(07-01-2015, 07:18 AM)ookpik Wrote: I'd be more concerned with the impact that a building with little or no parking would have on the neighbourhood. For example the visitor's parking area (assuming there was one) would likely have to be strictly regulated/policed. Likewise for street parking in the immediate neighbourhood.
You cannot get by owning a vehicle without a place to store it, period. You certainly can't store it on the street. Having some paid visitor parking is a pretty reasonable way to go to accommodate temporary demand. Requiring that every unit come with its own full parking spots is not reasonable - it is not a way of addressing visitor parking, it is a way of encouraging and subsidizing car ownership.
(07-01-2015, 08:04 AM)REnerd Wrote: I agree that nobody should be able to stop you from BUYING a unit without parking. But certainly the city should be able to stop you from BUILDING a unit without parking. This is why the city staffs planners and urban designers, because they (hopefully) know what works well and what will just cause problems.
This is indeed what they do, and it causes a different kind of problem: expensive units, high commercial rents, and a low price of parking that compels more people to drive - leading to more cars clogging our streets, polluting the air, and injuring pedestrians and cyclists (and drivers/passengers too).