I was recently browsing one of the many forums I regularly read, when I came across a conversation where someone was complaining that a large new development didn’t feature any car parking.
Now personally, this whole complaint felt rather strange. obviously there’s a lot of anger and frustration aimed towards NIMBYs in 2023, but complaining that a building you are almost certainly never going to live in doesn’t have parking is like complaining that your neighbour three houses down painted their bathrooms a colour you don’t like. Our culture really needs to get over random citizens feeling they should dictate how and within which parameters other people live — building every home for every conceivable person or family makes no sense.
What’s good is that despite the complaints, apartments without any parking are increasingly common in Canada. Sure, some of these dwellings are rental apartments or small spaces designed for students, but many of them are regular condos you can buy without a spot to store a two-ton metal box.
So I guess then the obvious question is: “Would people really want a home without parking? What about... (insert certain trip which needs to be done by car)?”.
The wonderful thing about this is that if homes without parking were really such a problem, developers would not be building them because there would be little to no demand, but that of course is not the case. Sure, having a parking spot is a value add, but the discount for a home without parking is really small. You might step back and say matter-of-fact-ly “Just because you can survive without parking doesn’t make building homes without it good! People survive with cabinet doors that fall off, and the condos still sell but, it’s not good!” So the real question is, can you truly live a fully unencumbered life in a North American (or in most other places) city without a car?
The first thing people are likely to bring up is buying groceries, and I will admit, if you aren’t at least a bit strategic, lugging even a single heavy bag of groceries home is no fun. This is part of why I both recommend people live close to a grocery store if they are car-free, and cities incentivize the development of grocery stores (and more well-stocked convenience stores).
Of course you still do have options: bringing a backpack to the grocery store, using a cargo bike, making smaller, more frequent trips (not always conducive to the stuff you want to get to be fair), or getting grocery delivery or a meal service are all good options too. And you can also combine these options: many people like to get certain foods from certain stores, and so maybe you get one thing delivered, and bike over to get another. Carshare and more traditionally large “supply runs” are possibly an option as well. Suffice to say, you aren’t going to go hungry just because you don’t own a car — and some of the recurring costs you save could even go to eating out a bit more often!
There’s also the classic “what about Ikea/new TV/other new large object you want to buy” argument. Well, fortunately, delivery is as available as ever, and most apartment buildings have someone who can accept packages at all times, so you don’t have to worry about sitting at home waiting for a delivery. Car share is also, once again, an option.
And, I think what becomes increasingly clear to people when they drop the car is that so many of the trips you make in a city just don’t even make sense with a car. When I was living in the Annex in Toronto and I needed to get an ultrasound, even if I had a car I wouldn’t drive it, as finding parking and getting out of the parkade of my apartment building would eat any time savings, and I’d possibly even have to pay for parking. That’s to speak nothing of going to a cafe or a restaurant, and the nice thing about not having the car is that if you decide to go even further into the city centre (assuming you aren’t already living there) then you don’t need to keep wasting time “relocating” your car every time you decide to go somewhere else.
Cycling is also an option for trips in your “local” area, albeit ones where you have more with you, or which would be time prohibitive to walk. Sure, you have to park your bike, but this is usually a lot faster and more straightforward than parking a car (and free). Even better, in the many cities that have bike share, you can just drop your bike off — maybe you only want to bike one way because it’s downhill or you’re going somewhere after — the flexibility is nice.
Transit is also obviously an option for many journeys, and just like everything else I’ve talked about here, it’s all about trip context — transit tends to be very good at taking you “downtown” or to major destinations, and it’s going to keep you out of the elements and also probably go faster than other options for a modest price.
The point here is that there are a plethora of options that aren’t a car for so many of the trips people regularly make — there are clearly a lot of lives that can be lived even in North America without one. Now, of course, you might argue that living with a car is a way from protecting yourself from the prevalent pedestrian hostile spaces in North America, but I really don’t think the automotive arms race is helping anyone — and if you don’t want to live with a car, doing so will probably make you miserable anyways.
Of course, some people might need to use a car for their work, think internet repair people and the like — but, what’s great is if you are using a fleet vehicle you can often pick it up from a central storage point. And even if you can’t do that — while perhaps less convenient, street and public parking are options, and there are less disadvantages to them when the two ton metal box you are storing isn’t yours and so weather, wear, and theft are more minor concerns.
But then there’s the big one — long distance trips. You aren’t going to bike to grandma’s house in the next state or province over (well you could, but nevermind that) or be able to go on a road trip with no car! But, hold on — even in North America, intercity rail service (admittedly often not great) is probably conveniently available to over 100 million people living in California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, and the Northeast. This means a ton of trips can be made with a transit or taxi ride to the local train station, a train, and another transit or taxi ride on the other end. And since increasingly airports are connected by rail or other types of higher order transit, you can make all kinds of trips without ever setting foot in a car, be it from Vancouver to Miami, San Francisco to Toronto, or Denver to Dallas. Now, if you really must make your trip in a car you always have the option to rent a car, and you can get one sized for your trip — going with kids? Get a van; going with friends in summer? get a convertible. Better yet, airports tend to have tons of rental car options and as I just highlighted a ton of North American airports (and airports everywhere) are conveniently transit accessible. Better yet, driving out of an airport, usually suburban or even further out of the city often means a direct link onto a highway with less congestion and stress. It’s kind of the perfect place to start a car journey.
And of course in all of this, we shouldn’t forget what else the lack of a parking spot for every home is enabling. For one, its reducing construction costs because below, or even above ground parking structures are enormously expensive (and surface parking has its own issues) — which in turn helps with affordability. But, it also enables so many of the services and amenities that make living without a car a pleasure. Not enough car shares in your neighbourhood? More people living without cars will probably push the needle in the right direction, the same is true for conveniently walkable restaurants and shops.
At the end of the day, sometimes discussions about incentives and behaviours need to be about more than just carrot and stick — but, rather about changing the dynamics and resources of our urban centres so that people can live differently!
The airport car rental argument is the strongest to me. Want to vacation in Hawaii? Even car-enthusiasts have no problem renting a car/getting taxies for that.
But renting a car/ridesharing/taxiing for around your own town as you need is the exact same reasoning, it just happens probably more often.
I don't want to ban cars, I just want less cars.
Cars are money pits. Where infrastructure exists to live car-free, I have personal experience that it can be more cost-effective even if you have to rent a car on the odd occasion that you need to make a longer journey that isn't possible by other means. The amount of money otherwise spent on insurance, fuel, maintenance, road taxes and depreciation goes a long way to covering the cost of car club membership and usage, the odd car hire, transport and taxi fares.