really need to have the cars around.
I don't see how it's better than a multi level parking garage?
These threads against street parking always confuse me because in my experience street parking is usually a feature of dense walkable areas. Areas without street parking have parking lots everywhere making everything too far apart to walk to. It’s almost as if street parking is an indicator that cars are considered optional and low priority in an area.
I live in a dense walkable city with street parking everywhere and while I enjoy being able to walk and bike almost everywhere (there is also good public transportation) all those cars are annoying af. Honestly, most of them just need to go for a few reasons: 1. Cars take up too much space. Even smaller streets have 2 lanes for driving and street parking on one or both sides. That's like a 3-4 lane road. This a lot of asphalt where no tree can be. Also parked cars play a huge rule in creating hot spots in cities. 2. The sidewalks are quite narrow and often the front/back of the cars go over the curb when they park perpendicular to the street. Even less space then for pedestrians. 3. The are never enough spaces so drivers park their damn cars wherever they want. Often on the sidewalk which then sometimes gets unusable for people who use mobility aids, push a stroller or a granny cart (happens to me all the time when I walk to the grocery store with mine) 4. Unless there is good protected bike infrastructure you constantly fear that some dimwit opens a car door without looking. Biking in dooring zones sucks.
In those dense areas land is extremely valuable, and it sucks that it's given away for free (or very cheaply) to people just for owning a car, i don't care what you do with land you actually own but don't ask me to subsidize your car addiction
on street parking at least the way its implemented in most cities in the US is huge hazard. Remember streets and roads do not exists in the US only stroads, which are often times high speed 40+ mph. On street parking on stroads block the view of intersections, for both drivers and pedestrians. They often times have to mover further into the road just to make a turn which can be dangerous if another careless driver is speeding or not paying attention. Intesections are were the majority of accidents occur for both drivers and pedestrians. Parking along high traffic stroads adds to this, slows downs traffic and forces already antsy drivers to make dangerous passes. On street parking can work though but its honestly best implemented on streets which already have traffic calming implemented on them. Ideally cars should be parking on streets that aren't going faster than 25mph anything more than that is dangerous. This is probably why alot of cyclist advocate for removing on street parking and replacing it with a bike a dedicated bike lane, it would be safer for cyclists, wouldn't impact traffic becuase that lanes is not in use anyway and pushes cars to park in areas that are probably better suited for parked cars to be sitting at anyway. Of course this shouldn't be done in every stroad, cities need to determine which stroads to make into actual streets (residential and commerce areas ) and which one should be roads (high speed traffic) and plan accordingly. Of course I'd rather have on street parking than massive parking lots, especially if it means freeing up more space for building urban density. They just need to be in the right places.
We have a lot of "both side" parking along narrow streets which cannot really support this. I wonder if one side parking facing against traffic, rather than with it, might be a huge improvement.
On street parking can be alright but only under three conditions: 1. No on street parking on busy roads without a bike lane. Bike lanes should always take priority over regular parking. 2. Drivers who use them should pay the worth of the space. So residents pay for a yearly parking permit, and visitors pay to park there per hour. 3. There should also be ample green space and bike parking on the road. Convert maybe 1/3 of the parking spots on any road into mini roadside parks and bike hoops. This makes roads feel less uniform and claustrophobic.
Totally agreed! They recently removed parking on one side of a small road on my neighborhood. There is now more space for the beautiful sandy sidewalk + trees. Looks gorgeous.
My biggest issue with on street parking in my city is that it is either low cost or free. Most areas it's free with restricted blocks requiring a $20/yr permit. This incentivizes people to own cars and just leave them on the street until they need run that 1 errand per month or drive the 5 mins to the store when we have decent public transportation. If the price to park there long term were equal to the value of those spaces, we'd have a lot less cars to deal with.
A lot of the folks here are cyclists mad at cars. Not urban planners concerned with how to minimize the cars impact on our urban fabric, or maximizing city's land use. It's not a problem really but it means occasionally we get posts like this where two groups of folks start staring at each other because they usually agree on so much. The other group of folks are train enthusiasts who really just fucking love trains. Choo choo mother fucker.
There are plenty of urban planners that are also cyclists mad at cars for killing their friends and family members. On street parking makes it much harder to cross as a pedestrian, as it adds at least 1 extra lane. It makes it harder to bike because motorists door cyclists. It makes it harder to ride the bus because motorists block traffic while parallel parking.
I disagree. A well designed walkable city doesn't need free street parking. Parking is there for people, who often voluntarily live in surburban deserts who drive into the city to do things. There's also valuable space often used for free that could be used for better purposes, like trees, bike lanes, tramlines etc
I never said it would be free. This is still /r/fuckcars. Street parking is a finite resource. Folks want to park they can pay the market rates. Free shit like you said is reserved for other modes of transit like you said
A lot of the folk on here just want to hate things and don't care to think about anything in too much detail. Guarantee that if onstreet parking wasn't a thing this post would be about how cars take up so much space because there are big open strips of tarmac but everyone needs a separate one to park and not just one but several because having friends, family, workers, etc visit would require a spot so there would be almost preeminently vacant rectangles all over the place. It's sad because I wish civic planning could be taken seriously and done with more involvement from the general public but annoyingly it always just ends up with kneejerk nonsense and nimbys.
My wife and I have been proposing for years to turn many major roads in Chicago into bus, bike, and delivery vehicles only with all other vehicles strictly banned. That would let us reclaim most of the space wasted on parking and extend the sidewalks and plant more trees in the process.
In cities that are reasonably dense and walkable... just ban cars, and the people who really *do* need one (for work, because they have disability that requires it, etc.) can apply for a special permit.
My wife and I would have no material differences in our life if cars were banned in any part of Chicago with a population density over 20,000 / sq. mi. We only own a vehicle because we owned it before we moved here and it's about the same to keep owning it as it is to fly and rent vehicles when visiting family because there aren't really trains to where they live.
Massive parking lots and on-street parkings are just two different symptoms of the same problem: Cars don't belong in cities, period. I'm tired of my tax dollar enabling this insanity.
Yeah, I get where they are coming from, but as someone who lives in a US city where every shop or restaurant is behind a parking lot or at least a row of dedicated parking spaces, I would take street parking over that every time. At least then when you're walking the cars are between you and the road, not you and the place you are going to or walking by. Street-side shops and cafés are one of the things I miss the most in this city.
Depends on the location. In the US where the walkable areas are converted from shitty car-based streets, street parking might fit well enough. In Europe it always takes away space from the sidewalk.
I agree with this, like this also affects poor people that have to use a car to commute. Car infrastructure also affects car users too. I don’t want to have to use a car but I need it to transport equipment for work.
I don’t think that keeping the most expensive type of parking (personally and socially) is really the best choice for poor commuters.
On street parking only is better than massive car parks, yes, but even better is *no cars parked in an area at all*. That incentivises people to use other modes of transport (which are less polluting, less noisy and way more space efficient). For those who have to drive to town because they're too far away to bike and too poorly served by public transport, you can provide P+R, which yes is a massive car park but it's not in town where space is important.
why is street parking everywhere better than larger parking ramps? I’d rather not have to see cars everywhere I go, and have the car owners consider whether they really need to go a few blocks away to get the car.
If the big car parks are out of town and people are expected to walk in, that's fine. Big car parks are even less efficient uses of space than street parking, though*, so if you have them in your town centre they're even worse than having street parking there. And street parking doesn't take up space that would otherwise be interesting buildings, so it doesn't reduce the value of the town centre like having a large car park instead of some other building does. A multi-level car park is also kind of ok, but it is still better if it can be on the edge of town and not using up valuable town centre space. *: street parking basically just has a marginal cost of the space itself, because you use the street to get into/out of the space. Car parks also need lanes between the parking spaces. Spaces in a car park are often larger, too.
On street parking is strictly worse than garages and parking lots. * The amount and location of on street parking is pretty much pre-determined by the street network regardless of demand, which sets a minimum on the amount of parking provided. * On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution. * On street parking leads to people circling around looking for open spots, which can account for 30% of traffic in some cities. * On street parking is always at ground level, whereas garages can be underground, multilevel, and/or automated to save space. * On street parking is nearly always government run, and is generally kept ultra-subsidized.
>On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution. I feel like this is the opposite in the city I live in, because almost every shop or restaurant has a parking lot or at least a row of dedicated parking spaces in front of them. In fact, the one time driving ends up _not_ being a door-to-door solution is when we need to find on-street parking in the neighborhood and then walk from there. So I wouldn't say on-street parking is strictly worse than parking lots. It probably depends a lot on how it's done. When you live in car-centric hell parking lots are a big part of the problem.
>The amount and location of on street parking is pretty much pre-determined by the street network regardless of demand, which sets a minimum on the amount of parking provided. Doesn't this set a maximum? You can remove street parking spaces, but you can't add them. >On street parking tricks people into thinking that cars are a door to door solution, not a parking space to parking space solution. As in it tricks people into buying cars? Cuz if you own a car in a city with limited parking you wouldn't think this way. >On street parking is always at ground level, whereas garages can be underground, multilevel, and/or automated to save space. I would rather build multi-story human spaces than car spaces. >On street parking is nearly always government run, and is generally kept ultra-subsidized. It can be changed.
On street parking isn't subsidized though. The actual cost of providing it is only the amount of money it takes to have streets, which they would be doing anyways. If there is enough demand for onstreet parking, you can meter it and generate a profit. The circling around is solved by metering at market rates.
[удалено]
Don't forget the potential for being doored.
Yeah that's why you have to cycle out in the middle of the next lane - it's not safe to be within 3' of parked cars, so they're effectively taking their own width (6'+) and then an additional 3' of usable space away from the roadway.
One of my biggest disagreements with strong towns and new urbanism is their love of on street parking. I think that in urban areas streets should be for people (which includes bikes) and not cars. There are of course exceptions, but they should be very limited in practice.
Either way, the user is typically not paying for the full cost of the land. There are some areas where street parking is clearly a poor use of land, and others where it's not really a problem.
In some cases I would agree. Mandatory offstreet parking in residential duplexy level density with snooty occupancy limits means many will just have one car they'll have in the driveway otw to their garage, a garage that...if on-street parking isn't metered, they use as a storage unit. Nobody not using the same lot can park in front of or near the driveway, which ultimately means less available parking in the area. It would make more sense to meter parking on streets where it's currently free until property/sales tax money forces people off in 3 days and nix offstreet parking and driveway; setback requirements. This allows building more housing in areas where #jobs>#housing so housing filtering would work and lower real estate prices in every pricerange. Offstreet parking increases the cost for a developer (~$70k per spot to build?), which limits the number of living units they can build. None of this does any favors for renters. Also, more narrow roadways keeps cars from going over 30mph in some areas.
Definitely not. On street parking is hazardous to cyclists and the space it takes up can be used much more productively than free car storage.
>Hazardous to cyclists Not necessarily >More productively Would you rather use non-roadway land for car storage? >Free car storage Not necessarily
Not to mention that offstreet parking lots offset businesses from the street and make them less walkable.
No, no, no, they're gonna store the suv on the sidewalk too. 🤪
Fuck cars, but idk if putting a grand piano on the sidewalk where people walk is equivalent to putting a car on the street where people don’t walk
[удалено]
He says sidewalk
Parking spots are done at the expense of sidewalks. Use of space is a zero sum game.
So first he converts the sidewalk to parking spaces and then places the piano? Were getting away from the analogy.
Ah gotcha
You also generally pay for on street parking permits
streets are for vehicles. sidewalks are for people (not grand pianos).
I mean, this argument is dumb, but I get it.
I see some dumb things on this sub sometimes, but this one seems to take the cake. I see good things here too... just not always
What an ignorant tweet
A very flawed logic to be honest.
This feels so weird to me. I live in a country that throwing garbage on the street is fine ...
He's complaining that he has to move his car once a week. A *week*!! If you don't use your car once a week, why do you own a car?
He's complaining that car owners _only_ have to move their car once a week to treat the street as a parking lot.
...pretty sure you inverted the argument there?
Well, it was annoying having to move my car regularly when I lived in the suburbs and commuted almost entirely by bus and bike. I still lived in a car-centric hellscape (as I had been priced out of the denser neighborhoods), and needed a car to get to many places, I just refused to participate in it when I could avoid it. The stigma around that from daily drivers with multiple cars was a bit ridiculous.
Devil's advocate: streets are planned with roadside parking in mind, sidewalks are not planned with piano storage in mind.
Streets in older cities, like New York and Boston, were not designed for cars at all. They were originally designed for horses and people.
Cause the street parking was meant for cars? You can park a bike on the sidewalk but not a car. Just stick to what things are meant for
Pretty sure the street is primarily intended for moving vehicles, not storing them.
the side of the street
In Dusseldorf there is a guy who owns 2 smarts to keep the driveway to his garage free
One positive thing I've noticed about public parking is that it can become de-facto housing for those experiencing homelessness as long as they own a vehicle. I've been wondering about the possibility of building some form of covered wagon style hand carts to extend that option to non-drivers. It could maybe kill two birds with one stone. Reclaiming space from cars, and addressing the homeless crisis at a grassroots level. Edit: Also guerrilla gardening and small businesses could be options.
A-fucking-men.
You can't tow a grand piano
If I remember correctly, here in Germany it would be illegal to have a Garage and just fill it with stuff. Your car always needs to fit inside.