Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built.

Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance.

Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.

Do you want to live in LA? Because that's how you get LA traffic.

People own cars for convenience. If they have to pay $$$ for garage parking or deal with limited street parking, many of those people will stop owning a car.

Sure, then public transportation sucks... but that's also good! When enough people depend on an inconvenient publicly funded service, that service magically improves after a couple election cycles. Then more people use it, creating support for further improvements, etc.

But that's not all!

More people on the sidewalks creates opportunities for small businesses to bring services closer to where people live (reducing demand without diminishing support for public transportation). Those businesses tend to pay workers better, which enables some to move into the city instead of driving from cheaper areas.

The end result, a decade or two down the line, is a vibrant urban community. A region where the idea of even 10% parking spaces is absurd because friends and family, work and pleasure, everything can be accessed with some walking and public transportation...

-

Our car culture is a social addiction. Cars seem convenient in an environment shaped around cars... but if we step back and question the environment, the alternatives are much more attractive.

> Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement.

People looking for housing in dense cities value location and access. Sometimes that means a house gets replaced.

Dilapidated buildings are replaced with housing all the time, but only when the land they occupy is desirable for housing due to its desirable location. Just think of all the old centrally located decaying warehouses converted into condos in your city of choice.

The alternative, building in areas people don't want to live, isn't going to happen soon. It was tried, most recently in the years before 2008.