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.
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.
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.