This isn't an issue of privilege, but of necessity. We all know that there are too many cars on the road as it stands today. As the city densifies, it will only get worse - unless, that is, we restrict the number of parking spaces. Farcically, the current bylaws actually stipulate that a lot of parking *must* be built.
I get that some of you love your cars or identify with the Fordian mentality that car owners are somehow disadvantaged. Also, because the GTA is car dependent, a lot of people do need a car. However, the simple fact is that we aren't making any more roads, so something has to give.
Carsharing and other approaches are attempting to bridge the divide and allow for density and car accessibility. But simply allowing more parking everywhere downtown is not a long term solution.
So, what's the alternative solution? That is, other than angrily blaming "downtown elites" who eat gluten free food?
Must a sustainably growing city preclude car ownership for so many people?
I would agree with you that fewer active cars must be on the road, with public transit being *the* option for the majority of commuters; though, instead of eliminating parking space and refusing to allow a portion of the market to participate in owning and driving their own vehicles, I think that a dense and sustainable city is able to and should be allowed to stabilize traffic congestion and create an ideal flow for economic goods through costing the activity
of car usage.
To prevent lost economic productivity due to traffic congestion: there should be a price to pay for not participating in traffic security -- aka: public transit. Intelligently, there may be a spectrum of pay ratios, allowing car owners a variety in the frequency of their car usage.
Drivers must pay, and virtually everyone must use public transit at least some of the time. A majority will use regularly, while a minority of people will almost always be using their cars.
The appropriate public revenues may be generated from persons wishing to exclusively use their cars.
I'm pro car ownership, but I also acknowledge the capacity limits of our roads and that "more roads" is not the answer.
Car ownership contributes to the economy, the creation of jobs, a driver for innovation; while, with sprawl -- the more I read about its public costs through infrastructure maintenance, environmental degradation and the negative impacts to human health, the more anti-sprawl I become, the more frustrated I am to see centrally relocated land go undeveloped and underdeveloped while low-density, subsidized real estate sucks up most of the market in most of Canada's municipalities.
We cannot deal with debt at any government level until we deal with sprawl.
As far as 'The One' goes, which pertains to this thread, I would not be disappointed by the construction of parking spaces underground. All parking should be underground, or at least verticalized in garages or parkades.
Community space is not for parking; it is for infrastructure and natural habitat.