Let's build houses for people, not cars - <AUTHOR> https://noparkinghere.com <comment><USER3> I hold no love for parking minimums, and would love to see them abolished, but proposals like "we should turn 10% of all current parking spaces into low- income housing" just make me roll eyes.

That's not an actionable proposal, the closest that gets to an actionable proposal is to demolish existing parking structures and either put public housing projects on top of them or incentivize real estate developers to build actual low-income housing.

Telling real estate developers to build low-income housing in areas where they could easily build high-income housing is, well, let's just say cities promise this all the time and developers never do it.

"Build more housing" is probably the answer to the homeless problem, but the ownership issue needs to be fixed first. The author made all these cute graphics of studio apartments superimposed on parking spaces. Cool, I like density, my condo is 650 sqft, like 3 or 4 spaces without egress.

Are we talking about literally taking parking from existing owners and building housing on the bare pads? Are we talking about building vertically on top of them and leaving the space underneath for cars? I'm not saying these are bad ideas. But can we fully bake them first? So a politician can actually hand it to a bunch of legislators and come up with something he can actually put on his platform?

Sure let's abolish the minimum. But that won't do a darned thing to help congestion and the housing shortage other than make LA more like Atlanta where there's an island of density around a bunch of ugly sprawl with more dense pockets springing up in the periphery. We're still waiting for market conditions to fix the city. And market forces don't care about what we want. Promising low-income housing in desirable real estate markets doesn't work but is the only thing politicians can put on their platforms that people will vote for.

<comment><USER4> "we should turn 10% of all current parking spaces into low-income housing" wasn't a proposal on the site. It was more of a demonstration that, if we could do that, we would satisfy the entire deficit of low-income renters that currently exists in LA. The actual policy proposals were at the end:

1\. No universal parking minimums. Developers choose how much parking the market requires.

2\. Parking Maximums in Transit Oriented Communities.

3\. All new parking garages must be built with a flat floor and a high enough ceiling to allow future conversion into office, studio, or living space.

4\. 20% of parking spaces must include EV charging, with the rest install ready.

5\. Garages must include an equivalent number of bicycle/micro-mobility parking spaces.

I would say suggestions 2-5 get progressively worse, but suggestion 1 is really good and backed up by the data presented.

<comment><USER5> Suggestion 1 is terrible unless it's combined with a limited permit scheme for street parking. Otherwise you end up with a mess where everyone buys a car anyway, then ends up circling the block around and around hunting for a space.

<comment><USER6> Eventually people learn to not do that anymore, like many do in downtown areas today... Eventually they might reduce the amount of cars they have, because doing that is a pain in the ass. Or they pay for their parking spot vs. freeloading on 'free' parking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Zurich had this problem, the city was built before cars were a thing and thus it is inept of handling much traffic. The authorities decided to disincentivize driving cars by blocking roads and reducing available parking spaces [0] while offering good public transport. Worked well, now only 17% commute by car.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zürich_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zürich_model)

<comment><USER8> That's well and good, but the sticking point is "the city was built before cars were a thing." The US is already heavy with sprawl and it's a reality that we have to live with. I'm not sure how to put that cat back in the bag.

<comment><USER9> Block roads and build better public transport.

Just because it's difficult and will require some pain in the short term, it doesn't mean we should do - and therefore _improve_ \- nothing.

<comment><USER10> But public transport is simply not as good for now; ramming it down people's throats is not a solution. It is crowded, unclean, slow, and noisy. I have to listen to some one else blaring his music, or some fat guy taking two seats. Or some smelly guy who can't be bothered to shower. I suddenly have to plan my schedule around my transportation, rather than my transportation around my schedule. Maybe we should focus on making it a _better option_.

Also, why would you block existing roads? That's a ridiculous proposition. There's a difference between building something better and just forcing every one onto something worse. The market is stronger and smarter than any government, and will try as hard as it can to circumvent any thing you pass. Why not have the invisible hand do your work for you? Make it a better option, and people will use it.

<comment><USER11> > Maybe we should focus on making it a better option.

I think everybody agrees with this until it comes time to talk taxes and then everyone with a car says they're happy with their commutes and they don't want to pay for somebody else to take a train, don't want a whole lane for a bus, and so on. So instead you get some meaningless token effort and everybody goes on driving

Making driving "worse" (or at least refusing to invest to make it better) gives transit a competitive advantage. Optimizing for personal cars gives cars a competitive advantage, which is the story of the 20th century

> Also, why would you block existing roads? That's a ridiculous proposition.

It's not even remotely controversial when I've seen it done, like downtown streets in Boston made pedestrian only. The vast majority of people (who are on foot) love it.

<comment><USER12> Why can't the people that want transit be the ones that pay for it? If public transit were in high demand, it would seem like it shouldn't be charging a subsidized fare.

Making driving worse does give transit a competitive advantage. However, if transit were so desirable, why would it need to win by simply making everything suck more? That's not a very strong vote for transit. Transit should win because it's better, not because we have made all the other options suck more. I suppose we could have snipers shooting at freeway cars if we wanted to increase subway ridership right? However, that doesn't make the subway intrinsically better. It just means you have a lot more people unhappy.

I don't understand why people are willing to make the largest number of people unhappy in order to achieve some transit utopian fantasy. The whole debate sounds like Marxism: let's make everyone's life suck equally. We don't actually want anyone to enjoy their car because then they wouldn't want to take our shitty bus. If your bus wasn't so shitty (I am in the Bay Area, so I mean that both literally and figuratively,) then maybe people might want to ride your bus. My company has some private bus shuttles that are spectacular. When possible, I prefer to ride those shuttles despite having a great car and an easy drive. But riding the city bus? Heck no! I would need a hepatitis booster shot as well as having to ride in dirty, uncomfortable surroundings with crazy people. Not to mention waiting at a bus stop with those same sorts of people — and stopping every two blocks for someone to get on or off.

<comment><USER11> Yeah I don't know what to tell you guy, where I live public transit is full of average people who work average jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Parking minimums are a big problem. But, it's just a part of a much bigger problem: Regulation is strangling the life out of us. Regulation like zoning and countless other regs prevents market forces from working the way they should.

Have you ever heard of a banana shortage crisis or a jeans shortage crisis in the US? No you haven't. The reason is because market forces are able to adjust to changes in market demand. In housing, those market forces are bottled up and stifled, preventing investments, preventing innovation, preventing progress, preventing better solutions. We really really need to start looking at regulations and find ways to get rid of the ones causing all these problems.

ADDED: We've seen very little actual VC money or Research and development go into improving the cost of creating Shelter (In fact, we haven't made any improvements in this in the last 50 to 100 years adjusted for inflation). Much of this is due to regulations. Other industries can find ways to reduce cost but the mountain of housing regulations prevent any and all progress in these areas. I'd argue Housing is one of the most critical areas that human should be trying to progress in, as it's most important for human survival.

<comment><USER14> Because in the absence of regulation, companies will be driven by the market to do the "right" thing? This is not a problem in which the solution is likely to be highly profitable (or even profitable at all) so I'm not sure why you suggest that a free and unregulated market would lead to an improvement in this scenario.

You mention zoning laws in particular. Those were designed for specific reasons so what about them would you change? Surely you aren't suggesting just to get rid of them all?

<comment><USER15> Nothing like buying a house and having a bus depot opened on the lot next door a year later. #freemarket

<comment><USER13> nothing like never being able to afford a house ever at all. And when you finally are able too, with a humungous mortgage and insane property taxes (due to the high price you paid for it).

No-zoning means housing is much much cheaper, we're talking 100K - <USER2> difference or more. With all the money you saved, you'd be able to buy another house far away from that bus depot.

<comment><USER16> > With all the money you saved, you'd be able to buy another house far away > from that bus depot.

> ... and have another bus depot opened on that lot next door a year later.

and so on.

<comment><USER17> Is this so common a thing, new bus depots? From "depot" rather than "station" I'm envisioning Greyhound buses. I was under the impression that long-distance bus ridership was stable if not declining...

Besides which, does anyone really deserve to live a certain minimum distance from transportation options? Why would anyone dislike her neighbors that much?

<comment><USER15> Trees, meet forest. Bus depot, power station, factory, Amazon warehouse, sewage treatment plant. They are interchangeable in the sense that you don't necessarily want to live directly next to one, which is why to an extent zoning exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is all fine and good, but IMHO LA metro map says it all [1]. 6 lines. What a joke. This mega city should have light or heavy rail metro pretty much everywhere. It's even better if there are parking lots in abundance. Park & Ride can be put into place more easily. So, it's obviously a political choice and I am not sure more regulation on parking will have any significant impact on this.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Metro_Rail)

<comment><USER19> I'm from Germany and visited LA last month. I was riding the rail because we usually use public transportation when visiting other countries. We wanted to visit the walk of fame and it was a much nicer experience than hassling through the traffic in LA. The traffic is borderline insane. The diamond lane was almost empty because apparently everyone is driving in their own car. My wife and I were under the impression that only people who can't afford a car were driving the rail, but we don't know if that's true or not. The rail (and bus) was certainly a much saner choice than the car. I've never seen such a large city with such an underused public transportation. Meanwhile, you have 5 or 6 lanes running through the city, which makes the rail stops unbearably loud.

<comment><USER20> I recently visited Berlin Germany and was impressed by how literally everyone uses bicycles there.

<comment><USER21> I once visited Berlin, and the tourist guide (I mean the book, not a person) also talked about how many bicycles there were. Thing is, I didn't think the number of bicycles was all that much different from what I was used to where I live (Antwerp, Belgium) or from visiting other European cities.

Wait till you see Amsterdam or Kopenhagen!

<comment><USER22> Or Utrecht, for that matter.

In those cities riding the bike actually viable because there are bike lanes or closed down streets just for walking or bikes. It seems to be a cultural thing, most US cities are not that bike friendly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ugh. Has this author ever visited LA? The entire city / culture is built around using a car to get to places. This article does nothing to address that, other than a few whimpy shoutouts to build more "convenient" public transit. Apparently we can get rid of all parking in Hollywood because a single red line runs through it.

In order for a public transit system to be convenient you need a LOT of density. You also need speed. The two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. That's why a lot of people prefer cars. No one likes traffic or emissions, and cars are way more likely to kill you, but damn are cars convenient even in urban environments.

Any plan like this can have all these numbers talking about how much space could be freed up but they need to address this fundamental problem, and this article failed to.

Now what interesting is the rise of self driving cars. I've often see paid parking lots and think within 20-30 years they will be out of biz. A few large operators will emerge and park their cars overnight at some owned large lot far out of the city to recharge, maintain, etc, and there won't be much need anymore. So that could be a path to what author is talking about, long term. Of course does nothing for parking lot owners who just hold onto the property speculating...

<comment><USER24> It's always amazed me that humans - even those without much 'high tech' \- can adapt to environments as diverse as the arctic, Kalahari desert, or jungles of Borneo, but god forbid the government stop mandating the precise number of parking spots places need, because no one would be able to adapt.

<comment><USER25> Ok, go live in the arctic without any electricity since it's so easy then. Just because we can live in worse conditions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvement, and as may come as a surprise to some people, most people like having parking available and find cars convenient.

<comment><USER24> I'd find it convenient to have no one else on the roads when I drive on them.

But what's convenient and a good idea in economic terms are often different things.

Just because the government stops mandating parking doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means that it's no longer exempt from market calculations. Some developers will surely keep adding parking, because there's a demand for it. Others may not. They should be free to do so.

<comment><USER25> It's a tragedy of the commons issue which is where these kinds of laws come in.

I've yet to see any alternative to cars proposed that I personally find acceptable, but some people do want to live that way for some reason. New areas of the city being made without parking for those people would be fine if there really is a demand for it but I wouldn't like moving somewhere and it later becoming car-hostile.

<comment><USER24> You should visit a mid-size town in Europe sometime.

Where my family and I lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a "right tool for the job" situation:

* We could walk to a grocery store, our kids schools, the doctor, a few cafe's, a barber, and a takeout pizza place.

* We could also walk to a tram that would whisk us downtown, which was way more convenient than driving and looking for a parking spot.

* We could ride our bikes downtown if the weather was nice, which was good for date nights when we wanted to be more mobile than the tram allowed for, and we didn't have the kids.

* We could drive (1 car for a family of 4) if we wanted to, say, go hiking somewhere out in the woods, or take a trip somewhere. There were weeks when the car would just sit there, though, because we just didn't need it.

Walking and biking are much nicer ways of getting around when stuff is convenient to those modes of transportation. Less stressful, and it feels good to move around. It's also _far_ better for the environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If I understand your argument, higher density, less space for parking, better public transportation should help solve the lack of affordable housing. So why are Manhattan, SF, London, Hong Kong among the most expensive places in the world to live? Why is downtown <your city here> more expensive than the suburbs?

<comment><USER27> Your question is a little like asking "If chemotherapy cures cancer, then how come most people I know who have undergone chemotherapy tend to have cancer?" If the cities you mentioned hadn't undertaken some pro-density measures they would be even _more_ unaffordable.

BTW if I sound like I'm anti-density because of the "cancer" metaphor, I'm not; sprawl is bad for the planet among other things, and well-planned walkable dense cities are the best way for a burgeoning human population to live in harmony with the planet and with ourselves.

<comment><USER26> No, its not like that. Dense, walkable cities create demand, chemotherapy doesn't create cancer. If LA were to create an ultra-dense core tomorrow, more people and companies would relocate there, bringing rents right back to the level they are now, probably higher. The only people losing out would be existing low-income people who got displaced.

NYC concrete jungle = "live in harmony with the planet"? Lol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This nonsense gets repeated over and over again:

 _What you get is what you build. New roads just create more incentive for driving. It 's been well documented over and over again that vehicle miles driven increases proportionally to roadway created. Lewis Mumford famously said "Building more roads to prevent congestion is like a fat man loosening his belt to prevent obesity."_

It's not the roads that cause traffic, it's the convenience of driving. To show how absurd the argument is, let's use it for housing - I'm sure it can be easily "documented" that building housing leads to higher population figures. So it must be bad, let's not do it!

<comment><USER29> > It's not the roads that cause traffic, it's the convenience of driving.

Exactly. Roads make driving more convenient.

Build trains and that makes taking the train more convenient so you get more of that.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

<comment><USER30> Trains don't solve the last mile problem in metropolitan areas. It's just not economically feasible to constantly run trains or buses that cover a metropolitan area with less than 1 mile spreads and acceptable intervals.

I'm being generous that 'walk a mile' at source and destination would pass muster for people with difficulties.

Making our infrastructure for cars better seems like a much better solution honestly.

<comment><USER31> Taxis, shuttles, rideshare are a thing.

<comment><USER30> Right, but the point is that all the solutions to the last mile problem are... cars. Which is fine but if you're going to do that then what's the advantage of not using it the whole way? The throughput of highways is great, there's no schedule to follow, you don't have congestion and surge pricing at popular stops with hundreds of people trying to hail a cab at rush hour, and if you're price conscious gas is cheap and you can find perfectly usable cars for less than $1k.

And you can use your car for more than just your daily commute.

<comment><USER31> Parking is the main difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Moving from car centered sprawl, to dense transit oriented city isn't something that can be done in one step. It's immensely complex, and changing the direction of cities/governments is difficult even when everyone involved _wants_ to change.

I'm reminded of whiteboard discussions where someone says we are 'here X' and we want to be 'there Y' and simply draws an arrow between the two and says 'get started'. Assuming that all the important decisions have been made. Not realizing that the all complexity is in the arrow.

That arrow going from car focused to transit focused cities needs to be broken down into individual steps and those steps is where we need the brainpower going.

<comment><USER33> This is what runs through my mind everytime one of these articles shows up on HN.

There is no easy way to undo decades of urban sprawl across the US, especially when many cities have huge amounts of space around them to make this possible.

Also, one of those steps is probably sinking incredible amounts of money into initially barely used public transit which is bound to be politically unpopular.

<comment><USER34> Eliminate or reduce mandatory parking minimums. It's pretty clearly implied from the article given that's basically what's talked about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "The City of Los Angeles has the highest number of Lane miles per 1,000 persons in the US. "

Woah stop right there. That's the opposite of reality. Of the metro areas in the contiguous US, LA is in fact _last_ in miles per resident: [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/h...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/hm72.cfm)

(The absolute least is Honolulu)

<comment><USER36> Maybe they are talking about the city specifically while other is speaking to the overall metro area?

<comment><USER35> Ok I guess they're citing table 2 from this? [https://escholarship.org/content/qt485983zw/qt485983zw.pdf](https://escholarship.org/content/qt485983zw/qt485983zw.pdf)

Which:

\- Uses data from 2000

\- Only looks at LA proper (not really meaningful)

\- Still doesn't support their claim. Miami, Detroit, Dallas, Tampa Bay, St Louis all have higher lanes/person

I'm guessing they thought it showed LA being highest because it's first in the table and didn't realize what column it was sorted by.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I really enjoyed this video using Cities: Skylines to describe the problem with parking minimums:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM- fZk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk)

<comment><USER38> That's a great video showing what planners are thinking!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Quoting the description from the Twitter meta tag on the site:

> Los Angeles has the space to solve it's housing and transportation problems, > it just needs right priorities. LA County has more than 110,000 acres of > parking, enough to pave over Manhattan 7.5 times. Turning 10% of these > parking spaces into homes could easily satisfy the current 550,000 home > deficit for low-income renters. More than $1 Billion is spent every year > just building new parking in Los Angeles.

</comment><comment><USER40> I like the article but this nit bugs me:

>Some residents can afford more expensive homes as a limited supply increases demand, but those that can't are pushed away into more precarious living situations and longer commutes.

Limited supply doesn't affect demand, they're largely independent unless you look at induced demand, but that mostly affects things like roads and power lines. It should say something like:

>As demand rises, the limited supply increases price.

or

>As supply outstrips demand, prices become unaffordable for large segments of the population.

It's just slightly wrong to indicate a causal relationship between supply and demand in the housing market, which is kinda what this whole page is about.

</comment><comment><USER41> This article is bullshit, written and funded by real estate developers who want to build high density housing without concerning themselves with where the people who live in that housing are going to park the cars they own. This appears to rely on the fallacy that people are going to give up their cars to take non-existent public transportation to bring their kids to school or get groceries. The public transit that does exist is rife with drug addicted, mentally ill homeless people. No fucking thanks!

<comment><USER42> Except... people will? I've reduced the number of cars in my life, increased the biking and public transit. My kid gets dropped off at school on the back of a cargo bike, and I'll often walk to get groceries.

I use stuff like car2go, lime, lyft, etc. when I need a car or bike in short order.

<comment><USER41> Sure that's you. One anecdotal example. As a data driven counter example, take the number of card on the road in Los Angeles at a given time. I live in LA, and there is a zero percent chance I expose my child to typhus on the train.

You are a very distinct minority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Serious question - what percentage of people do you think will be swayed by these arguments? It's over 100 degrees during the day where I live (and it was before global warming too). I don't mind walking, but that temperature is dangerous for a lot of people, and inconvenient for everyone.

I really like the idea of density. I don't like big asphalt parking lots; but I think the alternative is concrete parking structures.

Disclaimer: I work for GM, any opinions are my own.

</comment><comment><USER44> Car culture is finally backfiring in large cities. It's fine to do this when your city's population is small. You can have lots of cars and there is a lot of space. But now cities like LA are paying the price of everyone thinking they NEED a car and making it a cultural status thing. Imagine everyone thinking helicopters were cool and everyone should have a helicopter when they're 18 in order to get laid. It makes no sense, it's a transportation vehicle meant to be useful. It takes you from point A to B and that's it.

<comment><USER45> Good luck convincing people not to buy ludicrous vehicles as status symbols, or to keep up with the Joneses, meanwhile they're paying 12 or 15 or 20% interest for these cars over 6 years because of financial ignorance.

I work in a hospital office building, the parking lot is a circus of wasteful consumerism. The sheer amount of shiny, ridiculously huge F150s and luxury vehicles and the obscene number of SUVs tells me people dont get a simple, cheap A to B vehicle. They dont rideshare or bicycle or public transit. People pay top dollar for comfort, status, and care nothing for finances or climate.

<comment><USER44> Right. Although if you can afford one, nothing wrong with that, but it seems many cities are designed as if every individual has or should have a car, which then forces people into that lifestyle. Then to get the most value from your vehicle, you have to use it more, which means more sitting down, more stress from traffic, more risk of accidents, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around. I've tried only Ubering for a few months and it was more expensive than owning a car. The public transportion is half there but getting better. Bycling in the Santa Monica area is safe but outside of that it's more dangerous because of oblivious drivers and road rage and LA streets are notorious for pot holes. I see some new apartment complexes being built with underground parking right below it which is the way to go but we do need more metros all around.

<comment><USER46> > _Los Angeles covers a large area so you need a car to get around._

That is _exactly_ half the problem the article is attempting to address—and the fundamental thought pattern that keeps reinforcing the problem. More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without a car. More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking means—theoretically, at least— _less_ need to get around that large area on average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or train ride away.

> _The public transportion is half there but getting better._

Another point the article addresses directly—turning acres of street parking into dedicated public transport lanes. Achieve greater levels "getting better" somewhat overnight (if you imagined that it was different tomorrow).

> _... it's more dangerous because of oblivious drivers and road rage and LA > streets are notorious for pot holes._

Again, the article addresses this directly. So many cars on the road increases traffic, which increases driver frustration/rage, as well as distraction and obliviousness while plodding along through traffic. Turning parking into dedicated walking and cycling areas would bring a huge increase in cyclist and pedestrian safety (again, if you imagined it was different tomorrow).

> _I see some new apartment complexes being built with underground parking > right below it which is the way to go ..._

The article spends considerable time arguing that this is explicitly _not_ the way to go—parking minimums increase construction costs considerably, thus decreasing available housing units, while simultaneously increasing housing cost. Underground parking is incredibly more expensive than on-street parking, which means the already increased cost of housing with on-street parking only worsens.

<comment><USER28> > _More space dedicated to non-car traffic means easier to get around without > a car._

Not really. Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles. And the distances you need to cover don't get shorter if you remove roads or parking spaces.

> _More housing units in areas currently taken up by parking > means—theoretically, at least—less need to get around that large area on > average if everything you need day-to-day is a short walk, cycle, bus or > train ride away._

What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy center of the city.

<comment><USER46> My reply is a direct paraphrase of the article's arguments. Did we read the same article in its entirety?

> _Car traffic shares its roads with buses, often bicycles._

Not in the scenario argued for by the article.

> _And the distances you need to cover don 't get shorter if you remove roads > or parking spaces._

Two things the article goes to great pains to make clear—the distances you need to cover are a direct result of horrible parking policy, and the distances become irrelevant as more space is given to denser development and increased public transport options with dedicated space.

> _What assumptions does your "theory" base this claim on? That newly built > houses will quickly fill with people working nearby? Perhaps they just like > their small houses on the hills of LA and don't want to move to the busy > center of the city._

All of the assumptions and data presented and explained at length in the article. That newly built housing popping up in the place of vast, sprawling parkings areas would fill with new tenants in Los Angeles does not strike me as an outlandish conclusion. Have you lived there? Yes, some people like living in the surrounding areas—but that's somewhat forced by limited housing supply and god-awful traffic. I don't think I'm the only person born and raised in LA who would have jumped at the chance to be right in the busy city center, especially while younger. Most of my remaining family members in the area would still do it. The rest moved away after 30+ years of being fed up with the gridlock. City centers are vibrant, awesome places. Lots of people would love to live close to work and play, and leave all the driving for when they're ready to get _out_ of the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> First off, parking isn't flat & spread out. It is very often stacked & condensed into compact areas known parking garages, some of which sit under housing complexes and so take up no extra real estate at all. Presenting the square acreage of all parking spaces like this is a grossly misleading way of presenting the data. 10% of the raw acreage of _spaces_ is very much _not_ 10% of the real estate used for parking.

Second, there _have_ to be many more parking places than there are cars, otherwise you would never be able to move your car. You wouldn't find another spot, because it would already be taken.

Third, even if we imagine a perfect system where you leave your spot, someone leaves their spot and takes your spot, leaving an opening for you, that would still ignore the fact that parking spots are not fungible. You can't interchange them, one spot for another, and balance the equation. The spot in front of your house/appartment is pretty much useless for nearly everyone else that isn't a neighbor.

I don't have any comprehensive solution to this problem, but what I am pretty sure of is that there's no single silver bullet solution that will massively improve the situation. (or if there is such a solution & I'm just not smart enough to find it, it's not going to be found in parking spaces.)

<comment><USER48> > First off, parking isn't flat & spread out. It is very often stacked & > condensed into compact areas known parking garages, some of which sit under > housing complexes and so take up no extra real estate at all.

Housing is very often stacked and condensed too, so x square feet of parking is equivalent to x square feet of housing (or retail, or ...). Actually it's even worse than that because LA's parking minimums require the parking to be on the bottom floors - the ones that would be most valuable and convenient for humans.

> I don't have any comprehensive solution to this problem, but what I am > pretty sure of is that there's no single silver bullet solution that will > massively improve the situation. (or if there is such a solution & I'm just > not smart enough to find it, it's not going to be found in parking spaces.)

I'm more and more convinced that eliminating "free" parking is the silver bullet. It's a massive distortion to how we arrange our cities. Once there's a level playing field for parking to compete with other land uses, the market can sort the rest out.

<comment><USER47> I see your point about residential being stacked as well. However the marginal increase in supply of real estate by taking 10% of what's used by parking hardly seems sufficient to make a dent in the supply/demand curve of the market.

As for eliminating free parking, I think it would have a disproportionate effect on people at the lower end of income. Everyone else can absorb the cost. Even if that isn't the case, the effect would be to push more people to mass transit. That's not a bad thing, but mass transit is already unable to keep up with needs.

It would need to be accompanied by mass transit infrastructure improvements. That would be a political hot potato, requiring either tax increases or issuing debt via bond to pay for it in the short term until fares could cover the costs in the long term. So add political & public awareness campaigning to the solution. What looks like a silver bullet becomes ever more complex.

<comment><USER48> > I see your point about residential being stacked as well. However the > marginal increase in supply of real estate by taking 10% of what's used by > parking hardly seems sufficient to make a dent in the supply/demand curve of > the market.

Well, the article claims a 20-33% increase in the number of housing units for developments without parking, so say 2-3% more housing. IIRC the economists reckon it's about a 2:1 ratio between supply change and price change, so a 4-7% drop in the price of equally valuable housing. That may not be revolutionary but it would be a significant difference for a lot of people. Cities put a lot of effort into policies with much smaller effects.

> As for eliminating free parking, I think it would have a disproportionate > effect on people at the lower end of income. Everyone else can absorb the > cost. Even if that isn't the case, the effect would be to push more people > to mass transit. That's not a bad thing, but mass transit is already unable > to keep up with needs.

Fewer private cars on the road would speed up buses (which would mean the same number of buses could transport more people) and make cyclists safer, and it's actually the lowest income people - those who are already living without a car - who benefit the most there. And densification by replacing parking spaces with homes and workplaces would reduce the pressure on all kinds of transport, by making it easier for people to live closer to where they work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> On a related note, give this episode of Revisionist History a listen. It details the property tax loophole that has been taken advantage of by LA's country clubs for decades.

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk- spoile...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoiled)

</comment><comment><USER50> > a single aboveground space cost $27,000

How did we get into this situation? According to this [https://www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-does- concrete-d...](https://www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-does-concrete- driveway-cost.htm) a "high-end" contractor charges at most $10 per square foot to build a concrete driveway, i.e. $2000 for a 200 sq ft parking space. Where does the other $25,000 go?

<comment><USER51> Your quote is for surface parking. Theirs is for above-ground parking. It is much more expensive to build a structure strong enough to hold a bunch of cars off the ground than it is to just pave a flat area.

<comment><USER50> Ah, I assumed above-ground just mean not underground but looks like that was wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I just was recently introduced to this and other discussions on city planning by a couple of great youtube series by donoteat1[1]. "Franklin" and "Power, Politics, and Planning" are some of the best and most humorous examinations of topics like parking minimums, public housing, gentrification, etc. I've come across. The presenter is highly left-leaning, but also knowledgeable and backs up his positions with data. Agree or disagree with his views, it's informative either way!

It's opened my eyes much more to how cities are actually planned and the problems posed by politics over the ages - the conflict between public good and private interest, and how specific policies affect cities and their accessibility to people of various economic statuses. Would recommend if you enjoyed this article and want more related topics to learn about.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdazs-6CNzSVv1J0a-qy4A](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdazs-6CNzSVv1J0a-qy4A)

</comment><comment><USER53> Parking minimums seems insane. Let the free market decide how many parking spaces to build, it shouldn't be mandated by the city.

<comment><USER54> I think the logic behind it (which is somewhat born out by experience) is that without parking minimums, residents just use street parking. There's an externality there: street parking is provided as a public good so that people can visit commercial establishments, friends, community centers, etc, but if a developer can rely on the public good so that they can fit 50% more units into an area and reduce construction costs, they will. Then the public good is consumed by this private externality, residents take up all the street parking spots that were intended for visitors, and nobody's better off except the developers.

Much of San Francisco (where I've heard 50% of cars in the city at any given time are looking for parking) is an example of this problem. So are many immigrant neighborhoods where people double- or triple-up in units: street parking is virtually impossible to find in my neighborhood after about 6:00 PM.

The logic behind "abolish parking minimums" is that then people will live a car-free lifestyle and depend upon public transit, but in my experience that isn't true. Even folks who _primarily_ use public transit and like to walk often own a car, if only for grocery runs and the occasional weekend getaway. Services like ZipCar help in that regard, but we're pretty far away from abolishing private car ownership.

<comment><USER55> Street parking itself seems pretty dumb to me. The bandwidth on streets should not be used up by idle vehicles. Even a single car parked on a block uses up what could potentially be another lane. Is there any less efficient use of space? Hopefully self driving cars will allow us to repurpose that real estate since they can drop off passengers and go hide in a garage somewhere (or carry other passengers around).

<comment><USER25> I have mixed feelings about it. It can be fine but it needs to be handled a lot more strictly. It causes a safety problem around here when all the parked cars block the view around corners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Go all the way, build _Arcologies._

> Arcology, a portmanteau of "architecture" and "ecology", is a field of > creating architectural design principles for very densely populated, > ecologically low-impact human habitats.

> The term was coined in 1969 by architect Paolo Soleri, who believed that a > completed arcology would provide space for a variety of residential, > commercial, and agricultural facilities while minimizing individual human > environmental impact. These structures have been largely hypothetical, as no > arcology, even one envisioned by Soleri himself, has yet been built.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology)

</comment><comment><USER57> > 551,800 home shortfall for low-income renters

There is also a shortfall of Ferraris for low budgeted car buyers. /s

I say this, in jest, to illustrate that part of the issue is the North American perspective of the minimum viable living space. Many of our regulations increase the cost of production to the point that there is no viable solution at the price point that people can afford. I think we need a rise of micro units to allow people to live where they can afford.

The capitalist side of me says "Why should a developer take a unit of resources an intentionally make it generate less revenue?" The claim usually goes that capitalism uses the constrained resources of a society at maximal benefit...

</comment><comment><USER58> Have any (American) cities/towns simply turned an entire street into a bike/pedestrian path? No cars or limited hours or local access only.

Similar to the old-railroad-to-bike-path conversions that are happening everywhere, but for a normal street.

<comment><USER59> Yup! A variety of places do this, though I'm not sure if it's to the extent you have in mind.

Iowa City eliminated cars on roads in their downtown, and they have a vibrant town square there now with plenty of restaurants, bars, shopping, ice cream, etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ped_Mall_(Iowa_City)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ped_Mall_\(Iowa_City\))

Boston closes down Newbury Street a few times during the summer for the past few years. [https://www.newburystboston.com/cd_listing/open- newbury-2019...](https://www.newburystboston.com/cd_listing/open- newbury-2019/)

<comment><USER58> Yeah the "core downtown pedestrian zone" concept I'm sure is popular and gaining more traction, which is great.

But I'm talking more about taking a random street that passes through the entire town and removing cars permanently. Maybe a side street parallel to the existing major car thoroughfare.

At the extreme end, say, turning an entire North/South avenue of Manhattan bike/pedestrian-only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The next wave of interesting startups will be shelter. Not housing that keep people comfy at night, but effective walkable citylike places. Places that take into account that the human race is very social. Places that makes it easy to be friendly to the environment.

Poundbury in southern UK was nothing but greenfields. Now it's a highly succesfyl city that attracts people and businesses, despite 1/3 of the buildings being affordable houses projects. Good cities reduces the inhabitants need for long distance travels.

</comment><comment><USER61> Zoning is the real problem. Other than Manhatten and a few big city downtowns, I know of almost no continuous human scale places to live in the US.

Go to Vancouver - they have a good mix of housing but the core is ENTIRELY apartments and condos and they have plenty of transportation. You can walk around all day. I want this. Every asian city is condos and apartments first, for every social and economic class.

</comment><comment><USER62> Removing parking minimums, and imposing parking maximums will do more for decent public transportation than any other thing that could be done.

</comment><comment><USER63> I actually like the idea of parking minimums. But two parking spaces for a 2 bedroom apartment? Or a 1.5 for a one bedroom? That seems crazy.

I know there are exceptions (maybe someone running a business) but in general anyone living in the city shouldn't require more than one car per household.

<comment><USER64> I don't understand why parking shouldn't also be left up to the market to decide? If you want a parking spot, pay the fair market price.

I live in Japan where minimum parking is not regulated and it means that people who don't need parking pay less rent. How is that not a good thing?

<comment><USER65> The problem is that we see parking as a negative externality because everyone ends up competing for street parking. As you pointed out, it's not a problem in Japan. I believe that is because there is pretty much no street parking in Japan. I love that!

I think the Crux of the problem is that most US cities are built with super low density, targeting cars. The result is that it's super hard to put public transit in that is actually useful.

<comment><USER51> That's easy to solve. Just charge the market rate for street parking too. No reason to give away the use of valuable land for free.

<comment><USER65> I think that's a great solution, but not easy to implement. How do you establish the market rate? Is it the highest price that will still lead to all parking being filled? If so, how do you talk that price? Or more complicated: how do you account for the price / value associated with other forms of issue that are more unavailable? For example: what rent could be collected if the parking spot was outdoor seating for a cafe? What price would a developer pay to build more housing units? What m value is lost for society by not having a strip of green?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> The people who live in the tents featured in this picture are not waiting to move in to whatever housing should be built on those parking lots.

Even Singapore, with its famously stellar urban planning and extensive government housing, has homeless.

</comment><comment><USER67> I've been thinking a lot about this problem lately.

I'd like to hear thoughts on the effect of an unlimited density, all uses allowed, zone near public transit. I imagine something like the Kowloon walled city.

</comment><comment><USER68> Does the title mean "Let's build houses for people, not build cars for people", or "Let's build houses for people, not build houses for cars"?

Language is weird.

</comment><comment><USER69> The problem is not the parking spaces. It is also not the roads. Take them away and you only make life more miserable for car commuters. You need two things:

1\. Attractive alternatives (really good, clean, fast public transport or really good, safe, fast bike lanes)

2\. An incentive to not use the car for commuting.

The problem with 1. is that politicians find it much harder to create something good than to make it's opposite worse. The problem with 2. is that a car is a relatively expensive investment, so people will use it. You could, for instance, introduce a flexible city toll that allows you 50 days of free entering by car and serves as a PT ticket as well.

<comment><USER55> Isn't making it more miserable an incentive not to do it?

<comment><USER70> No, that is an incentive to vote for someone else who will not make it miserable.

<comment><USER69> Or, at some point, to reconsider this whole "government" thing. Policy that obviously aims at making people's lives worse is hardly sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> The lede is buried:

To build more houses for people (that will be near jobs, businesses, and schools), we _have to have_ better transportation. There simply is no alternative.

</comment><comment><USER72> Meanwhile, my biggest house shopping concern is a garage. Even if you live sans-car, it is super useful to have a work and storage space.

</comment><comment><USER73> You can live in your car, but you can't drive your house.

</comment><comment><USER74> And you are definitely a cat lover if you misread the title as "Let's build houses for people, not cats" and your first thought is "no way!" :^)

</comment><comment><USER75> What can I say about this. Parking minimums are not fair.

To the effect, they oblige poorer people without cars to pay for parking space for car driving richer people.

<comment><USER76> Not sure why this got downvoted, it's obviously true. Rich people are more likely to have cars than poor people.

<comment><USER77> Then why say "Rich vs poor" rather than "people with cars versus people without"? Also, perhaps the rich find it easier to give up on their car, or long commutes? Also, the Rich proportionally pay more tax.

<comment><USER76> I often read the opposite, where people claim a less car-friendly policy harms the poor. I recently bothered to look up the statistics (for Germany, but I doubt they're different elsewhere), they where pretty clear. I think it's an important fact to have in mind: Rich people drive more cars.

<comment><USER77> > they where pretty clear

What was the conclusion?

Also, Rich people may _own_ more cars;

It's another question whether they drive more, whether they need to drive more (or can choose not to), and whether they _park_ (in congested areas) more.

<comment><USER76> > What was the conclusion?

The richer people are the more they drive, the more likely they are to drive to work and the more cars they have. The poorer people are the more they walk by foot. Bikes are pretty evenly distributed among different incomes, public transport is mostly a middle income thing (fewer rich and poor people).

It's in german, but it allows pretty extensive working with the data: [https://www.mobilitaet-in-tabellen.de/mit/](https://www.mobilitaet-in- tabellen.de/mit/)

<comment><USER78> > The richer people are the more they drive, the more likely they are to drive > to work and the more cars they have.

That may be the case in Germany. In the US, the exact opposite is nearly universally true.

Rich people own lots of cars, but they are less likely to need to drive them anywhere. (In part, because Rich people already own all the best land in all the best cities with all the best alternative transportation. And in part because, Rich people outsource their driving to Taxis / Uber-Taxis / Lyft- taxis)

Working class people are the people most harmed by the elimination of public vehicle transportation. These folks, generally speaking, can not afford to live anywhere where alternate transportation options might exist. And the act of building new transportation for them, nearly always prices them out of living in that place.

Since the article above is about LA, here's a specific example from LA, about how LA's attempts to expand their bus/rail system are gentrifying out their own ridership - [https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal- transi...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenthal-transit- gentrification-metro-ridership-20180220-story.html)

<comment><USER76> > That may be the case in Germany. In the US, the exact opposite is nearly > universally true.

Any data on that?

At least the first Google results I find indicate a very similar correlation. If I believe this [https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/08/how-income-and- neighbor...](https://www.sightline.org/2012/03/08/how-income-and- neighborhoods-affect-driving/) then definitely there's a connection between "richer" and "more driving", though there's a bit of plateauing (i.e. the rich don't drive more than the middle income), but the poor definitely drive fewer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> If people won't build 'houses for cars', the cars will start piling up on the streets instead. I prefer cars to at least be hidden.

<comment><USER80> The end goal here is that people who live in big cities give up their personal car. The journey there might involve this problem though and it depends on the city to enforce new rules.

For example, my home town Hamburg (in Germany) is a bad example of too few parking spaces being policed correctly. At some point, the drivers give up searching for a free space that's still in a walkable distance from their destination and will park illegally, which leads to one of 2 lanes being permanently blocked by resting traffic. Apparently the police doesn't care about these illegally parked cars.

There are lots of cheaper and more space-efficient alternatives for personal transport, which were mentioned in the article.

It's also possible to rent shared cars for the rare case you actually need a car (if you want to transport large furniture for example).

Speaking from my anecdotal experience, not owning a personal car works pretty well, I commute to work with an electric bike in 20 minutes (which is actually quicker than taking the train or driving a car and then look for a parking space). If I want to buy furniture and I can't transport it with my bike, I can still rent a car.

On top of not having the dreadful experience of having to search 10-20 minutes for a parking space every time, it's also a lot cheaper.

<comment><USER81> Well, I am absolutely not interested in giving up my car. It is my private space and enabler of my freedom of movement, without relying on external services and timetables. It adds a lot of value to my life. If my city becomes too unfriendly for me and my car, I will have to move elsewhere.

I work from home, though, and I don't use the car for daily commuting. Commuting is the main driver of most traffic problems in the cities, so there's that.

<comment><USER82> If you want to keep your car then you should pay the full cost (no free roads and parking for you to use) and externalities (carbon, noise/particulate pollution) of car ownership. Car owners currently receive trillions of dollars worth of market distorting subsidies from the government.

<comment><USER81> I pay the road tax, car tax and fuel tax on that, so I'm fine, thanks. There are no government subsidies for cars in Europe. Parking here is also quite expensive.

<comment><USER82> I don't know where you live, but in most countries those do not cover the full cost of car ownership (don't forget to include the externalities of carbon emissions and noise/particulate pollution).

<comment><USER81> Switzerland. My car is regularly checked for compliance for low emissions standards. Tram line near my house produces much more noise pollution compared to cars.

<comment><USER82> If those emissions standards are so rigorous why is climate change still happening?

> Tram line near my house produces much more noise pollution compared to cars.

Now divide by the number of passengers and try again.

<comment><USER81> > If those emissions standards are so rigorous why is climate change still > happening?

Mostly because of the Chinese industry. Also coal and gas electricity generation. Nuclear power is the solution.

> Now divide by the number of passengers and try again.

Doesn't work like that. You can't divide noise. There's a threshold level.

<comment><USER82> Do you think 1 car generates the same amount of noise as 100 cars? 1 tram is not a replacement for 1 car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Wont happen Decision makers have nice homes and nice cars and a self congratulatory philosophy that says the status quo is just ok dokey

</comment><comment><USER84> Towns and cities too please!

</comment><comment><USER85> Sounds like a socialist policy. It's not good. What LA needs is more competition and less zoning to lower prices and allow better results.

</comment><comment><USER86> convincing. any petition up for signing?

</comment><comment><USER87> Great site, I just noticed that when trying to link my friend the www. version of the site doesn't work -- please fix =)

<comment><USER87> [https://www.noparkinghere.com](https://www.noparkinghere.com)

</comment></comment><comment> kube-system I feel like this author has not experienced living in a city where there was not enough parking to meet demand, and not enough public transit to make up the difference. It causes its own set of horrible problems.

People will not give up their car if they still need it to go to work.

You have to have the public transportation system _before_ you remove parking spaces.

Otherwise you're going to make the problem _worse_ , not better. If you remove parking first, people are going to avoid dense areas even more, which is the opposite of what you want to solve this issue. You want to encourage people to live and work in denser areas, not encourage them to move further away. On top of that, you'll get illegal parking which causes property damage and poses risks to public safety.

<comment><USER88> No one (in America) ever builds public transit without demand for it. And even when there is demand for it, it's a struggle. So you have to get rid of the parking first.

<comment> kube-system If you remove parking before the transit problem is solved, you're going to make the problem worse by further discouraging density. People will continue to use whatever transit that works to get them to the places they need to go.

If you block drivers from accessing an area _without any alternatives_ , you're simply going to kill any economic activity in that area long before anyone demands transit. People will individually seek alternatives elsewhere to continue their daily activities before they organize and demand political change. People will always make decisions based on where they need to go _today_.

A building with no parking and no public transit, doesn't have a bunch of people hanging around it demanding a 10 year transit project. They don't have 10 years to wait. They need a place to work/shop/live _today._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> The irony is that anyone who has ever tried to go anywhere in LA can never find a place to park.

I maintain that the problem is not "we need more housing for all these people!" rather, "we have too many people!"

Why do we have so many people so densely packed? That is the problem we should solve for, not treating the side effects of density. Lower density is what we want, less people in any given square mile.

In other words, we shouldn't be trying to live near major population centers. We shouldn't have to. Our notion of 'work' is/needs to change to reflect that. LA, NY, SF, etc... historically became huge because it needed to be that way. Remote work is becoming more and more common. Regular work is being automated away by software or machines.

I made this argument once before and was totally shot down because I didn't articulate it properly ... but who wants to live in a densely packed apartment complex in the middle of a noisy city? Sure, some people LOVE that, and they should have every right to choose it. But... a lot of people HATE that and are forced to do it, because it's all they can afford. That is the problem that we need to change.

<comment><USER90> LA is hardly dense though.

<comment><USER89> I grew up here. I live here. What makes you think it's not dense? "LA" is HUGE. Parts of it are dense, parts of it are less dense.

When most people think of LA they need to think in the context of the entire county. There are ten million people living here, that's more than the entire state of Michigan.

<comment><USER91> LA is 3,100 ppl/km2. [1] Tokyo is double that. [2]

It's all a matter of perspective. Personally I've been living in Asia so long that most places outside of New York feel under-developed to me. Just sticking to major first-world cities and the most obvious example of Tokyo blows LA's density out of the water. If we dipped into less-developed metropoli, we could throw, say, Manila into the conversation at [20,000;70,000]/km2 and then LA's density looks positively quaint.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles) [2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo) [3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What makes any one think that taking away parking will increase poor people housing? That seems to be the biggest shortage. Why would I turn my parking into housing I run at a low profit or even a loss, rather than up-scale luxury housing? I can make more money off that. And forcing a certain number of units of poor housing will only decrease supply further. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, there are cities where aught but driving is not practical. See Houston; when I lived there, I had to drive often one-hundred-fifty miles per day to different places. There is also no one center; I may have one client in the woodlands, one in Bellaire, one in Sugarland, one in the Ship Channel. How do you propose to fix this? it is too big and too dense for the traditional "hub-and-spoke" model to work, too hot for scooters or bicycles (it regularly hits one-hundred-five degrees this time of year).

<comment><USER70> If you can build and fill luxury apartments I don't know why you would build apartments for the poor: the profits are higher in the luxury apartments. California has a big problem in that they make it too hard to get the permits to build anything so everything that goes in is luxury apartments (they force low income housing, but this is forced)

However what if we changed things: you could easily get the permits you need to build whatever. After a few years the market for luxury apartments will be saturated. Now when you look at the do I build lower cost apartments, or luxury apartments you build the lower cost wins because your expected income from luxury apartments is zero.

Actually the above isn't true in good cities either: all new apartments are luxury. 10 years latter they are out of style, but it is cheaper to rent them for less than to remodel to whatever the latest style is. After 50 years they are low income housing because only low income people will accept the dated of a style. LA hasn't been building enough for long enough that this can't come into play.</comment></comment>


Nootropics – The Facts About "Smart Drugs" - <AUTHOR> http://www.unfinishedman.com/nootropics-facts-about-smart-drugs/ <comment><USER4> A word of caution about vasodilators: I've seen them touted more and more frequently by nootropics enthusiasts, as though they're completely harmless. This is not necessarily true.

Blood pressure is a very meticulously regulated process in the body, with countless chemicals, hormones, and other endogenous signals in the mix. It's entirely possible, if uncommon, to overdose when self-administering vasodilating drugs. A lot of vasodilators work by ionically tweaking the fluid retention of the kidneys, which, if thrown out of whack, can lead to all sorts of not-so-fun problems.

In general, be careful when messing with your blood vessels, or with any drugs that change the ionic balance of your bloodstream.

The other thing I'd say is TANSTAAFL. Generally speaking, when you're upregulating one process or chemical in the body, you're downregulating another process or chemical. If you're not sure what's being ramped up, and what's being ramped down -- or, even scarier, if _science_ doesn't quite know yet -- then proceed with a tiny bit of caution.

I don't mean to dump cold water on the idea of nootropics. Some of them seem pretty harmless. Some of them may indeed have a net benefit. Others...perhaps, but the jury's still out. In the meantime, I guess I am hesitant to treat my body like a lab experiment. Especially when there are so many proven, healthy, effective ways to enhance cognition. Such as exercise and study.

<comment><USER5> As someone hoping to enter a systems metabolomics program next year, let me simplify your statement:

 _If you do this, you're messing with high-order, nonlinear dynamics._

Does anyone really trust themselves to dose that properly? They had better be a trained medicinal chemist with great skill at solving PDEs. I also doubt the average enthusiast is set up to run HPLC to measure and model various critical metabolite concentrations and their change over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article is really interesting, but I can't help but be suspicious of the data (opinion) contained within.

The expert used in the article is John Holcomb, who owns a supplement e-commerce site. I can't find anything on his site that talks about his qualifications or any hard facts to back up most of this.

I'm really interested in nootropics and increasing mental efficacy - but there is no shortage of snake-oil vendors out there, some of whom are undoubtedly taking advantage of the boom in interest for these drugs. This makes me very leery about accepting this information.

Particularly the section on Racetams and how there are so many of them that can be tried safely in combination or by themselves.

With this awesome line:

"The one caveat with racetams: from a wealth of anecdotes about a third of the population is non-responsive or only mildly responsive to one or more types, and about a third are high responders that can experience spectacular results. "

Which sounds awesome to me, if I make money by selling these supplements. Basically - you may not experience any effects until you hit the right combination so keep buying them and trying them until you do and eventually you too could be a genius. Is it like some sort of intelligence enhancing slot machine?

I wish I could believe this stuff was effective. Someone please tell me I'm crazy and that he's right and for $20/bottle I can be slightly less dumb?

<comment><USER7> I question his motives because he recommends Piracetam daily dosage of 3 to 5 grams and said it may take up to 6 weeks to realize the effects.

I bought Piracetam on Amazon after someone here on HN recommended it, and for the past 2 months have been taking 800 mg per day. I often skip a few days and have not noticed any addiction symptoms.

I doubled my dosage one day, so took 1600 mg that day, and felt sick to my stomach. When I repeated the 1600 mg experiment again 2 weeks later, I threw up. I am 190 lbs 6 ft, YMMV but I can't imagine taking 3 to 5 grams.

Within a few minutes of swallowing a pill (800 mg) I feel more alert and without the jitteriness that caffeine brings. It seems to improve my general focus, writing, including programming, reading and speaking abilities. As with all self reporting you should absorb mine with salt.

<comment><USER8> Since you are self experimenting, may I recommend a blind, crossover test, with wash-out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There may be places out there to find reliable information on the efficacy and safety of prescription medication taken off-label, but a guest post from a seller of them certainly is _not_ one.

<comment><USER10> Actually the good news is that it should actually be easier to find research on these drugs than your standard drugs because they're not being tested by big pharma, which means there should be much less of a file drawer effect.

That said, you'd have to be kind of dumb to think that you can improve your brain function by taking the same cocktail of drugs every day. Taking low doses of different stuff on an intermittent basis, maybe, but hammering the same receptors day in and day out and expecting some sort of longterm benefit is extremely naive.

<comment><USER11> why does it work with caffeine?

<comment><USER10> There are a number of different possible answers to that question. One answer is that it doesn't, it just feels like it does. And if you look at studies of people who are caffeine dependent, they're not actually are more alert after drinking a cup of coffee than people who aren't caffeine dependent and don't drink coffee.

The other answer is that if you're using caffeine from plants then you're getting a different dose each day, and if you're not taking a lot and you're not doing it every day then tolerance will be less of an issue. Also, caffeine breaks down into multiple separate drugs when digested so that may also have some impact on tolerance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Unlike in athletics, academics isn't necessarily a zero sum game. While in a race there is necessarily a winner and a loser, nobody in academics is held back if another student is better able to retain their information._

No, but the doped student's advantage could cause her to be selected over another (undoped) student in college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions.

Does this mean we'll soon see articles about how the Ivy League and most hacker dens dope more than the Tour de France?

<comment><USER13> So what? Sports are essentially about _competing_ , so the playing field being leveled is important. Academics is about the advancement of science. If doping helps a student to find a cure for cancer, I see no reason to object.

<comment><USER14> Unless it's side-effect free, it could pose an ethical dilemma. Would you take a pill wich makes you a prodigy but shortens your expected lifetime with 5 year? What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?

<comment><USER15> >Would you take a pill wich makes you a prodigy but shortens your expected lifetime with 5 year?

Absolutely. Perhaps it's the naivety of youth speaking, but I'd gladly trade 5 of the worst years of my life to improve the rest of them.

> What would you think about the same decision if the former prodigy level > becomes the new average in your field because of the widespread use?

I'd argue the world would be a much better place if this was the case. The real question you might want to ask is what if these drugs become expensive and only the upper class can afford them. It might lead to a sort of catch 22 by which no one was interested in hiring less intelligent or less capable people who couldn't afford such drugs.

<comment><USER16> > The real question you might want to ask is what if these drugs become > expensive and only the upper class can afford them. It might lead to a sort > of catch 22 by which no one was interested in hiring less intelligent or > less capable people who couldn't afford such drugs.

Unless government regulations get in the way, I would expect employers to start paying for their employees' drugs.

If they don't produce enough of an effect for that to be worthwhile, I wouldn't expect them to see widespread use. (If they cost $X,000/year but only increase your earning potential by $Y,000/year, with Y<X, how many people are really going to take them? Not zero, but I'd guess not enough to have much impact on the market. And if Y>X, it's a good deal for employers, who might also be able to use economies of scale to get the drugs at a discount.)

<comment><USER17> > Unless government regulations get in the way, I would expect employers to > start paying for their employees' drugs.

Well, every place I've worked at has offered free coffee, which is a well- studied (albeit minor?) nootropic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Please, please, please ... Be careful with Nootropics.

I'm a bit of a consciousness-naut and self-experimenter who's obsessed about increasing productivity. I've experimented a lot with Nootropics.

My thoughts?

Modafinil. Stay away from it. The stuff is wickedly addictive and many people have experienced significant long-term side effects, especially if they try to go off it.

Piracetam. Does a lot to reduce ADD and has strong anti-anxiety properties. That said, I found the benefits (minimally increased focus and less anxiety) to be far outweighed by the fact that you have to keep taking the stuff obsessively lest you go into withdrawal (coming off the stuff is horrible once you've been on it for a couple weeks).

If you want to increase productivity and focus there are a ton of other things you can do, starting with the basics of exercise, proper nutrition, and meditation.

<comment><USER19> >Modafinil. Stay away from it. The stuff is wickedly addictive and many people have experienced significant long-term side effects, especially if they try to go off it.

I have known quite a number of people who have taken modafinil, and none of them experienced more than minor side effects. I have several friends who stopped using it for long periods because they built a tolerance (tolerance != addiction), but none experienced withdrawal symptoms.

I used adrafinil for a while because it has the advantage of being unscheduled in the US, and I noticed weak tolerance building, but the only side effects I had were insomnia (while it was in effect) and mild headaches which went away with aspirin. The only reason I stopped taking it was that they revoked its approval in France, and none of the generics from other countries that I've found seem to work.

<comment><USER20> I've tried adrafinil, too, and it has a side effect for me that makes me almost completely dysfunctional: I get really, really cranky and angry. The first time I tried it I couldn't resist trading insults with my _boss_ \- at this point, I don't dare take it if I'm going to be around other human beings at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The article begins with "It's a lengthy read, but don't let the wall of text dissuade you." That's scary right there. Anyone who is scared off by this short, popular fluff piece needs a lot of help in reading (or is not a native speaker of English). To learn to read a piece like this thoughtfully and critically mostly takes practice in reading, not the latest "smart drug." I've been hearing people tout smart drugs for as long as I have been involved in online discussions (since 1992), and I have never seen any evidence of regular users of smart drugs doing anything smart.

Let's learn from how an indisputably smart person (LISP hacker and genuine NASA rocket scientist Peter Norvig, now Google's director of research) approaches claims of a new wonder drug. He writes of "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

in a free online article that is also a wall of text, but which any Hacker News reader could read and apply to become more smart in day-by-day life. We can learn together by comparing the popular article kindly submitted here to the checklist of warning signs provided by Peter Norvig.

Warning Sign D1: Lack of a Randomized Controlled Trial

The article about "smart drugs" submitted here doesn't cite any scientific literature from any country and makes no reference to results from randomized, controlled trials. As another participant here has already pointed out in a smart comment,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4516111>

the author of the article's main text is in the business of selling smart drugs. He is not a neutral, objective source of information on the subject. He doesn't seem willing to share his evidence base for his claims, perhaps because he has none.

Warning Sign D2: Lack of Double-Blind Studies

The author refers to people taking various drugs while being aware of what they are taking, which skews their recollection of their performance and very likely results in invalid recollections. Most SCIENTIFIC studies of mental performance interventions are careful to be "double blind" and to have neither the subject nor the experimenter aware of which subject received the studied intervention and which received a sham intervention. And such studies have careful tests of mental performance (working memory, IQ, or the like). The article here is mere advertising puffery by comparison.

Warning Sign D3: Too Few Subjects

The author advertising smart drugs doesn't describe any careful studies, so of course he doesn't mention the number of subjects in any studies. Most so- called studies of smart drugs have been far too small to have any statistical power.

Warning Sign D4: The Wrong Subjects

People voluntarily self-administering smart drugs are VERY likely not a representative sample of the general population. If some people self-report that they became smarter after using the drugs (do their friends and relatives agree?), that by no means shows that most people will be better off if they take the drugs. Random assignment to the treatment condition from among a representative sample is necessary to show that the drugs have any general or consistent benefit.

Warning Sign D5: The Wrong Questions

Most of the supposed tests of smart drugs appear to use mere user self-reports rather than standardized measures of mental performance that show up in the scientific literature on psychology. Simply put, no high-quality treatise on human intelligence

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations)

has ever reported that smart drugs are good for anything.

Warning Sign D6: The Wrong Statistics

Again, most statements about smart drugs found online have no statistics at all. In any event, what studies there have been about smart drugs that use the language of statistical analysis have mostly been very amateurish in their statistical approach.

Warning Sign D7: Lack of a Specific Hypothesis, or Overzealous Data Mining

Before the user begins taking a smart drug, is the expected effect "creativity," or "memory" or cognition, or what? The article, by its incoherence in grouping drugs by their supposed effects, shows that most of the time people who have sunk money into smart drugs are expected to imagine their own benefits, and will, to avoid embarrassment at being snookered.

Warning Sign D8: Lack of a Theory

The human brain is a very complicated biological system, with many feedback loops, and so far there is no mainstream theory of neurophysiology (a topic with MANY investigators all over the world) that suggests simple chemical interventions to produce long-term improvement in any aspect of mental performance.

Warning Sign D9: Lack of controls

It's not clear in the smart drug promotional literature even what should be controlled if there were a controlled trial of smart drugs. The smart drug promoters are not making enough effort to contrast taking smart drugs with other interventions (say, learning to read more challenging reading material by practice) that likely have better impact on long-term mental performance.

Warning Sign I1: Lacking Repeatability and Reproducibility

The author basically acknowledges that many smart drugs have results that are not reproducible reliably.

Warning Sign I2: Ignoring Publication Bias

Because smart drug trials are not announced in advance in publicly readable databases, every person selling smart drugs gets to announce unverifiable anecdotes while hiding in the file drawer all the cases in which smart drugs failed.

Warning Sign I3: Ignoring Other Sources of Bias

The smart drug promoters make no effort to subject smart drug claims to the statistical tests that in recent years have revealed many incorrect claims in published scientific literature on other subjects. Because the smart drug claim is an extraordinary claim, smart drug promoters should produce extraordinary evidence to back up the claim.

I'll skip Norvig's next warning sign, as the following one

Warning Sign I5: Taking p too Seriously

is more relevant for the claims here. There is NO indication that smart drugs have any real-world significance (in other words, that people actually live smarter lives after taking them) as contrasted with claimed (but unreported here) instances of the drugs having "statistically significant" effects.

The last few checklist items on Norvig's checklist

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

are also worth looking at in connection with claims about smart drugs.

To sum up, I am willing to do a mental test (memory, or IQ, as the smart drug promoter chooses) duel with anyone who claims that smart drugs have helped him become smarter. I don't believe it, because I don't think there is sufficient evidence to back up that extraordinary claim. If anyone wants to set up the duel, we should each choose "seconds" to negotiate the terms of the mental test duel. I would, of course, insist on a series of STANDARDIZED mental tests administered by a psychologist with a lot of clinical experience. I don't expect any user of smart drugs to win such a duel.

AFTER EDIT: Responding to the first two replies received, there are standard methods in statistics for estimating adequate sample sizes based on expected effect size of the intervention. There isn't any one best sample size that fits all experimental studies, but a careful experimenter will calculate what sample size is large enough to maximize likelihood of meaningful results (statistical power) while minimizing the expense of gathering lots of subjects for the experiment. My proposal for a duel is, of course, a sample size of 1 plus the number of smart drug users who come forth to take the duel, and has other problems as a data-gathering measure, but I offer the duel to illustrate that I think that anyone can improve in smarts, for any real-world purpose, in a lot of ways that are better than taking poorly understood drugs pushed by smart drug hucksters.

<comment><USER15> >Warning Sign D3: Too Few Subjects >The author advertising smart drugs doesn't describe any careful studies, so of course he doesn't mention the number of subjects in any studies. Most so-called studies of smart drugs have been far too small to have any statistical power.

Neither yourself, nor Peter Norvig suggested an appropriate number of subjects for tests like these. So I'm curious, what would be an appropriate number of subjects?

<comment><USER22> You test some statistical hypothesis, and you end with some probability that the hypethesis is true. Increasing the number of people increases the number of samples. Loosely speaking, increasing the number of samples will reduce the variance on the variable you are measuring. When the variance is reduced, the confidence in the result is increased.

Say you are measuring IQ before and after taking omega 3. Say your hypthesis is "omega 3 immedieately increases IQ". Assume this is true, even if it probably isn't. After testing this on 20 people you might be able to say "the hypthesis appears to be true, but there is a 46% percent chance these results are due to chance". However after testing 1000 people, you might be able to say "the hypthesis appears to be true, and there is a 0.5% percent chance these results are due to chance". Then you are 99.5% confident in your result. Standards for confidence varies from field to field, but typically 99% confidence or more is called a significant result. Given some assumptions, you can also calculate the number of samples needed to generate a result with confidence >X% with probability Y. According to Daniel Kahneman in Thinking Fast and Slow, most researchers don't take the time to do this, and are consistently surprised when their experiments turn out to not give significant results.

<comment><USER23> This post, like so many others, states the p-value concept backwards. Statistics give you the chance of a false positive observation among a universe of negative realities, not the chance of a false reality in a universe of positive observations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > No one talks about this stuff!

Yeah, right. Probably in some other internet. You can't find a site today where there they weren't discussed at least once.

Personally I won't take them without prescription from a doctor. Yes, downsides are pretty obscure and rare but the same are benefits. Based on reviews they are not some magic pills like in Limitless. Closer to placebo actually.

<comment><USER25> They are not some magic drug like Limitless, but they are closer to that than to placebos. Do you not notice a difference in your mental and physical state when you take caffeine? Caffeine is a Nootropic and it works, but Caffeine is just the tip of the iceberg.

<comment><USER24> For me caffeine is also closer to a placebo (I do know that it works, just weakly and randomly for different people). The major positive effect of it I think is drinking 100-200ml of hot drink. I feel the same after drinking coffee or any tea or some cacao mix by nestle. Drinking water a lot is very helpful for human brain, especially in cold and arid offices where we mostly sit without moving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think that the /r/nootropics FAQ has a lot of good related information, including links to scientific papers.

<http://www.reddit.com/help/faqs/nootropics>

<comment><USER27> And affiliate links where you can buy.

<comment><USER28> I see no such thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Some helpful links: <http://examine.com> is an excellent, unbiased, citation- oriented database of supplements and nutrition information. Reddit also has a nootropics subreddit: <http://reddit.com/r/nootropics>.

</comment><comment><USER30> I started experimenting with nootropics maybe year ago. There are some interesting effects. I still have to get something that would impress me. Claims that modafinil creates addiction, not true, it seems that same guy is going on forums and spreading those rumors. Anyhow, just wanted to say I am for it, but be reasonable.

However, you should also know, that it is much easier to get a lot of effects just by using things that are easily accesible to us:

* exercise or even walk (like 45 mins)

* coffee (obviously, unfortunately doesn't work for me)

* tea, green tea, yerba mate, others (amazing and powerful effects)

* music - trance or classical work really well

* binaural beats - also work exceptionally well, for focus and for creativity, idea generation

* meditation (goes with the one above)

So what I am trying to say, there are a lot of ways how we can boost our intellects. Let's not forget really enjoyable ones like green tea for example.

<comment><USER31> Well, I see no reason not to use all of the above in conjunction with nootropics.

<comment><USER30> I agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As someone whose diet is already high in eggs, meat etc. (paleo) I wonder how much effect this has. I am asking this because both fish oil supplements and magnesium supplements don't seem to have any additional beneficial effect on me. Anyone have experience with that?

<comment><USER33> As the post admitted, few supplements have benefit once you are eating a well- balanced diet. As he put it, "these are best used to fill any deficiencies." Though it is sad to see what amounts to an infomercial voted up to the number 2 spot on HN.

Added: Now it's made the top post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think the whole idea of nootropics goes against what I call the "American ideology".

The "American Ideology" being that anyone can do anything they just have to try. If you can cognitively enhance yourself and become more successful then that proves that there's some things some people can't do because they are just not smart enough and that realization is enough to activate full blown cognitive dissonance. People think, "this must be cheating!", "this must be dangerous!", "this must be addictive!", "why isn't everybody else doing it?".

</comment><comment><USER35> Potentially relevant - Johann Hari's article in HuffPost about his experiment with Provigil (aka Modafinil).

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/my-experiment- with...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/my-experiment-with- smart_b_156954.html)

<comment><USER36> Some poker players have been talking about this one too to boost their performance.

[http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/20/science/sci- braindop...](http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/20/science/sci- braindoping20)

<http://groanblog.livejournal.com/865.html>

I've read elsewhere that it can be addictive.

Also, the LA Time article discusses Inderal, a beta-blocker which could be considered a smart drug since it eases nerves by reducing adrenaline rushes (no more shaky hands or pounding heart). Might be helpful to the hacker community if you're stricken by nerves working on a tight deadline.

<comment><USER37> Everything I've read about Modafinil suggests that it's not addictive - <USER3> everything being Wikipedia along with some other sites which I don't recall off the top of my head (it was about six months ago when I did any research about it).

It's a lovely little thing though, very nice clean focused sensation coupled with a lack of tiredness.

<comment><USER38> > Everything I've read about Modafinil suggests that it's not addictive - <USER3> > everything being Wikipedia along with some other sites which I don't recall > off the top of my head (it was about six months ago when I did any research > about it).

It's probably not addictive, but what if you become addicted to the lifestyle it makes possible?

<comment><USER39> Well, there's a difference between things you don't want to give up, and things you can't give up because you'll get sick as a dog, and/or require hospitalization and maybe die.

<comment><USER38> I understand what you're saying, but do know that psychological addiction isn't something one can ``just give up''.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> [citation needed]

</comment><comment><USER41> Very heartening to see the skeptical reaction this article is receiving here.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've been taking piracetam with choline twice daily for about 5 years now. It's not very profound, just lets you think a little harder for a little longer. In R&D that can mean a lot though.

The downside is it interacts with stimulants. Too much coffee and you'll be running to the bathroom. Just something to keep in mind.

</comment><comment><USER43> Here's a thread on Bluelight on Nootropics, usage, dose and reports on their effects that I found quite informative: [http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/206147-Aniracetam-holy- cr...](http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/206147-Aniracetam-holy-crap-does-it- work)!

</comment><comment><USER44> It's too bad that this reads like spam. Anyone care to share links to legitimate research?

<comment><USER45> There are a lot of shitty survey-type studies, but there is some good mechanistic research you can turn up just by searching the specific chemical names on Pubmed (<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> At first, I thought this was relating to Lower Dens (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyxzjF8IjE8>)

</comment><comment><USER47> I only have one question, can I get some links to buy these?

<comment><USER47> Reddit pulled through on this one: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/search?q=buy&restrict...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/search?q=buy&restrict_sr=on)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> _[Taking stimulants] can, over time, permanently impair your mental faculties._

Does anyone have citations for that claim? (Any non-anecdotal evidence.)

<comment><USER49> It isn't an obscure claim:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant_psychosis>

<comment><USER48> Hey, thanks for your time. I appreciate it.

Stimulant psychosis is unrelated to long-term permanent cognitive impairment; it's temporary, for example.

I was hoping to find out more about the medical basis for the "permanent gradual decline of mental abilities" assertion, because it seems hard to believe that our current knowledge of the human brain is sufficient to make such a broad claim with any degree of accuracy.

<comment><USER49> Well, the page does say "However it has been suggested that about 5–15% of users fail to make a complete recovery from the psychosis in the long term."

And there are other statements suggesting that people that have suffered from acute psychosis are prone to relapses (if a chronic user has more problems than a dabbler, that at least suggests accumulated damage).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The best smart "drug" you can take is Omega-3. 90% of the population is deficient in it. Its also the #1 supplement to control ADHD.

</comment><comment><USER51> I can't believe we're calling them "smart drugs" if they don't even take the opportunity to overuse the ümlaut...

</comment><comment><USER52> "it's a mobile OS powered by JavaScript!"

fail. I hope you can code in something else than javascript. We have to DEAL with Javascript on the browser because browser vendors haven't bothered supporting other more superior languages, wouldn't it be nice to have type="text/python", type="text/ruby" as options, have threads, native datatypes, real OO, logical variable scoping, better numeric precision and all the things that javascript was not meant for?

I hope more big time CEOs come out and say that not everything is meant to be written with HTML5. It's like we're raising a generation of moronic programmers with all this HTML5 hype.

<comment><USER53> Is this generation any different than the generation of moronic programmers raised on Java?</comment></comment>


Marketing Superpowers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/on-startups/d6704a4f231c

<comment><USER2> This was a marketing piece if I've ever seen one. But to throw salt in the wound, looking on the companies website their product doesn't seem to do what the article claims. At least not without additional custom code. Which leads you to a situation of "get started easily in 6 easy hours!".

The idea seemed great though. Give them an email, get back a dossier on the person.</comment>


Uber Co-Founder's Startup 'Operator' Will Get You What You Want - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/07/operator/ <comment><USER2> If they can figure out that magic logistic mystery there's opportunity here.

However it'll be hard to dominate like Uber.</comment>


Total Lunar Eclipse Mon Night/Tue Morning for Western Hemisphere - <AUTHOR> http://www.mreclipse.com/LEdata/TLE2010Dec21/TLE2010Dec21.html <comment><USER2> Does anybody else have a problem with the phrase, 'The Western Hemisphere'?

And I'm from Australia so Summer 2011 is a difficult thing as well.

<comment><USER3> In this context: no. It's just the astronomical description (by convention) for the 180 degrees of longitude "left" of Greenwich. But sometimes I have problems with "western" designating a cultural/political unity where Australia makes part of whereas Brazil might not (depending on context).

And indeed: when, actually, is Summer 2011 in Australia?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice. Sounds like a great reason to stay up late.

The next annular solar eclipse for north america:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_20,_2012>

And the next total solar eclipse for north america:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_201...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017)

Please correct me if I'm wrong or add to my list.

</comment><comment><USER5> For those of us not living in the US, or not wanting to stay up late, or even for those that want to work out the best time to go out to look (if it's cold where you are), <http://www.stellarium.org/> is a free cross-platform planetarium tool that allows you to simulate the skies from your personal location and gives you loads of info to boot. You can also switch dark skies mode on if you install it on a laptop and take it outside without it destroying your night sight.

If you want to see what a lunar eclipse would look like _from the moon's perspective_ , Celestia (<http://www.shatters.net/celestia/>) is a free cross- platform solar system simulator where you can go to the moon, set the time accordingly and watch the sun go behind the earth.

</comment><comment><USER6> To be clear for those on the west coast, it's actually 12/20/2010 starting around 10:30pm. The "morning" is for the eastern seaboard where it'll be 3am for totality, whereas for those of us in the west it's 12am.

<comment><AUTHOR> I changed the title to reflect this.</comment></comment>