Category: Urbanity

We should have a system that would allow you to report a driver’s actions, based on license plate number. For normal citizens, it would be a submit-only operation, so you wouldn’t be able to see reports by other citizens (this is of course a privacy measure, and to limit malicious use and intent). But it would certainly be used as a factor in auto insurance rates, by law-enforcement, and perhaps even a review of who should actually be allowed to drive.

Of course a single infraction, or even multiple wouldn’t change anything, but it would make it easier to see if certain drivers are continually causing problems and provide a way to to something about the worst ones. Perhaps there is a threshold above an average number of infractions that would trigger some level of consequence.

It’s one of those systems that could be abused, and I’m sure a large portion of the population would be against it just because of the “big-brotherness” of it. But I think the idea is sound and quite necessary, we would just have to set the rules correctly to keep it from being abused, which doesn’t seem like an impossible task.

I don’t think any of us are as proud of our cities as we should be. Of course we all probably have some level of pride, especially in our city’s status on the national stage, such as our economic status or cultural influence. And sports teams are an obvious source of pride for many, but I feel as though there is opportunity for more that we could all be proud of.

It seems like pride in one’s city could potentially translate in people’s willingness to provide additional investment to their cities. If a city is widely recognized for its great parks, and those parks are a source of pride in that city, perhaps it follows that the citizens are then more likely to invest in those parks, and new parks.

If there is any truth to that, perhaps there are ways to make people more proud of those things that make a city great, which could spur a feedback loop of investment and pride in things that matter.

Cars parked along streets are so ubiquitous, that we don’t even question it. But oftentimes when out running, I sometimes imagine what things would look like if they weren’t there. Perhaps that space gets devoted to small parks, running paths, or patio spaces for businesses. Perhaps we just have smaller streets, which would allow for more density. Of course there are economic reasons and practicality issues with this little thought experiment, but what an incredible cityscape we could have if we could figure that one out (publicly funded parking garages).

I think a lot of urbanites probably assume that more density is usually better, but I have a feeling that there is an optimal amount density. That optimal density level would balance walkability, housing prices, environmental benefits, and similar factors, but balances with the negative affects of density, like the feelings of crowdedness and noise, access to nature, views, and access to sunlight. Of course, this ignores styles of density, where perhaps you can skew the results one way or another depending on the style of development — you may be able to have more nature sprinkled throughout a “towers in the park” style of development, but that may affect access to sunlight and obstruct views, so perhaps an optimal density would still apply.

As I was running through downtown San Diego yesterday, I found that I was very appreciative of the minor streets that allowed me to keep running and not require me to stop and wait for a light to change. I could have longer sections of running, which helps me get in a better workout, and is just more enjoyable. For both cyclists and every-day pedestrians, those nice long stretches without having to wait for a traffic light are just as beneficial.

This idea could be taken further. In a city-from-scratch scenario, it could be a great arrangement for creating a more walkable, transit-oriented city. We could have longer, more arterial streets running in one direction, with streets on the perpendicular axis treated in a lighter fashion. They could be smaller and spread further apart, perhaps even having significant distances between actual streets on the minor axis. Pedestrian-only walkways could be provided along that minor axis to maintain accessibility throughout the neighborhood.

In existing cities, some streets could be narrowed to single lanes or when population density could support it, converted to pedestrian-only plazas. Updating several streets in succession could create long stretches of great, pedestrian strolling zones, along with benefits to cyclists and runners.

Many low-traffic neighborhood streets are remarkably wide—far wider than necessary given their usage. On the scale of a single street, it already feels like a misallocation of space. Multiplied across an entire city, the inefficiency becomes striking.

These broad expanses of asphalt are often encountered on a run, where every step pounds against the hard concrete. Dirt paths surrounded by trees and plants offer a much more welcoming and joint-friendly alternative. And it’s easy to imagine a better use for all that space. With modest changes, wide streets could be narrowed, and the reclaimed land transformed into linear parks—spaces for picnics, benches for rest, and soft, shaded trails for walking or running. Community gardens could dot the landscape, and the new green corridors could serve as natural gathering spaces for neighbors.

Beyond recreation and aesthetics, there are environmental and infrastructural benefits to this kind of reimagining. Parks and greenspaces can aid in flood control during heavy rains, help sequester carbon, and provide some mitigation of the urban heat island effect—small but meaningful improvements in a warming world.

There is no single blueprint for redesigning streets, but several options stand out. In many cases, converting the center portion of the street into parkland would be ideal. This approach avoids conflicts with driveways and provides a continuous, uninterrupted greenspace. On longer blocks, a consistent paving pattern at intersections could visually reinforce the idea of one extended park, rather than a series of disconnected segments.

Some neighborhoods already feature medians running down the center of the street. These are often underutilized, little more than strips of grass or concrete. These spaces present a perfect opportunity to pilot new designs—enhancing what already exists, rather than starting from scratch.

Rethinking the purpose and layout of wide streets offers cities a chance to reclaim valuable land for public use. By weaving greenspace into the fabric of residential neighborhoods, communities become more livable, more beautiful, and more resilient. What once was wasted pavement could become the connective tissue of a greener, healthier city.

When a new apartment building went up in the neighborhood, it didn’t take long for the complaints to start. At the center of the backlash: the building was approved with no parking included.

There are plenty of good reasons to remove parking requirements — especially in a city like San Diego, where housing costs have skyrocketed since the pandemic. Making it easier for developers to build new housing should be a priority. By eliminating parking requirements, developers can maximize the use of limited space, lower construction costs, and ultimately create more affordable housing units. This flexibility allows for faster development and a better allocation of resources, helping to address the city’s housing shortage more effectively.

But at the same time, the concerns are understandable.

People have cars. And while we should be working to reduce car dependency and increasing housing supply, the reality is that people do, and will continue to, own personal vehicles for the foreseeable future.

Publicly funding parking garages could offer a practical solution. There are several reasons to consider this approach:

• Bridge the Gap Between Urbanists and Residents.
  Removing the requirement for parking in new buildings deepens the divide between
  neighborhood citizens and those advocating for denser, more walkable cities. In many cases, it seems to be creating more people opposed to responsible city development—people who might otherwise support new housing.
• Reclaim Street Space for Better Uses
  We could reallocate space that’s currently used for parking. Instead of strips of parking along the sides of streets, we could have small parks, walking paths, and restaurant patios. All of this becomes more possible with more parking garages.
• Treat Parking as (Responsible) Infrastructure
  We have always invested in city utilities that make if possible to provide housing to citizens. Funding parking garages just does it more responsibly. Instead of using tax-payer money to build more freeways, roads, and streets, which just makes for more sprawl, let’s instead invest that money in garages, where the result would be higher density and walkable neighborhoods.
• Incentivize Better Land Use in Suburban Areas
  In lower-density neighborhoods and commercial zones, public garages could be a tool to encourage the conversion of surface parking lots—like those around big-box stores—into housing, green space, or other community assets.

---

The chorus of urbanists is likely to argue that parking garages are unattractive. While that may be true in some cases, they don’t have to be. With thoughtful design, parking garages can seamlessly blend into the urban landscape, incorporate ground-floor retail, or even be hidden behind other uses, such as housing or office spaces.

If we want to build more housing, reduce sprawl, and create cities that work for everyone, we need to meet people where they are. Publicly funding parking garages might not be the perfect solution, but it could be a practical one. Especially if it helps make housing more abundant, our neighborhoods more livable, and our streets more human-centered.