I don't disagree with much in the article, but I disagree with the implication that parking requirements are, or ever were, designed to meet the needs of businesses and business owners. They aren't. They're driven by voters who want businesses to have more parking than business owners would pay for, given the choice.
It's an important distinction because of the way arguments over parking play out. If parking requirements are engineered to match the needs of businesses and business owners, then as the article states, they aren't "needed," but also it can be argued that there's little harm in mandating what conscientious business owners do anyway, and preventing outliers from causing problems.
The article does that in its own way by attacking the research behind parking requirements, but it fails to take the next step and point out the obvious: the research would be a lot more solid if anyone believed that it mattered. Even if it started out weak by necessity, it would have been improved and updated over the decades if anybody cared. But there's literally no connection and nobody who cares about a connection.
>They're driven by voters who want businesses to have more parking than business owners would pay for, given the choice.
And even then it's only the vocal minority. Nobody who doesn't have an axe to grind shows up to the zoning committee meeting on such an item.
A huge amount of specific policy winds up being driven by Karens and NIMBYs who will vote for anything that drives up cost because it tends to drive out everything that isn't Startbucks or similar.
You'll have some policy and the number everyone thinks is fine is X but the Karens get to screeching and the number goes up to 12 because the people who were ok with 8 are also ok with Y but the Karens wouldn't settle for less.
Not quite, because parking requirements is one of the few issues that is high profile enough that voters remember it when it comes time to vote for city council. The people who vote in city council elections are a small minority, but they're a much bigger group than the dedicated and/or crazy folks who show up at meetings.
It's an important distinction because of the way arguments over parking play out. If parking requirements are engineered to match the needs of businesses and business owners, then as the article states, they aren't "needed," but also it can be argued that there's little harm in mandating what conscientious business owners do anyway, and preventing outliers from causing problems.
The article does that in its own way by attacking the research behind parking requirements, but it fails to take the next step and point out the obvious: the research would be a lot more solid if anyone believed that it mattered. Even if it started out weak by necessity, it would have been improved and updated over the decades if anybody cared. But there's literally no connection and nobody who cares about a connection.