> And all of which is directly related to one of the most constant complaints > from people who live in Spruce Hill -- there's no place to park.
the key to solving parking problems does not lie in decreased density. the problem stems from a far more affluent population moving into the neighborhood who can afford a car, or sometimes two of them. spruce hill was not designed to be auto-centric. it's not called a "streetcar suburb" for nothing. car ownership is endemic in america; owning an automobile is seen as a necessity for those who can afford it, even in a city neighborhood like spruce hill. utilizing our neighborhood's excellent public transport facilities (or -- gasp -- riding a bicycle!) saves one a lot of worry over parking. it is also the only real solution to the parking problem. before pointing fingers and finding a scapegoat for their own selfishness, all car owners should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if driving a car in the city is truly necessary. i wish everyone who continually complains about a lack of parking in university city put even 1% of that effort into campaigning for increased transit service instead. mark p.s. does anyone else see the fallacy in endlessly quibbling over minute architectural details with all of these decidedly non-historic hunks of steel and rubber lining the street? ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
