Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
Journey to work is only 18% of auto trips. And most development is done by people who want to actually sell or lease the units, not make a statement. If you want to sell to the upper half of the market—as you'll have to with these kinds of renovation costs—you give some of them a place to store the car.
I live in a 250-unit highrise built in 1980 with no parking at all because of the great location and transit. It was a noble experiment, but I don't think anyone would make that same decision today.
Perhaps but many of those non-work trips could quite easily be handled via transit; not all but many. Since those non-commute trips tend to be under 2 miles. And looking around at many Americans in general and Chicagoans in particular they could use the walk
In census tract 8330 there were 1630 workers: 349 (21% used transit) , 308 walked (19%) , 83 (5%) car pooled , 693 (42.5%) drove alone, 131 ( 8%) biked or other, balance worked at home.
In census tract 8331 4268 total workers: 1128 (26.5%) used transit, 486 (11.4%) walked, 315 (7.4%) car pooled, 1841 ( 43.6 %) drove alone, 216 (5%) biked, balance worked at home.
Granted the numbers for property owners may be different than the general population but I could not find those numbers. In both census tracts more people traveled not by car than by car let alone their own car.
There are plenty of census tracks in this city where transit modal share is greater than 50%. There are plenty of owners and renters in this town who do not own a car and who travel by transit.
I am not denying that it is likely that most people looking to by / rent would view accessory parking as an asset. I am just trying to suggest that sans regulatory interference it would not be necessary to include it in every development as you have on more than this occasion seemed to intimate it should be.