How Parking is Ruining American Cities [Documentary] 

That's because when they built cities cars were the new cool thing and everything was designed around them, European cities had the luck of being old and built in a time where there was no public or personal transportation so everyone had to walk everywhere, that why those cities are compact and everything you need is close. But even in Europe lots of cities after WW2 were bombed to the ground and they are rebuild like the USA did so those cities are congestion nightmares

@@dumyjobby while many American cities were built and designed with the car in mind. The United States and Canada actually destroyed many of its walkable mix used neighborhoods with freeway construction. They destroyed particularly communities of color, poor and immigrant communities. Tall Buildings were flattened for parking lots to abide by minimum parking regulations. Today you still see downtowns all over the US that are dead because prospective businesses can’t put up the capital to build the parking necessary to abide by the regulation. The free market (less building regulations) would have created a more diverse array of neighborhoods - more mix use, more dense, but our policies prevent that.

@@dumyjobby the introduction of mass produced automobiles is not the culprit for our cities being car centric but rather our car centric policies such as large lot single use zoning, parking requirements, massive Federal subsidies for highway construction.

@@Basta11 i think it was the new cool thing, everybody wanted that because they were seeing as the future, people back then did have the knowledge of what those policies would result, we now see what that led to and want something different.

Doesn't America have multi storey car parks (parking lots)? Better still, invest in better public transport and then discourage people from driving right into the city centre....by introducing a congestion charge. If you really want to drive right into the centre of a city, then you should pay to do so.

"Make cities bikeable" - yes, and walkable. Added to quality public transport, this is the winning formula for a viable city, *with mobility options*. Car-centric cities are cities without option: they force you to own and drive a car for about eveything.

Biking in 100 degree weather with humidity or in 40 degree weather is not gonna make people wanna bike.

@@baronvonjo1929 Of course but do you believe that all US cities have "100 degree weather with humidity or 40 degree weather" in all seasons?

​​@@baronvonjo1929ere in Europe we bike in some pretty nasty weather. And if the weather is too disastorous, you can always leave the bike at home and walk. Also, gloves are a thing.

You can have both. Where there's a will, there's a way. Just have to find a planner who sees everything not only bothering drivers who most rather drive than be forced to take public transit.

@@brooklynelite5428 No, car dependency will always hinder quality of life in a city. Cities are for people not cars. Your car brain is showing...

@jph2k23 Cities are for everything and everyone including cars that's been around since before before our parents parents were born and now taking away people's right to drive where ever and park where is mind boggling to me not everyone wants to ride a bike nor take a train or bus.

@@brooklynelite5428 A "right to drive" does not exist. Cars are a luxury and a tool, and yes they do have a place in our society, you are not wrong. However, cities originated due to proximity of other people and commerce. The proximity creates economies of scale. Cities are inherently human based and you can see this if you look cities founded pre-auto, like Madera, Venice, Paris, NYC, etc. Cars are too large and take up too much space, they also cause hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths a year, pollution, road rage, contribute to obesity, limit children, disabled, and elderly mobility, and worst of all necessitate ugly and depressing environments. I'm not saying you cannot drive. I need my car to pick up heavy things at the store too. But cars cannot continue to be the ONLY method of transit we have. Populations continue to grow and there simply is not enough space for every single person to quadruple their spacial footprint. We have to provide other daily options to not clog the roads, and then car usage will be enhanced, WHEN NECESSARY. If you still can't see why cities would benefit from this, you are being willfully ignorant or you are a very lazy person.

@@brooklynelite5428 City streets are supposed to be shared by everyone. Currently they’re hogged 98% by automobiles. It’s a massive waste of space and it isn’t fair. It’s time to leave the worst ideas of the 20th century behind.

LoL Houston laughs yeah try riding a bike for about 1:30 each way lol

Oh no, not A'dam, please! Give me a break ith A'dam! It's completely overrated and overblown. There are tons of more interesting cities and towns in the NL than A'dam.

@@luisvilla799 Why do people automatically assume that they're going to be forced to only use a bike when bike lanes are built? There will be trips that require a car, whether it be because of distance or cargo. No one is denying that. But the truth is, about 50% of car trips in the US are 3 miles or shorter. 3 miles that can be easily achieved by cycling or public transit if the proper infrastructure was built. Instead, people are jumping into their cars, causing an unnecessary amount of traffic. Simply because they have no choice. Most North American cities are built for the car, meaning any other form of transportation is inefficient or outright dangerous.

@@odach2034 I can’t speak for other states but I can tell you in Houston and Dallas you absolutely need a car

@@luisvilla799 Yes, that's the problem. Cities are built where you need a car for every trip. That's terrible planning. We need to build infrastructure that makes walking, biking, and public transport more viable. That way we wont need cars for trips under 3 miles.

Might have counted surface parking garages probably.

Yeah, parking is under the buildings in dc

he's referring to surface parking only

@@mistermood4164 Actually not, as he shows clips of multi level parking garages during the narration in the video.

I had commented on another video about the mass of parking lots, particularly around malls, big box stores, and office parks, and it's the huge prevalence of these that not only contribute to climate change but pollution of our water supply. If you actually look at usage patterns, most parking lots aren't even half occupied during the week, and office parking lots aren't occupied at all on weekends. I proposed that if they dug out half of the parking lots and converted it back to green space, they could reduce the effects climate change by lowering the temperature of the heat islands without even affecting the daily usage patterns of people parking there.

@@728huey bro just take any American city and remove JUST the massive parking lots and you already are so much closer to where you wanna be

You can if you buy a shuffle

If the Philly's downtown wants to improve, it'll need to reduce the amount of parking on the surface. There's nothing wrong with building underground parking spaces, and it makes the place simply... well decent. Nobody wants to live in a parking space, and those who do are the poorest, and often the criminals. It's also why most american cities are ugly by the way. You guys bombed your neighborhoods (rich or poor), to build parking lots. Philly is an older town than haussmanian Paris. Its downtown could have been as great if not more.

Then those residents will just have to find another place to go. There's no reason why people living downtown should have to suffer suburbanites' pollution (air and noise) and endless appetite for space just because those people want to live somewhere inconvenient.

It depends what is rural in the US. I live on the countryside in a town of 20,000. We have 7 supermarkets in town and 3 supermarkets that deliver at home. But only one delivers for free if you order more than €35 and you can choose out of different delivery times (this supermarket only exits online, it has no shops). The second delivers for €1.85 a time and only if you order more than €50 and you can choose out of a few delivery times (this supermarket has two shops in town). The third has a subscription form of delivery, you pay €10 a month and you can order as much or as little as you want and you can pick the delivery time yourself (this supermarket doesn’t have a shop in town, but in two neighboring towns).

I'm against EVs because it is only toys for the rich. EVs will be terrible used cats. My car is literally older than me at 24 years old. A EV battery and all that tech won't last that long. How do you propose to help people afford such a car. A EV is practically worthless after 10 years or whenever the battery goes out. Solar panels on the car is just another technology on the car that could break over time.

@@baronvonjo1929 I agree that EVs aren’t the cheapest cars on the market, but there are many affordable options. Add in the fuel savings and far lower maintenance costs really there aren’t many better long term vehicle purchases than a Tesla Model 3. You can get a cheaper new car, but it’ll cost you more in the long run. And it’s not that wildly expensive. They can be had new for under $40k and used under $30k. The batteries are expensive… they’re also far better than they used to be. There’s no reason to expect a Tesla LFP battery (which is in the Model 3 base model, the least expensive model they make) to degrade below a reasonable range in a decade. It could still be useable in 20 years! They really have improved greatly. The other thing is… automakers aren’t going to make new internal combustion engine (ICE) passenger vehicles in 10-15 years. That’s not conjecture, that is their stated plan! They’re phasing them out. Why? Lots of factors, the main one being that EVs have already rendered ICE vehicles obsolete. They’re quieter, faster, more responsive, easier to produce, safer, and WAY more energy efficient. Keep in mind that EVs are getting the equivalent of over 120 miles “per gallon” because electric motors are 300% (or more!) energy efficient. That’s why it’s only costing me $0.04 per mile in “fuel” now, I was paying $0.12 or more per mile before! That is a HUGE savings over time! Thousands of dollars a year! How can people afford EVs? They can’t afford NOT to drive them frankly! Anything else is literally a waste of money! I’m dead serious, the math doesn’t lie. So, it’s not a matter of if ICE will be wiped out by EVs but when. There are already predictions that ICE vehicles could fall to less than 50% of all new cars sold worldwide in less than 2 years. That doesn’t mean EVs will be over 50%, there are other options (hybrids. hydrogen, etc) but the days of most new cars being ICE are numbered. It’s not a very high number either. This is happening.

@@ConservatEV I agree with everything you say. But please don't pretend 30k or even 20k is affordable. Also you may be saving tons of money not using gas. But the initial costs alone will make such savings impossible to even start. Its very expensive being poor as you cant do things such as that. Doing a lump sum to save in the long run. The American car fleet is literally the oldest its ever been because new cars are just way to expensive. The younger generations will never be able to afford all this in large numbers. I also don't think EVs are sustainable at all. Public transportation is. But that has its own issues and will never happen in my life. I am not convinced we have enough materials in this world to build millions and millions of evs along with any other battery year after year for decades. Also supply and demand. If everyone has a ev charging then it won't be cheap to charge at all. And let's not forget all the millions of people who can't use evs because they don't have driveways. You can't have cables all over parking lots and sidewalks. And good luck convincing apartments to build charging ports. I don't actually hate EVs or anything. They just currently make absolutely no sense. No doubt it will get better.

@@ConservatEV I was rereading your comment and just want to say most of the world will still have ICE cars in the future and automakers will be making them for decades unless they plan on ending car sales for places around the world outside of developed nations. I bet many people will still have ICE cars even after new ICE bans happen until the law punishes poor people for not being able to afford new cars like places in Europe do when you try to enter a city with a old polluting car.

Australia and New Zealand are also bad (not as bad as the US), but that's the end of list.

Its not just America who does this. For all of history minor powers have emulated the nation they percieved as the most powerful/influential/important be it Rome, Charlemagne, France, Victorian England/ the British Empire, or the United States today. Today the US sits in that #1 spot of biggest economy, strongest military, widest cultural influence, ect. (If the world was a game of civ then the USA won all victory conditions in the 50s and 60s) All of that is just natural, lesser and regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Chile, ect are going to emulate the ways of larger powers like the US and China. The problem is that 1950s car infrastructure planning has since been revealed to be incredibly flawed amd problematic so its time for America to move on and set a new example that everyone owning a car isn't the ideal, rich people wanting to take the same train as poor people is.

​@VulcanForge we are nowhere near this bad. Auckland's downtown if anything might have too little parking. And the majority of dedicated parking in downtown is in multi level parks.

@@VhenRaTheRaptor Definitely not as bad as the US, no. But compared to France, Netherlands, Germany, and most of Asia, you're not as good.

Thank you!!!!

That’s not a ripoff, that’s capitalism. You don’t have to park there.

It's even in the thumbnail.

I appreciate it, fixed now!

@@shortcutdocumentaries nice!

You don't have to tear down suburbs to make them pedestrian friendly. Allowing homeowners and developers to build more dense lots with duplexes, fourplexes, and ADUs while also allowing certain amenities like grocers and cafes within the neighborhood would make them dramatically more pedestrian friendly while maintaining the positive aspects of suburbs.

Many of these spaces exist due to city regulations though, so even though the cities don't own the space, they do control them.

That what zoning laws are for, the city creates the rules and regulations to guide the market towards its desired goals. In the past they mandated parking via parking minimums, they could just as easily change it to parking maximums with "access minimums" so that a subway stop half a block away counts as 95% of the building's access capacity. (And realistically the only access that truly matters is emergency services, everything else is just economics for the building owner)

Obviously changing the rules wouldn’t make the parking lots disappear over night. But the next time a property gets sold, refurbished or redeveloped it can be done very differently then now. A Restaurant might turn a few parking spaces into outdoor seating, an old storefront could be filled by a business which currently would need more parking and finally some of the parking lots will be sold off and redeveloped, when they are obviously not needed and therefore only cost the owner money. It’s probably going to take at least 5-10 years until there is visible change, probably more in the range of 20 but I’ll happen, because it’s not in the interest of businesses to keep around space they only lose money on.

Often they do, but the issue is that there’s usually too much parking, in vegas a lot of new buildings are built with 5 of their 12 or so stories being parking, and a lot of it isn’t used. Most places just need less parking period.

I’ve just driven back from a medieval (actually Roman) city, Canterbury. It contains houses with gardens and few people live in apartments. It’s no more expensive than more rural/residential areas locally. Most homes in the city are owner occupied. So,all your points are moot.

Im sorry, but that just completely made up. Most car free European city centers had cars and parking lots in them at some point. Many cities were completely bombed out after WW2 and quite a few rebuilt in a car-friendly fashion. They aren’t all Venice or Rothenburg ob der Tauber. We built urban freeways, ripped out tram tracks, widened streets, turned plazas into parking lots and built car depended suburbs outside of the city. We just realized after a few decades this was a terrible idea and have been hard at work slowly reversing the damage for the last half century. If you honestly believe there aren’t people in Europe who love the convenience of cars and will protest every single car space „lost“ you’re living in a fantasy world. Quite a few of our „historic“ building have been rebuild in the 20th Century. Living in city center is a bit pricey, but making it a worse place to live to lower rents isn’t exactly a good solution. North Americans instead bulldozed their cities themselves and now claim they have been always been that way and can’t be changed.

@@eechauch5522 If you see car ownership per capita, most Europan countries are not so far from USA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita A few cities in Europe are very walkable and nice to live, but these are utopic places made by huge government intervention and only rich people live there, and tourists. Most natives have been displaced to perifery.

The more other people use cars, the worse your car gets. A lone person with a car is a transportation god, but a whole populace using cars to get to buildings separated by parking lots aren't any more relatively mobile than they'd be in a car-free medieval city. If everyone uses cars, the grocery store that would have been a 5-10 minute walk away is going to be a 5-10 minute drive away instead. I lived in car-dependent suburbia for decades and I'll never ever go back to needing a car to do literally every single thing outside my home.

@@HessianHunter I understand this, but there is also the business space is also a tradeoff. Smaller close stores may be small but don't have the diversity of big stores. People don't want to make 8 stops if they just can drive to walmart and buy all they need for the week. I'm not saying your model is bad, I'm just saying that the car centric model won because how easy it is.

excessive parking we have is often gov't mandated. driving IS pretty ruinous, but it's not the drivers' fault we have these massive asphalt wastelands

Cant blame the drivers. They literally have no choice. Its either use a car, or use another form of transportation that's inefficient or dangerous.

it's the gas huffer's fault for not fighting back against international oil when the USA hit peak oil in the 70's. it's the drivers fault for not fighting back against their filthy habits back in the 80's when it became painfully obvious they were killing the planet. it's the men and woman behind the wheel's fault for waging war for oil in the 90's. it's the speed addicts fault for allowing their favorite pusher to attack the the USA on 9/11/2001 with no consequence. It's the "drive until you can buy" crowd's fault for the 2008 financial crisis. it's the motorheads fault for driving up the death rate on the road during "work from home" pandemic by driving even ^more^ recklessly. And today it is ^your^ fault for saying such stupid things "it's not the drivers' fault" fifty years of Petrodollar recycling.

@@odach2034 they have had 50 years to wake up and smell the petro. it can't possibly kill more brain cells.

Which cities have too little parking? Typically, cities with lower percentages of parking (but they all have parking) have higher economic output and human development. When I was in DC sometimes I had to spend a little time hunting for parking, but it was never impossible to find. Meanwhile in Dallas there's parking everywhere you look, but very few mom and pop shops, and very few people on the streets, and much higher rates of obesity.

Suburbs are worse, everything is owned by large corporations, your car can be taken from you if you miss paying installments, even your house can be repossessed by HOAs if they want to do so.

well to each his own I guess. You're free to not live in a big city if you wish, but you could never pay me enough to live in the suburbs

We don’t own less than suburbanites do. They own their homes, I own mine. They’re disabled and need a $50,000 five-ton wheelchair whereas I can walk everywhere in ten minutes and spend my extra money on vacations. Rural homesteaders own something that I don’t, namely productive land and animals. Good for them.

@Ian Homer Pura your house can't be taken by an HOA unless you live in a hellscape like the north east. Here in Florida I have never paid my dues and they still pay for my internet and I still use the water park built into the development.

@@partiellementecreme what American city are you in that is walkable?

You’re the one watching them all. Make a choice in life. It is that simple.

Don't watch it then?

Tap “not interested” and teach your algorithm to stop suggesting them. Don’t watch on them and much less comment on them or you’ll make it worse.

So don't watch.