...and a walking city, and a transit city? The bike paths of Amsterdam and Copenhagen get a lot of praise for their role in making biking in the city so easy, and of course, that is entirely true. But do people bike because they want to? Do they bike because its the best thing ever? (Of course, it is the best thing ever!) Is owning a car so much less convenient than say in North America? So much less convenient that the bike becomes the defacto choice, or walking or transit for that matter.
We have parking standards that are tied to every new development. We dare not stray from them for fear that the development will become uninhabitable and not sell (I know there are a few examples that break from the norm). Will see parking spill over onto the street, and if it did, wouldn't that be a terrible thing! Cars parked at the side of the road! Arrggghhh! I see many complaints, ok, mostly twitter rants, about the storage of private automobiles on public space, and that is somewhat fair where on-site parking is provided. But if people are parking on street because of limited parking on site parking, is it a necessary evil?
In all those cities that were established before the automobile, say like the image above of Barcelona, this part was planned out in the mid 1800's I believe, parking wasn't a thing, mid-rise apartment buildings were built with no regard for car parking. Yet somehow people still manage to live there today. But i'll bet they're less interested in owning a car than the average North American. I'll be that transit is better there because people are more reliant on it. Sure some people still own cars, but the important thing is, its not easy for every household to own and park a car conveniently close to their building, never mind two cars.
If we want to create European style cities... sure bike paths are a must, as is good transit, and good pedestrian environments, but really we have to create cities that don't facilitate car ownership like its an automatic requirement.
