On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Met History wrote:
> Following the continuing discussion of cell towers on this list, it's
> interesting how we (including me) can cringe at the thought of a cell tower*
> in a historic district, but also ignore the free storage of miles and miles
> of rusty scrap metal on the same streets - I refer, of course, to the
> privilege of overnight street parking. In New York, the permanent dedication
> of 50% of the roadway to car storage was anathema to the city fatherpersons
> for more than a century, but finally snuck in in 1950 (another thing to blame
> on the 1950's!).
>
> Auto traffic is bad enough, but the effect of permanent car storage on the
> streetscape is awful. Just to show you all I'm not a nut, I attach an
> article which ran in The New York Times on this very subject a few years ago.
NYC without parked cars would be more attractive, granted. And maybe in
NYC, a street parking ban would actually reduce the number of cars being
stored in a given neighborhood. Even so, there would probably have to be
massive destruction of historic resources to build all the extra garages.
Outside of NYC, however, the chance of parking regs having much impact on
car owning and storing behavior is nil. In those cities which were not
originally built to accomodate the automobile, the realistic choices are
between (a) allowing wanton overnight parking, or (b) paving spaces that
used to be trees, yards, and historic buildings to make them surface lots.
Whether this is done directly by municipal intervention, indirectly
through regulation, or just happens for practical reasons, it happens.
Much as all those cars parked on the street are ugly, allowing on-street
parking is pro-preservation in effect and perhaps even in intent. Cities
which have successfully or accidentally preserved much of the fabric of
their older urban neighborhoods are (in my experience) the same ones which
allow on-street parking.
---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
|
