Parking lots as economic drains
by surprisetalk on 2/2/2026, 6:31:28 PM
https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/stop-incentivizing-surface-parking
Comments
by: bryanlarsen
Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.<p>So eliminating parking minimums by themselves will create nasty side effects.<p>But of course the correct answer to tragedy of the commons is pricing -- price the street parking appropriately and it won't be abused so you won't need worse solutions like parking minimums.
2/2/2026, 7:46:36 PM
by: rimbo789
Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.<p>The High Cost of Free Parking is an incredible book that shows exactly how awful parking has been for society.
2/2/2026, 7:36:01 PM
by: qq66
Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necessary.<p>Nice to think, "the people will take trains!" but sometimes it doesn't work that way.
2/2/2026, 8:16:46 PM
by: imoverclocked
This article goes too far and yet not far enough. By trying to build more buildings that increase parking in yet smaller footprints and then charge for the added expense of all of that, why not just eliminate cars in these districts altogether. Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within the city. Now you aren't trying to extract value from the simple act of wanting to exist in a space leaving more value to core economic goods and services.<p>We need to attack The Modern Moloch (99pi).
2/2/2026, 8:01:20 PM
by: clickety_clack
I lived in Vancouver for years, near the downtown, near the SkyTrain and it was amazing. Back then I thought I would never live anywhere but the downtown of a city.<p>But, you know what, life changes. I know there’s hardcore folks out there who will cycle miles with their kids, or take them on transit, or even live with them in a 2 bedroom downtown apartment, but it is just too hard to live that way for many people. With a family, most people need more space, and they need to be able to get from their suburban home to some kind of shopping or work, in minimum time so that they can both take care of kids, maintain a career, and have a glimpse of a life for themselves.<p>We don’t need to have surface lots right in the middle of every downtown, but there needs to be somewhere for people to park.
2/2/2026, 8:26:03 PM
by: ramblurr
Nary a mention of parking garages / underground parking?<p>Austrian cities have way more parking than one would expect, but it's nearly all underground and costs €<p>The benefits are huge, you have have dense commerical areas where you drive in, park underground, pay for some hours, then walk between the shops to do all your business.
2/2/2026, 8:23:27 PM
by: davidrhunt
This is called out in the article as well but you're always welcome to join the party at <a href="https://parkingreform.org" rel="nofollow">https://parkingreform.org</a><p>It's a great group of advocates that are making impactful changes across the US and internationally.
2/2/2026, 7:56:32 PM
by: jessecurry
This is such a terrifying vision of the proper scope of government. We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.<p>If you're really concerned with surface parking push the government to stop making it so expensive for companies to develop self-driving technology or to offer transportation services. If it's easier and less expensive for individuals to use transportation that they don't need to park anywhere the need for surface lots vanishes and those owning the property will look for something else to do with it.
2/2/2026, 8:20:25 PM
by: dbvn
"That is, how much value a parcel creates for the community compared to how much value it consumes simply by existing as land. Think of it like this:<p>Net Contribution=(Economic Output in $)−(Land Value in $)"<p>This calculation is shady. Land value fluctuates and already "bakes in" the predicted economic output... but multiplied across decades. Not to mention, land doesn't consume value by existing. the value never goes anywhere. Its opportunity cost, not a decrease in actual value.<p>Yes, there is value "missed out on", but it hasn't been destroyed. Because it never existed. And that value wouldn't have appeared out of nowhere. it would've required using up other resources that the parking lot wasn't.
2/2/2026, 8:26:11 PM
by: bryan_w
I currently live in a downtown area, and "walkable city" policies like this is why I'm going to move to a big open suburb when my lease is up. It makes life much more of a hassle, especially in cold weather.
2/2/2026, 8:28:32 PM
by: legitster
I cannot recommend this Road Guy Rob video enough: <a href="https://youtu.be/K1TFOK4_07s?si=IwCK4sxVgw5Konu4" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/K1TFOK4_07s?si=IwCK4sxVgw5Konu4</a><p>TL;DW: The difference in tax revenue between a surface parking lot and a business with subterranean parking is so vast, that cities can justify using value to underwrite the loans necessary for developers to do the work. (Called "Tax Increment Financing") This model is proving extremely successful with cities that try taking it on.
2/2/2026, 8:26:50 PM
by: bluGill
If you don't like parking you need to start with cars: give people a reasonable alternative. Too many are looking at this from a standpoint of "lets just get rid of parking" - without asking what people will do instead. All too often the answer is they will drive someplace in the suburbs instead where they get free parking.<p>If you want your downtowns to not have parking you need an alternative. In most cases that means you need to improve your transit in the entire city so people can get there.
2/2/2026, 8:25:40 PM
by: xvokcarts
Build it underground if feasible, or build a parking garage with high-economic-contribution units in upper floors.
2/2/2026, 9:00:28 PM
by: advisedwang
I enjoy the image [1] circling parking lots to show the land wasted right next to maybe 2x as much land consumed by a highway.<p>[1] <a href="https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/2f217632-e141-4acb-8fcc-cb6a4e402708_1600x958.png" rel="nofollow">https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/2...</a>
2/2/2026, 7:51:25 PM
by: 1970-01-01
Solar panels is the answer. It keeps the people dry in the rain and the power can go right back to the city. Yes, it's not possible for all lots. For a vast majority of them, it's a net win.
2/2/2026, 7:54:55 PM
by: fwip
Related: there's currently a bill in the NYS legislature which would allow cities to switch partly to a land-value tax. This is a pretty good local article about it: <a href="https://centralcurrent.org/how-a-state-bill-with-support-from-sen-rachel-may-could-reshape-property-taxes-in-syracuse-and-spur-development/" rel="nofollow">https://centralcurrent.org/how-a-state-bill-with-support-fro...</a>
2/2/2026, 7:41:16 PM
by: trgn
i live in one of these cities and it's impossible to explain.
2/2/2026, 8:27:40 PM
by: Ajedi32
Parking maximums would be just as stupid as parking minimums. Instead of oversupply with inefficient use of space you'll get under supply with businesses starved of customers who can't find a convenient parking space.<p>Let the market decide how much parking is needed. It'll do a much better job than you ever could.
2/2/2026, 8:23:11 PM