Are consumers demanding the above with their money and not just their mouths? I doubt it.

Planning for Uber and autonomous cars includes architecting porticos and pickup/dropoff points in favor of garages. Many buildings are hostile to use of Uber in my daily experience.

if there's already a taxi rank, then uber should be using that space to pick-up/drop-off. If there isn't, then the current building is _already_ unfriendly to taxis.

But it wouldn't be hard to make a pickup/dropoff area. I suspect there already is one at most places, it's just a pissy, petty policy that doesn't allow ridesharing (etc) to use it.

Rideshare still behaes ona requ basis. But the vehicle at the head of the queue serves the passenger first requesting a ride, special needs excepted. Out-of-order arrival of rides is addressed that way.

Also it's unlikely for there to be that many rides queued up at a single residential location which is why they aren't queued up there in the first place.

The premise of this thread was that there were.

"if there's already a taxi rank, then uber should be using that space to pick-up/drop-off. If there isn't, then the current building is already unfriendly to taxis."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19596930

In Central Florida, this means having a safe place for people to stand and wait. That area gets frequent and often nasty thunderstorms.

Could they at least run one regular (120v/15a) circuit + wall outlet to each parking spot? Is that too much to ask?

That's enough electricity to give every EV car an extra 60 miles of EV range overnight. And would be plenty for any other use (ebikes and the like)

They aren't incentivized to think long-term, because they are making money hand-over-fist. Whatever they build gets sold at very high margins because consumers aren't educated (thanks to things like Florida banning the term "climate change" from school textbooks) and don't have modern expectations.

I mean even Disney only has like 2-6 charging spots in each of their parking lots designed to hold over 12,000 cars per lot!

And then you look at other parking structures and see that they have a token charger or 2 and the few I've reached out to never have any plans on increasing the number of them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_t...

It could be that nearly every EV will have plenty of range from just charging at home, and for those few who need to charge to make the trip, they will be able to get enough charge with a 5-minute stop at one of the dozens of 350kW chargers nearby.

Given all this uncertainty, why would I, as a real estate investor, pay for the increased utility capacity, the installation of the electrical lines plus permitting, the charging hardware (plus unbounded maintenance), and the hassle of additional policing of which stalls customers are allowed to park in and for what reasons?

As a counter on a much smaller scale, if I was setting up or redoing a midrange or better fast food place I'd absolutely be looking into the costs of having public paid charging stations in my lot. Drive in, plug in, come inside (and don't blink at the price of our current run of premium sandwich meals), order, eat, head out 20-30 minutes later having paid a few dollars for a fast charge plus $8-12 for a meal with a great profit margin. Not something you'd do every day, but I see people just sitting in their cars at the Tesla chargers in the parking lot of my local Meijer.

At least right now people with plugin EVs or hybrids are people with disposable income. If I have a business that I'd like those people to come to for 20-60 minutes a few times a week then chargers make a ton of sense.

You, as the hypothetical real estate investor, might care that the building you built two years ago is not the ideal place for affluent residents today. But as the entire local market is failing at long term planning, I guess there is no competitive incentive.

I'm simply wondering why it's not taking off more. It seems to be a win-win. Places like Disney where many will drive from far away and spend whole days there seem like a perfect fit for a ton of charging spots, especially since EV owners PAY to use the electricity there. EV owners win because they can get there easier and with less range anxiety, and the business owners win because EV owners come to their location more frequently and in many cases are required to spend time there!

A response of "qq" when all I did was say i'm surprised it's not catching on more is weirdly aggressive. I don't think businesses should have to install them, just that i'm surprised that they don't have more of them, especially in new-construction where it seems like a no-brainer to increase the number by 3 times or more just seeing the increasing percentage of plug-in vehicles on the road.

I didn't realize that EV vehicles paid for the charging, I thought it was free. If paid then it's a nice to have that leverages the long time you spend at the park anyway.

"quick question" completely changes the tone of that comment!

Apartment buildings are similarly dated. Last I looked, in a big city apartment complexes were rare if they had one or two charging spots. They don’t exist in smaller or less affluent towns.

I think RE suffers from a similar situation as infrastructure regarding retrofitting and upkeep in the US. Once it’s built, there’s almost no inherent market mechanism for keeping structures up to date.

I'm really sorry but this isn't how climate change works. Climate change is a slow increase in average temperature over 100+ years that has dramatic impact on lots of things, but probably not the "need" for AC.

1. A slow and steady increase in the average temperature.

2. A rapid increase in the frequency of extreme weather events.

Point 1 doesn't force people to buy ACs, but Point 2 will. For example, you generally don't need AC in San Francisco, but a heat wave in 2017 killed 14 people[0]. As the frequency of heatwaves increases, people will need to equip themselves against the temperature _extremes_, even though the _average_ temperature hasn't changed much.

[0] https://www.kqed.org/science/1932692/climate-change-dishes-u...

>As the world has warmed, that warming has triggered many other changes to the Earth’s climate. Changes in extreme weather and climate events, such as heat waves and droughts, are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and in some regions, severe floods and droughts.

[1] https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/...

>One of the most visible consequences of a warming world is an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The National Climate Assessment finds that the number of heat waves, heavy downpours, and major hurricanes has increased in the United States, and the strength of these events has increased, too.

[2] https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-weather-and-climate-cha...

As a side note, I’m offended by the commenter above you. As if someone else is going to be able to tell me what I’ve witnessed over the course of my life.

Rather than being offended, I think it would be more persuasive to others if you were able to quantify what you've witnessed.

You imply that there are buildings that did not need air-conditioning when constructed, but do need it now because of climate change. I don't know what the answers are, but let's consider what statistics would be useful to defend your statement.

First, since you are talking about air-conditioning, we can probably restrict to summer temperatures. It's not clear if we can look only at daytime highs, since higher temperatures at night are also uncomfortable. Since we're talking about a threshold, we can probably restrict to the single hottest month. For Phoenix (and I'd guess the rest of the Southwest?) this looks to be July.

So to tell a compelling story, you'd probably want to show that the average high or average low for July has increased significantly since the time the building was built. How much is significant? I don't know, but if the claim was that it didn't need AC when built (as opposed to saying that it needs it more often now) I'd think we'd want to see a change of about 5F (2C). There might be a good argument for a lower number (perhaps humidity has also increased?), but it likely would be less convincing than a large jump in temperature.

Finally, you'd want to show that the increase in temperature is due to climate change, rather than the effects of urbanization. More blacktop, more buildings, and more air conditioners (!) will increase the number on the thermometer in an urban environment even if the climate hasn't changed. On the bright side, most published temperature records have already been adjusted to remove these Urban Heat Island effects. But do realize that your perception that it is hotter might be affected by the build up of the environment, so the temperature either needs to be measured outside of urban areas, or adjusted for the non-climatic changes.

So instead of taking offense, could you perhaps point to a historical chart of July temperatures for where you live, showing that the temperature (adjusted for urbanization) has increased significantly since the buildings were built?

I suspect the time will come when trade wind days are the exceptions.

For example making their be excess circuit breaker capacity during construction doesn't cost much and enables ev charging to be added at a later date for less money than if that spare electrical capacity wasn't installed