this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
93 points (83.0% liked)
Technology
60082 readers
3158 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is apartments without garages or without parking lots. See San Francisco, New York, etc.
As electric car ownership increases, apartments will be incentivized to install ways to charge them. Just like electric cars it'll start with high end apartments and trickle down. This may also incentivize apartment owners to install solar on their buildings to charge battery banks to save money on electricity.
Problem is that these places often don’t have available street parking in front of the building. It’s a public street, and someone that lives in different building often grabs the open spot. And in addition to that, buildings almost always have more cars than spots in front of them.
Sure, the building owner could put chargers in front of their property, but in a place like SF, the residents will rarely get access to them.
Charging infrastructure needs to be lead by the city, state, or federal government. Putting it on landlords won’t do anything.
Also, landlords in these places already barely maintain their units. Many of them wouldn’t even maintain the HVAC until laws forced them to. And even now, many drag their feet.
My understanding is that most people like that in those cities don't have cars because mass transit there is actually quite good, and keeping a car is excessively expensive for something they'll rarely need
Things work differently in the US lol
I mean, I was specifically referring to those two cities in the US because the comment I was responding to was mentioning them
I think it's mostly true in New York, but that's the only city where I've heard that.
Unfortunately all too many still do. I’ve known people in NYC who have cars, even if they rarely need them. When I lived in Boston, I needed a car despite using transit for all daily trips: some weeks I only used the car to move it for street cleaning
A lot of people in those cities don’t have cars, but a lot do. Especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, which has worse public transportation than NY.
Speaking as someone born and raised in SF, a shit load of apartment dwellers have cars. There are so many cars that you often can’t find a parking space near your building in the residential parts of town. Honestly, the main reason people get rid of their car is because the city has hit peak car capacity. You have to spend 30-60m looking for a spot in the vicinity of home.
Fair enough. One of the downsides of high rise buildings.
Depends on the city. That’s not true for SF.
The parts of town with high rises are WAY easier to park in. They all have parking garages connected to the building. It’s places like the Haight and the Mission that are terrible - mostly residential neighborhoods with 2 story single family homes. Maybe a few 3 story apartment buildings.
Many were converted into apartments and may have even had garages converted into a living space. So now you have neighborhoods with homes that were originally designed to hold 1 or 2 cars, but now they have 3 or more cars - and they may not even have a garage anymore.