I don’t want to argue for cars, but a square of something you can park on should definitely be cheaper per unit area than something you live in. I don’t think I’ve ever parked anywhere I’d happily live.

If there are fewer parking spots relative to demand compared to living spaces relative to demand, then parking may very well be more expensive. I don’t see why parking “should” inherently be cheaper, it’s always supply and demand determining price.

He must be thinking of Hong Kong: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/hong-kong-parking-spa...

In expensive real estate areas land costs should dwarf construction costs.

This isn’t the issue though, the actual comparison is car park versus living space, and which can be built cheaper.

You've imagined what it would be like to live in a parking space if it were to remain one of a block or a row of parking spaces. I don't think that's the point being made.

I pay $512.84 per month for parking; it's valet parking because they stack multiple cars on elevators in the building basement.

I don't know exactly how you want to characterize the floor space of that, but my gut feel is it's basically a similar cost to rent for an apartment per unit area.

I think it probably comes pretty close - my friends with parking spaces in Manhattan pay $500+/mo

Does a slab of asphalt have the same taxes assessed and upkeep costs as an apartment?