There's a reason for this.
As a result of the fact that new construction is required to have 1-2 parking spots, developers need to put in a lot of parking. And because they need to put in a lot of parking, they need to be expensive. And because they need to be expensive, they might as well be luxury apartments. As a result of all this, all new construction is luxury apartments.
The biggest impact that lifting this requirement will have is that it will increase the amount of affordable housing.
We went through a similar situation with airplane tickets where I live. The govt agency in charge of aviation and the airlines all wanted the free luggage requirement gone citing cost reductions. They got it, the fares didn't get any cheaper and now you have to pay extra.
I really don't see the 17% reduction in space required for parking being passed onto buyers. People will continue to demand 1-2 parking spots because that's a high cost area and people buying there don't care that much about that discount, if that even happens.
Then why are you commenting?
The parent of your post was correct in saying "required", as in legally required for that zoning.
After you subtract the required parking spots, setbacks, sidewalks, driveways then what you're left with is a few super-expensive townhouses in most of LA or the project gets cancelled.
Part of the reason to enforce parking in new construction is to alleviate the pressure on street parking. Preexisting businesses could be pushed out as new construction draws more people without making parking available.
The real area of focus for reducing traffic and vehicle usage should be the San Fernando Valley corridors (Sepulveda/405, the 5, and the 101 to San Gabriel Valley). Iirc from a recent report on KPCC there's like 600k daily commuters between the valley and the southland, and another 700k between the valley and San Gabriel Valley.
We have one metro stop in the SFV, which serves the 3 million residents. It's no wonder it's surrounded by a massive parking lot, and most commuters don't use it anyway.
And Disney Hall, the Broad, and MOCA on Bunker Hill. Grand Avenue park for events. The Arts District and its many restaurants and breweries. Little Tokyo and the 3 museums there. FiDi's many restaurants. Historic Core and the old Broadway theaters, some still in use. The tens of thousands of new apartments constructed in South Park, Skid West, and Skidrokyo. For architecture nerds, nearly 100 years and a dozen different architectural styles spread out between all of the DTLA districts but especially in FiDi and HC.
We have one metro stop in the SFV, which serves the 3 million residents. It's no wonder it's surrounded by a massive parking lot, and most commuters don't use it anyway.
The sooner the Sepulveda Pass rail/monorail is built, the better.
Impressive ignorance.
The historical, governmental, a cultural, entertainment, and now residential center is "not worth walking to."
And the Staples Center? Perhaps 99 on the 100 things to do list.
I totally agree with you on this. Lost of people in this thread are talking about how good/bad transit access in the LA area, but there is no doubt the valley is totally undeserved in that regard.
That said, we might as well remove this regulation requiring parking if the market will dictate a similar level of parking anyway. I simply think this type of change would see a greater impact in neighborhoods in which car ownership levels are lower.