I'm deliberately invoking both meanings of the word, because I think taking the desire to avoid interaction to the extreme harms society.
Also, by wording it as "extreme", it becomes a bit difficult to have a debate. Doing "too much" of anything is by definition more than what is harmless.
In the case from the context above, one interpretation is just people's desire for privacy. I'd also say that by giving it a name with a negative connotation we are pressuring the people who have preferences that can be described as asocial to be more like the others and that I believe is unfair.
I don't think it's especially unfair to argue that engineering to prevent chance interactions should be discouraged, and invoking privacy in this context is a bugaboo - access to privacy really isn't the same thing as making sure that you never have to greet or talk to anyone in a way that isn't planned.
I know a lot of people who don't really have that sort of unplanned interaction with anyone, and they tend to be the same people who think I must be uncommonly brave to use my city's public transit system, which they erroneously fancy to be peopled primarily by dangerous characters. By preserving their ignorance of their fellow people, they free their imaginations to assume the worst, and in a democratic society where such imaginings can quite easily translate into wrongheaded and harmful public policy, I don't think it is at all hard to argue that such ignorance, and such fancy, grows questionable - even dangerous - to the same extent to which it is indulged.
Says who? It's one thing to invent a brand new word, but it's another to modify a word with already established meaning to a slightly different meaning just because some people started using it the wrong way and it stuck. See the word "poignant" for another great example of the active bastardization of English.
Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antisocial
Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antisocial
Oxford Dictionaries, English - as close as you get to OED without paying, and my library card's at home: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antisocial
How many more would you like me to cite? And what's your problem with "poignant"?
Right -- it's not that they're "out to" cause harm. They just don't give an F.
So in that sense, it 'antisocial' seems more apt.
SF sadly does not have this http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/30/concrete-giveaway-free-... and still being studied last year according to http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/Pa...
Regardless, that's actually a pretty easy question to answer, because Chicago gets charged for every minute a spot isn't available by the company they sold the street parking to.
Inside the loop, the price would be $43,891.30 for every parking spot removed.
Inside the CBD, but outside the loop, the price would be $35,040 for every parking spot removed.
The entire meter deal has been a boondoggle, and the previous mayor has been subpoenaed about it several times but has gotten out of it citing "health issues." It's really screwed over the cities flexibility when it comes to urban planning. Plus Chicago has the most expensive meters in the nation.
I personally think that this falls under the heading of what I deem anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior isn't limited to property crime and violence, it's anything that dehumanizes your fellow man. The people who construct their life so they only interact with exactly the people whom they want are the most anti-social people I can imagine. I personally think they should move to the suburbs if they can't stand the thought of interacting with a neighbor.
Thankfully in Chicago we have alleys, and you have to pay a yearly surcharge for the 'no parking' area created by street cuts, so there aren't many driveways crossing sidewalks.