Ok, go live in the arctic without any electricity since it's so easy then. Just because we can live in worse conditions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvement, and as may come as a surprise to some people, most people like having parking available and find cars convenient.

I'd find it convenient to have no one else on the roads when I drive on them.

But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different things.

Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it. Others may not. They should be free to do so.

It's a tragedy of the commons issue which is where these kinds of laws come in.

I've yet to see any alternative to cars proposed that I personally find acceptable, but some people do want to live that way for some reason. New areas of the city being made without parking for those people would be fine if there really is a demand for it but I wouldn't like moving somewhere and it later becoming car-hostile.

You should visit a mid-size town in Europe sometime.

Where my family and I lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a "right tool for the job" situation:

* We could walk to a grocery store, our kids schools, the doctor, a few cafe's, a barber, and a takeout pizza place.

* We could also walk to a tram that would whisk us downtown, which was way more convenient than driving and looking for a parking spot.

* We could ride our bikes downtown if the weather was nice, which was good for date nights when we wanted to be more mobile than the tram allowed for, and we didn't have the kids.

* We could drive (1 car for a family of 4) if we wanted to, say, go hiking somewhere out in the woods, or take a trip somewhere. There were weeks when the car would just sit there, though, because we just didn't need it.

Walking and biking are much nicer ways of getting around when stuff is convenient to those modes of transportation. Less stressful, and it feels good to move around. It's also far better for the environment.

People like the freedom that a car currently embodies — if you have good alternatives, the physical object is unimportant. I’m 35, I have owned one car for two weeks, and then only for the purpose of selling it on behalf of my partner without it looking dodgy. I don’t miss it.

What freedom? Having to pay insurance? Or a car payment? Or car maintenance? In some states, having to pass inspection? Being subject to traffic jams and dangerous conditions like potentially slamming into other people or barriers at 60+ mi/h? Or what about the freedom to pollute as much as you want with little to no consequences other than an unlivable planet a few decades/centuries from now?

Huh, I assumed it would be clear I dislike cars, but I guess I need to work on my writing style.

Those things you listed are the costs; the freedom is to be able to spontaneously decide to go somewhere new.

I’m lucky enough to have been able to move to Berlin, which has excellent public transport links both internally, nationally, and internationally.

Before Berlin, I lived in a small village a 40 minute bus ride from Cambridge, itself an hour by public transport from most nearby interesting places. I cycled to work (in Cambridge) because it was faster than the bus, and also because (accounting for parking) the bike commute was about the same duration as going by car, and because of the health benefits of cycling.

Cycling also represents the same freedom that the car represents. I’ve cycled from Hoek van Holland to Brugg in Switzerland. There are cycle paths for the entire route, although I ended up in Brugg because of a wrong turn in Stein-Säckingen.

Public transport[1] also represents this freedom, at least when it’s set up properly. The point of my Cambridge anecdote is that it isn’t always done well enough.

[1] I include air travel in that. Planes are clearly flying busses.

But that's not what the article proposes.

They want removal of regulation regarding parking spots (free market), but building of rent-controlled social housing on the freed space (non-free market).

I'm no ideologue, so I'm fine with scattering around some government subsidized housing to help out those who have been hit worst by the housing crisis.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, so I think the solution needs to be mostly market-based, but it's going to take a lot of different approaches to fix things.

Fundamentally this problem is not fixable.

Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/...

The moment rents drop for whatever reason (more building), a new batch of people will finally afford to move in.

> Everybody wants to live in NYC/SF/LA/London/Paris/Tokyo/...

And people say everyone wants to live here in Bend, Oregon.

And people say everyone wants to live in Boulder, Colorado.

Just maybe... it's not actually true.

And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...

> And Tokyo, by the way, does a pretty good job with housing

Only in the sense of getting more bang for the buck. It's the 10th most expensive city to rent in the world: https://infogram.com/1prdmkx1zvdve1sg79z2vp56vmsm2ygmn90

Or a more comprehensive study here: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049...

Notice something in these list? It's all famous cities. The fact that they have wildly different housing regulations doesn't affect the rent prices, any supply is immediately absorbed back.

They've managed to hold prices steady in a desirable place. That's a pretty good accomplishment. Compare and contrast with the bay area where housing earns more on an hourly basis than many people do:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article208678414.html