Cupertino Mandate Forces Apple to Build More Parking Than Office

The high cost of free parking — Vox

Vox

Arbitrary municipal parking minimums inflate the cost of housing and everyday goods while destroying urban walkability, requiring cities to deregulate off-street parking and price curb spaces dynamically.

AI-assisted summary of The high cost of free parking — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • The United States maintains an estimated 8 parking spaces for every car on the road, consuming land equivalent to the entire state of West Virginia and up to 30% of American city area. (0:00)
  • Apple's circular Cupertino campus includes more floor space dedicated to parking structures than to the office ring itself due to a municipal requirement mandating 11,000 parking spaces. (0:00)
  • Mandatory parking minimums were popularized after World War II to shift the financial burden of managing vehicle storage away from municipal budgets and onto private developers. (1:15)
  • Urban planning professor Donald Shoup outlines a three-part solution to repair urban land use: abolish parking minimums, price street curb spots to leave 1-2 open spaces per block, and return meter revenues directly to metered districts. (5:08)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Vox on July 19, 2017, this video explores how hidden municipal parking regulations damage American cities. Created with insight from Mobility Lab's Will Chilton and Paul Mackie, as well as urban planning professor Donald Shoup, the piece examines the unintended economic and architectural costs of post-WWII mandatory parking minimums.

## TL;DR Across the United States, an estimated eight parking spaces exist for every car, occupying land area equivalent to the state of West Virginia due to post-WWII mandatory parking minimums. Urban planning professor Donald Shoup explains that these arbitrary ratios act like economic 'pseudoscience,' forcing developers to construct massive asphalt footprints that inflate consumer prices, undermine walkability, and prevent dense housing construction. Because drivers rarely pay the true cost directly, the expense of parking is hidden inside higher rents, taxes, and retail prices. To fix this crisis, Shoup proposes a three-part solution: abolishing parking minimums, pricing street parking dynamically to ensure one or two vacancies per block, and reinvesting meter revenues directly back into neighborhood public services.

## Atmosphere & style The video maintains Vox's signature sharp, analytical, and highly accessible explanatory tone, blending clean graphic visualizations with engaging historical footage. Donald Shoup serves as an authoritative yet wry guide, puncturing modern planning dogmas with dry humor, colorful analogies comparing parking rules to medical bloodletting, and an exhausted charm at the end of his presentation. The narrative arc moves effectively from eye-opening disbelief at the sheer scale of American parking to an empowering, pragmatic blueprint for urban reform.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) The United States maintains an estimated 8 parking spaces for every car on the road, consuming land equivalent to the entire state of West Virginia and up to 30% of American city area. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) Apple's circular Cupertino campus includes more floor space dedicated to parking structures than to the office ring itself due to a municipal requirement mandating 11,000 parking spaces. - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) Mandatory parking minimums were popularized after World War II to shift the financial burden of managing vehicle storage away from municipal budgets and onto private developers. - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Urban planning professor Donald Shoup outlines a three-part solution to repair urban land use: abolish parking minimums, price street curb spots to leave 1-2 open spaces per block, and return meter revenues directly to metered districts.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) Apple's iconic Cupertino headquarters was mandated by the city to build 11,000 parking stalls, resulting in parking garages that exceed the floor area of the main office building. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) Parking infrastructure occupies up to 30% of the land area in American cities, totaling roughly the size of West Virginia. - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) Before the invention of the parking meter in 1935, American cities lacked pricing mechanisms to ration congested street curb space. - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) Early parking meter vendors encouraged municipal adoption by providing hardware for free, recouping costs through initial coin receipts, and staging half-street trials to demonstrate turnover. - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) Cities widely adopted off-street parking minimums after World War II to avoid paying for municipal parking facilities while attempting to clear curb congestion. - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) Parking minimums rely on pseudo-scientific ratios establishing stalls per square foot, hospital bassinets, golf holes, or gallons of water in a public pool. - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) Because an average parking stall and drive aisle consumes roughly 330 square feet, standard minimums require parking lots as large as, or multiple times larger than, the buildings they serve. - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) 'Free' parking is financed invisibly through higher prices on consumer goods, inflated residential rents, and municipal tax burdens borne by drivers and non-drivers alike. - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Rigid parking mandates make historic, walkable urban centers like Paris, Amsterdam, and Manhattan illegal to build today. - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Abolishing minimum parking requirements allows developers and the market to decide parking allocation while freeing urban land for housing. - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Dynamic on-street pricing should adjust to ensure one or two parking spots remain open on every block at all times. - [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Earmarking meter revenues specifically for local public services and infrastructure on the metered street builds public support for paid parking.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) The Scale of American Parking and Apple’s Mandated Garage

Four months before his death in 2011, Steve Jobs made his final public appearance to pitch the design for Apple’s new circular campus in Cupertino, California. Jobs presented a grand architectural vision where 12,000 employees would be housed under a single roof, replacing vast expanses of existing asphalt with lush greenery. Reflecting on the transformation, Jobs remarked, “The overall feeling of the place is gonna be a zillion times better than it is now, with all the asphalt. so we’d like to plant a lot of trees including some apricot orchards…” However, Jobs left out a critical detail: the planned parking structures for the site contained more total floor space than the iconic office ring itself. That massive parking footprint was not Apple’s idea; it was mandated by the city of Cupertino, which required 11,000 parking spaces for the development.

Cupertino’s mandate exemplifies a nationwide reality. Across the United States, parking infrastructure dominates the built environment to an astonishing degree, actively subsidizing and driving automotive dependency.

- America contains an estimated 8 parking spaces for every single car on the road. - Parking lots and structures cover up to 30% of American cities. - Collectively, American parking infrastructure takes up roughly as much land area as the entire state of West Virginia.

[01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) The Dual Inventions: Parking Meters and Mandatory Minimums

In the 1920s and 1930s, American curbs became completely overwhelmed by the influx of automobiles. Because municipal authorities had no dynamic pricing mechanisms, curbing demand was impossible until the parking meter was invented in 1935. Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA who specializes in the economics of parking, explains: “If you look at pictures of the American cities around 1920 and 1930, all of the curbs are just completely filled with parked cars. And they couldn’t use prices to manage demand because the parking meter wasn’t even invented until 1935.” Parking meter manufacturers popularized their product through clever sales tactics: they installed meters for free, collected the initial coin revenue for about six months until the hardware was paid off, and then handed all future revenue to the city. To prove their effectiveness, vendors often installed meters on only one side of a congested street so officials could see the immediate contrast in turnover and availability.

Alongside the meter, cities invented off-street parking requirements—commonly known as mandatory parking minimums. Following World War II and the rapid onset of suburbanization, cities scrambled to prevent street crowding without spending municipal funds. Forcing developers to build parking shifted the capital costs off city budgets, causing minimum parking rules to sweep the nation faster than almost any other planning trend. Shoup points out: “Off street parking requirements really spread throughout the United States faster than really any other urban planning invention. And they arose partly because of the lack of management of on-street parking. If you can’t manage the on street parking properly, you need off street parking requirements or everybody will say ‘how did you let this building be built when there’s not enough parking.’”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Evolution of Urban Parking Management accDescr: Historical progression from early curb congestion to meters and mandatory off-street minimums.

subgraph EarlyCrisis["1920s-1930s Congestion"] A["Rapid Auto Growth"] --> B["Curbs Overwhelmed"] B --> C["No Price Mechanism to Ration Space"] end

subgraph DualSolutions["Mid-Century Interventions"] C --> D["Invention 1: Parking Meters (1935)<br/>Priced Curb Demand"] C --> E["Invention 2: Parking Minimums<br/>Shifted Supply Burden to Developers"] end

subgraph ModernResult["Suburban Sprawl"] E --> F["Vast Asphalt Footprints"] F --> G["Lower Density & Car Reliance"] end ```

[03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) The Pseudoscience and Hidden Costs of Parking Minimums

Mandatory parking rules establish ratios dictating a specific number of parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of building space, calibrated to specific land uses. These ratios often reach absurd granular standards, establishing spaces per bassinet in maternity wards, per hole on a golf course, per thousand gallons of water in a public swimming pool, or arbitrary counts for funeral homes. Because an average parking space requires roughly 330 square feet—accounting for both the stall itself and the maneuvering drive aisles—a rule requiring 3 spots per 1,000 square feet results in a parking lot identical in size to the building it serves. For restaurants, requirements often jump to 10 spots per 1,000 square feet, producing a parking lot more than three times the size of the dining establishment. Shoup likens the methodology of setting these numbers to historical medical malpractice: “Planners don’t have any training in how to set them, and there’s really no way to say how much parking every building needs, so there’s a pseudoscience that has grown up, like blood letting, which was a major form of medical treatment for a couple thousand years, and that’s just like parking requirements today.”

These requirements impose enormous hidden financial burdens. When developers cannot provide mandated parking on-site, cities levy in-lieu fees running tens of thousands of dollars per missing stall, often making new construction financially impossible. The public perceives parking as free, but the expense is merely diffused into everyday goods, rents, and local taxes. Shoup emphasizes: “We pay for the free parking that we demand in every role that we have in life other than as a driver. As a tax payer, as a resident, as a shopper. And just because you pay nothing for parking at the parking lot of the grocery store doesn’t mean the cost goes away. It’s still there. It’s just that the driver isn’t paying for it.”

- Stall footprint: ~330 sq ft per stall (including access aisles). - Retail/office ratio (3 spots / 1,000 sq ft): Parking area equals 100% of building floor area. - Restaurant ratio (10 spots / 1,000 sq ft): Parking area equals over 300% of building floor area.

[05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Urban Consequences and Donald Shoup’s Three-Point Fix

By forcing developments to include vast seas of asphalt, parking minimums depress urban density, push buildings far apart, destroy walkability, and induce further driving and congestion. Beloved dense, walkable cities such as Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., and New York City could never have been constructed under modern suburban parking mandates. Shoup laments the misallocation of prime urban real estate: “This is the most valuable land on earth. Land is expensive for housing but its free for parking. And you wonder why we have a problem?” However, this misallocation presents a major opportunity: underused parking lots can be reclaimed and redeveloped into much-needed housing.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Donald Shoup Three-Point Policy Reform accDescr: Three core recommendations to fix municipal parking policy.

subgraph Step1["Deregulate"] A["Abolish Mandatory<br/>Parking Minimums"] end

subgraph Step2["Price Curb Space"] B["Price On-Street Parking Dynamically<br/>Target: 1-2 Open Spots per Block"] end

subgraph Step3["Reinvest Revenue"] C["Dedicate Meter Revenue to<br/>Local Public Services on Metered Blocks"] end

A --> B --> C ```

To reverse these structural failures, Shoup condenses his landmark 800-page treatise into three straightforward policy reforms:

1. **Eliminate off-street parking minimums:** Let the market, rather than arbitrary city mandates, decide how much parking each development requires. 2. **Implement dynamic curb pricing:** Price street spaces to match demand, fluctuating by location and time of day to keep one or two spots open on every block. Shoup summarizes this rule: “Charge the right price for on-street parking, by which I mean the lowest price the city can charge and still have one or two open spaces on every block. So nobody can say there's a shortage of parking.” 3. **Reinvest parking revenues locally:** Dedicate meter revenues directly back to public services and infrastructure enhancements on the metered streets themselves, building public and political support for paid parking. After delivering his core recommendations, Shoup quips, “Well I'm worn out.”

## Notable quotes > [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) We pay for the free parking that we demand in every role that we have in life other than as a driver. As a tax payer, as a resident, as a shopper. — Donald Shoup

> [05:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=308s) Charge the right price for on-street parking, by which I mean the lowest price the city can charge and still have one or two open spaces on every block. — Donald Shoup

> [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) Off street parking requirements really spread throughout the United States faster than really any other urban planning invention. And they arose partly because of the lack of management of on-street parking. — Donald Shoup

## Mentioned Steve Jobs, Donald Shoup, Apple, Cupertino, California, UCLA, Mobility Lab, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., New York City, West Virginia, The High Cost of Free Parking

## Video description Hidden parking rules hurt our cities. Will Chilton and Paul Mackie of Mobility Lab explain.

Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO

The cities we live in are shaped by the way we get around them. Over the past 60 years, with more and more people opting to drive cars, the need for parking spaces has increased with the boom in driving. To accommodate that demand early on, cities and towns started requiring developers to include parking with their new buildings after World War II. These policies, known as mandatory parking minimums, set precise standards for parking spaces for each building. And these parking spaces don't come cheap.

To learn much more on free parking's affect on cities, Donald Shoup's book is here: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X

And Mobility Lab, who helped make this video, covers many more issues around infrastructure is here: https://mobilitylab.org/

Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.

Check out our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE Follow Vox on Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H Or on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U)

中文简报

库比蒂诺强制规定迫使苹果修建多于办公面积的停车场 随意的市政最低停车配建要求推高了住房与日常商品成本，同时破坏了城市步行适宜性，需要各城市放宽路外停车管制并对路侧车位实行动态定价。 在全美范围内，据估计平均每辆车拥有八个停车位；由于二战后出台的强制性最低停车配建要求，这些车位占用的土地面积相当于整个西弗吉尼亚州。城市规划教授唐纳德·舒普（Donald Shoup）解释说，这些随意的比例形同经济学上的“伪科学”，迫使开发商修建大面积的沥青铺面，推高了消费物价，损害了步行便利性，并阻碍了密集住宅的建设。由于驾驶员很少直接支付真实成本，停车费用被隐性转嫁到了更高的租金、税收和零售商品价格中。为了解决这一危机，舒普提出了一个三步解决方案：取消最低停车配建要求、对路边停车进行动态定价以确保每个街区留有一至两个空闲车位，并将咪表收入直接再投资于所在社区的公共服务。 美国在路行驶的车辆平均估计拥有8个停车位，占用的土地面积相当于整个西弗吉尼亚州，最多占到美国城市面积的30%。 (0:00) 由于一项要求提供11,000个停车位的市政规定，苹果位于库比蒂诺的环形园区中，专用于停车设施的建筑面积超过了办公环形楼本身的面积。 (0:00) 二战后，强制性最低停车配建要求被广泛推广，目的是将管理车辆停放的财政负担从市政预算转移到私人开发商身上。 (1:15) 城市规划教授唐纳德·舒普提出了修复城市土地利用的三步解决方案：取消最低停车配建要求，对路侧停车位定价以确保每个街区留出1至2个空位，并将咪表收费直接返还给收费区域。 (5:08)

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由新闻机构 Vox 于 2017 年 7 月 19 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介指出，隐蔽的停车配建法规正在严重损害城市发展，内容结合了研究机构 Mobility Lab 的分析与加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）唐纳德·肖普（Donald Shoup）教授的著作《免费停车的高昂代价》，深入探讨了强制性停车配建指标对城市形态与公众生活的隐形冲击。 ## TL;DR 全美平均每辆汽车对应多达 8 个停车位，停车场占用了大量宝贵的城市土地，甚至苹果新园区的停车面积都超过了办公主楼，这一现象源于二战后推行的强制路外停车配建政策。学者唐纳德·肖普指出，各类荒唐的配建指标犹如城市规划领域的“放血疗法”，不仅大幅抬高了建设成本并加深了小汽车依赖，更让公众以纳税人、居民和顾客的身份为“免费停车”买单。为此，他提出了三项针对性改革方案：彻底取消路外停车配建要求、对路边停车实施动态定价以维持合理空位率，并将咪表收益全额返还给所在街区以完善市政设施。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片呈现出典型的高水准 Vox 视听解说质感，节奏明快、叙事层层递进，借由直观的数据可视化与鲜活的规划案例打破观众的日常认知惯性。唐纳德·肖普教授出镜讲解时风趣幽默且言辞犀利，把荒诞的配建指标痛斥为“放血疗法”，既严肃揭露了系统性规划缺陷的深远代价，又在倾囊相授三项改革建议后展现出率真可亲的学者风度。整个叙事充满理性质询与改良愿景，令原本冷门的城市规划与停车经济学议题变得极具张力与启发性。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) 苹果新园区 Apple Park 容纳 1.2 万人，因库比蒂诺市政强制配建 1.1 万个停车位，导致其停车设施面积超过了办公主楼。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) 美国平均每辆车对应约 8 个停车位，停车用地占部分城市面积的 30%，总占地面积已相当于整个西弗吉尼亚州。 - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) 强制路外停车配建指标缺乏科学依据，单个车位加通道需占地约 330 平方英尺，导致许多餐馆门前的停车场面积达到餐馆本身的 3 倍以上。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 城市规划学者唐纳德·肖普指出“免费停车”的成本实由顾客与纳税人隐性承担，并提出取消强制配建、动态调节路边收费及返还街区收益三项改革方案。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) 苹果总部 Apple Park 虽主打高密度绿化与自然景观，但受限于地方停车配额法规，其地下及周边配套的停车设施面积超过了环形办公主楼本体。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) 全美汽车停车设施严重过剩，平均每辆车拥有多达 8 个车位，巨量土地被沥青硬化侵占，深刻重塑了美国的国土空间格局与出行依赖。 - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) 20 世纪初汽车激增引发严重的路边乱停危机，由于当时缺乏收费咪表等价格调控工具，倒逼出咪表收费与路外强制配建指标两项深远制度。 - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) 二战后路外停车强制配建要求在全美迅速蔓延，政府借助行政指标将停车建设成本转嫁给开发商，以此掩盖对路边公共停车管理能力的不足。 - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) 现行停车指标换算标准极为荒谬，甚至依据病房婴儿床、高尔夫球洞或泳池水量来计算车位，被唐纳德·肖普批评为现代城市规划中类似“放血疗法”的伪科学。 - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) 标准车位加上通道平均占用约 330 平方英尺，严苛的配额指标导致商业用地的停车场面积轻易达到甚至数倍于建筑物本身。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 表面免费的停车位成本极为高昂，未能配建指标的开发商常面临每车位上万美元的罚款，高昂造价直接转嫁入房价与商品零售成本中。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 免费停车将最宝贵的城市土地用于低效停放车辆，拉大了建筑物间距并严重侵蚀步行便利度，导致巴黎、阿姆斯特丹等高密度名城在现代规范下根本无法建造。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 肖普改革建议之一是彻底取消路外停车配建要求，停止行政干预，让市场机制自主决定建筑所需的停车位数量。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 肖普改革建议之二是对路边停车实行分时动态定价，以保持每个街区始终有 1 至 2 个空位的最低价格为基准，消除寻位拥堵与短缺假象。 - [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 肖普改革建议之三是将路边咪表的收费收入定向返还给征收街区，用于改善当地公共设施与环境，从而换取商户与社区的政治支持。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=0s) 乔布斯的愿景与库比蒂诺的现实：美国城市的停车困境 2011 年，在史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）去世前四个月，他进行了人生中最后一次公开演讲，向市议会推介苹果公司当时刚刚动工的新园区 Apple Park。乔布斯当时描绘了一个充满诗意的蓝图：“我们拿出了一个能够把 12,000 人容纳在一座建筑里的设计。”他设想的核心，是将原本大片的沥青地面改造成郁郁葱葱的自然景观，他在演讲中直言：“有了这些树木，这里的整体感觉会比现在到处都是沥青的样子好上一亿倍。所以我们打算种植大量的树木，甚至包括一些杏树果园……”然而，乔布斯在演讲中没有提及的是，园区规划的停车设施建筑面积实际上比办公主楼还要大。 这一设计并非出自苹果的本意，而是因为库比蒂诺（Cupertino）市政府出台了强行规定，要求该园区必须配备 11,000 个停车位。库比蒂诺的这种做法在全美绝非个例。据估算，美国平均每辆汽车对应着多达 8 个停车位，这些停车面积占到了美国城市用地面积的 30%，其全部加起来的占地面积相当于整个西弗吉尼亚州。充足的停车位刺激了人们选择开车出行，而这种管理停车需求的规章制度不仅左右了人们的通勤方式，更从根本上重塑了整个国家的城市格局。 - 苹果新园区设计容纳人数：12,000 人；市政府强制要求的停车位：11,000 个。 - 全美车位比例：平均每辆车约有 8 个车位。 - 空间占比：停车场地占美国部分城市面积的 30%，总面积相当于一个西弗吉尼亚州。 ### [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) 咪表与路外停车配建指标：两项塑造城市的发明 在 20 世纪初，随着汽车迅速涌入城市，路边停车问题开始演变成严重的城市危机。加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）专门研究停车问题的城市规划学教授唐纳德·肖普（Donald Shoup）指出：“如果你看 1920 年和 1930 年左右美国城市的照片，所有的路边全部停满了车。”当时市政管理者根本无法用价格杠杆来调节供需，因为停车收费咪表直到 1935 年才被发明出来。随后，两项关键发明彻底主导了全美的停车管理模式：第一项便是路边咪表，第二项则是隐身在幕后却无处不在的“路外停车配建要求”（Off-street parking requirements，又称强制停车配建下限）。 为了迅速打开市场，咪表制造商当年采用了一种巧妙的推广策略：他们免费为城市安装咪表，并在前 6 个月内保留所有停车费收入以收回咪表成本，之后所有的停车收益全部归市政府所有；为了打消疑虑，厂商甚至建议先在街道的一侧安装，让市民和官员直观对比有咪表和没有咪表两侧的交通秩序。几乎在同一时期，城市规划中诞生了路外停车配建要求。随着二战后的郊区化浪潮，这项政策在全美各级政府中迅速普及，因为它强制开发商必须在新建筑物旁配备车位，政府一分钱不用花就凭空获得了巨量的停车位供给。唐纳德·肖普评价道：“路外停车配建要求在全美的蔓延速度，其实比任何其他城市规划发明都要快。它们的出现，很大程度上是因为对路边停车缺乏有效管理。如果你无法合理管理路边停车，就必须依赖路外配建要求，否则所有人都会质问：‘车位都不够，你们怎么能批准这栋楼建起来？’” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 强制停车配建规则的形成与城市影响逻辑 accDescr: 展示路边停车缺乏管理如何导致强制路外停车配建政策出台，并进一步引发城市密度降低与小汽车依赖的恶性循环。 subgraph Origin["历史背景与诱因"] A["1920-1930年代汽车激增"] --> B["路边无序停满车辆"] B --> C["政府缺乏路边定价管控手段"] end subgraph Policy["政策出台"] C --> D["引入路边咪表"] C --> E["推行路外停车强制配建指标"] E --> F["成本直接转嫁给建筑开发商"] end subgraph Consequence["城市形态畸变"] F --> G["停车面积超过建筑自身面积"] G --> H["城市密度降低、建筑间距拉大"] H --> I["步行困难、小汽车依赖加深"] I --> B end ``` ### [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=200s) 荒谬的配比标准与“放血疗法”式的伪科学 在实际操作中，强制停车指标通常规定每 1,000 平方英尺的建筑面积必须配备固定数量的车位，但具体的计算标准却十分随意荒诞。唐纳德·肖普列举了许多令人啼笑皆非的规定：“你必须按照某种东西来换算停车位数量。它可以是医院里每个婴儿床分配几个车位，或者是高尔夫球场每个球洞分配几个车位，甚至是游泳池里每千加仑水分配几个车位。最离奇的要数殡仪馆，因为那简直是……按什么来配停车位呢？” 这些配比背后的土地消耗十分惊人。一个标准的停车位加上出入通道的空旷面积，平均需要占用约 330 平方英尺。这意味着，如果一项政策要求每 1,000 平方英尺建筑配建 3 个车位，停车场的占地面积就几乎与建筑物本身的占地面积持平；而在餐饮业中，许多地方要求每 1,000 平方英尺配备 10 个车位，导致餐馆门前的停车场面积直接达到了餐馆建筑本体的 3 倍以上。对于这种看似严谨实则缺乏依据的指标制定方式，唐纳德·肖普严厉批评道：“规划师根本没有受过如何设定这些指标的专业培训，而且实际上也没有办法说清每栋建筑到底需要多少停车位，因此诞生了一种伪科学，就像曾经作为两千多年主要医疗手段的放血疗法一样，今天的停车配建指标也是如此。” - 标准停车位占用面积：约 330 平方英尺（含车辆停放空间与出入通行道）。 - 典型配比影响： - 每 1,000 平方英尺配 3 个车位：停车场面积相当于建筑物本身面积。 - 餐厅标准（每 1,000 平方英尺配 10 个车位）：停车场面积是餐厅本身的 3 倍以上。 ### [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 隐藏的代价与唐纳德·肖普的改革三策 建造停车场的成本极为高昂，尤其是涉及大型工程时更是天文数字。如果开发商无法满足规定的停车配额，就必须为每一个未能配建的车位向政府缴纳数万美元的罚款，高昂的成本往往直接导致许多新开发项目彻底搁浅。然而，社会大众却误以为停车是免费的。唐纳德·肖普犀利地戳破了这一假象：“我们在生活中除了作为司机之外的每一个角色，都在为我们所要求的免费停车买单。作为纳税人、作为居民、作为顾客。仅仅因为你在杂货店的停车场停车没付钱，并不意味着成本就凭空消失了。成本依然在那里，只是司机没有直接买单而已。” 更加严重的是，低效的用地模式对城市发展造成了长久损害。唐纳德·肖普指出：“这是地球上最宝贵的土地。土地用于建房时极其昂贵，但用于停车时却是免费的。难道你还奇怪我们为什么会面临问题吗？”停车指标导致停车面积超过建筑空间，压低了城市密度，将建筑彼此推得更远，破坏了步行环境并倒逼更多人驾车。人们所热爱的巴黎、华盛顿特区、阿姆斯特丹或纽约等高密度历史名城，如果按照现代停车配建要求建造，根本不可能呈现出如今的风貌。不过，这些被过度占用的土地也蕴含着巨大的再开发机遇，可以改造为人们真正需要的居住空间。 在探讨解决方案时，唐纳德·肖普将自己 800 页的经典著作《免费停车的高昂代价》（The High Cost of Free Parking）提炼为给城市决策者的三条核心建议： 1. **彻底取消路外停车配建要求**：停止用行政指标强迫开发商修建多余的停车位，让市场根据实际需求调节。 2. **对路边停车合理定价**：收取能够保持每个街区始终有 1 到 2 个空余车位的最低价格，这样既能消除找车位引发的拥堵，也没人能抱怨“停车位短缺”；为此，收费标准必须根据地理位置和一天中的不同时段进行动态调整。 3. **将路边咪表收入专项返还给当地街区**：将收缴的停车费直接用于维护和改善这些收费街道的公共设施与市政服务，从而争取商户与社区居民的政治支持。 在完整阐明这套系统性方案后，唐纳德·肖普笑着舒了一口气，对着镜头幽默地感叹道：“呼，我可真是说累了。” ## Notable quotes > [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 我们在生活中除了作为司机之外的每一个角色，都在为我们所要求的免费停车买单。作为纳税人、作为居民、作为顾客。 — 唐纳德·肖普 > [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 仅仅因为你在杂货店的停车场停车没付钱，并不意味着成本就凭空消失了。成本依然在那里，只是司机没有直接买单而已。 — 唐纳德·肖普 > [04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=273s) 土地用于建房时极其昂贵，但用于停车时却是免费的。 — 唐纳德·肖普 > [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U&t=75s) 路外停车配建要求在全美的蔓延速度，其实比任何其他城市规划发明都要快。它们的出现，很大程度上是因为对路边停车缺乏有效管理。 — 唐纳德·肖普 ## Mentioned 史蒂夫·乔布斯, 唐纳德·肖普, 苹果公司, Apple Park, 库比蒂诺, 加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校, 《免费停车的高昂代价》, Vox, Mobility Lab, Will Chilton, Paul Mackie, 西弗吉尼亚州, 巴黎, 华盛顿特区, 阿姆斯特丹, 纽约 ## Video description Hidden parking rules hurt our cities. Will Chilton and Paul Mackie of Mobility Lab explain. Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO The cities we live in are shaped by the way we get around them. Over the past 60 years, with more and more people opting to drive cars, the need for parking spaces has increased with the boom in driving. To accommodate that demand early on, cities and towns started requiring developers to include parking with their new buildings after World War II. These policies, known as mandatory parking minimums, set precise standards for parking spaces for each building. And these parking spaces don't come cheap. To learn much more on free parking's affect on cities, Donald Shoup's book is here: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X And Mobility Lab, who helped make this video, covers many more issues around infrastructure is here: https://mobilitylab.org/ Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app. Check out our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE Follow Vox on Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H Or on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U)

Source quotes

[4:33] 唐纳德·肖普: 我们在生活中除了作为司机之外的每一个角色，都在为我们所要求的免费停车买单。作为纳税人、作为居民、作为顾客。 [4:33] 唐纳德·肖普: 仅仅因为你在杂货店的停车场停车没付钱，并不意味着成本就凭空消失了。成本依然在那里，只是司机没有直接买单而已。 [4:33] 唐纳德·肖普: 土地用于建房时极其昂贵，但用于停车时却是免费的。 [1:15] 唐纳德·肖普: 路外停车配建要求在全美的蔓延速度，其实比任何其他城市规划发明都要快。它们的出现，很大程度上是因为对路边停车缺乏有效管理。

Source quotes

[3:20] Donald Shoup: We pay for the free parking that we demand in every role that we have in life other than as a driver. As a tax payer, as a resident, as a shopper. [5:08] Donald Shoup: Charge the right price for on-street parking, by which I mean the lowest price the city can charge and still have one or two open spaces on every block. [1:15] Donald Shoup: Off street parking requirements really spread throughout the United States faster than really any other urban planning invention. And they arose partly because of the lack of management of on-street parking.

Original transcript

[0:00] STEVE JOBS: “And we’ve come up with a design that [0:03] puts 12,000 people in one building” [0:08] Four months before he died in 2011, Steve Jobs made his final public appearance pitching [0:13] Apple’s new campus, which opened this year. [0:17] Central to his vision was turning existing parking lots into a green landscape. [0:21] STEVE JOBS “The overall feeling of the place is gonna [0:24] be a zillion times better than it is now, with all the asphalt. [0:27] so we’d like to plant a lot of trees including some apricot orchards…” [0:31] But Jobs didn’t mention that the new parking structure on campus would have had more floor [0:36] space than the office building. [0:38] That’s because it wasn’t Apple’s plan. [0:40] The decision came from the city of Cupertino, which demanded 11,000 parking spots for the [0:48] campus. [0:49] But Cupertino is hardly unique. [0:50] It’s estimated that in America there are 8 parking spots for every car, covering up [0:55] to 30% of our cities, and collectively taking up about as much space as the state of West [1:01] Virginia. [1:02] The more parking we have, the more we’re able to drive. [1:06] The rules that manage our parking needs not only influence the way we move around but [1:11] also shape our urban landscapes. [1:15] DONALD SHOUP: If you look at pictures of the American cities around 1920 and 1930, all [1:27] of the curbs are just completely filled with parked cars. [1:31] And they couldn’t use prices to manage demand because the parking meter wasn’t even invented [1:35] until 1935. [1:37] This is Donald Shoup. [1:39] An Urban planning professor at UCLA, whose speciality is parking. [1:45] As cars filled cities in the early 20th century, two inventions came to dominate parking management [1:50] throughout the United States. [1:52] The first was the parking meter. [1:54] DONALD SHOUP: The way the meter manufacturers popularized parking meters was they offered [1:58] them free to cities and they kept the revenue until the meter was paid for in about 6 months [2:04] – and then the city got all the revenue. [2:06] They offered to install them on one side of the street only, so people could see how it [2:10] worked on one side, and how it worked on the other. [2:13] Around the same time the parking meter was invented, cities invented the idea of off [2:17] street parking requirements. [2:20] Off street parking requirement, also known as mandatory parking minimums, are the second [2:25] invention. [2:26] And though you may not be aware of it them, most of the parking lots you’re used to [2:30] exist because of these rules in the background. [2:33] SHOUP: look at any place from the air, any suburban place from the air – you see an [2:38] awful lot of land taken up for parking. [2:41] And most people don’t know why. [2:42] It’s our policy that we require our cities to be built with a lot of parking. [2:47] With the suburbanization after World War II, off-street parking requirements became popular [2:52] with city governments. [2:53] They forced developers to include a parking for their new buildings, which created a huge [2:57] supply of parking lots at no cost to the city. [3:00] SHOUP: Off street parking requirements really spread throughout the United States faster [3:05] than really any other urban planning invention. [3:07] And they arose partly because of the lack of management of on-street parking. [3:11] If you can’t manage the on street parking properly, you need off street parking requirements [3:16] or everybody will say “how did you let this building be built when there’s not enough [3:19] parking.” [3:20] A typical requirement looks like this: [3:22] For every 1000 square feet of new building, there has to be a set number of parking spots [3:27] which varies by land use. [3:28] SHOUP: You have to have parking spaces per something. [3:31] It could be a number of spaces per bassinet in a hospital, or per holes in a golf course, [3:39] or per thousand gallons of water in a swimming pool. [3:42] One of the oddest ones is for a funeral home, because that’s sort of – parking spaces [3:47] per what? [3:48] An average parking spot requires about 330 square feet, which includes car storage and [3:54] empty space for the access aisles. [3:58] That means If a policy requires 3 spots per thousand feet, the parking lot needs to be [4:03] the size of the building. [4:04] And many parking requirements need more spots, a restaurant may need 10 spots per thousand [4:09] square feet, making the parking lot over three times larger than the restaurant. [4:13] SHOUP: Planners don’t have any training in how to set them, and there’s really no [4:16] way to say how much parking every building needs, so there’s a pseudoscience that has [4:22] grown up, like blood letting, which was a major form of medical treatment for a couple [4:29] thousand years, and that’s just like parking requirements today. [4:33] Building parking is expensive especially when it involves a large construction project. [4:37] SHOUP: We pay for the free parking that we demand in every role that we have in life [4:42] other than as a driver. [4:43] As a tax payer, as a resident, as a shopper. [4:48] And just because you pay nothing for parking at the parking lot of the grocery store doesn’t [4:52] mean the cost goes away. [4:53] It’s still there. [4:54] It’s just that the driver isn’t paying for it. [4:58] Developers who don't comply with parking requirements pay tens of thousands of dollars for every [5:03] spot that they don't include. [5:04] A lot of times, these costs prohibit new development. [5:08] SHOUP: This is the most valuable land on earth. [5:11] Land is expensive for housing but its free for parking. [5:15] And you wonder why we have a problem? [5:17] Parking requirements often result in more parking space than building space, so they [5:21] lower density of cities, pushing buildings further apart from each other, making it harder [5:25] to walk and encouraging more driving. [5:28] Many of the dense cities that we love like Paris, Washington DC or Amsterdam or New York [5:33] wouldn’t look like this with parking requirements. [5:37] These arbitrary rules continue to shape the growth of our cities, and increase traffic [5:42] congestion. [5:43] But the excessive amount of land dedicated to parking spaces is able to be repurposed. [5:47] SHOUP: We have a terrific opportunity to convert underused parking lots into housing to parking [5:53] for people who want to live. [5:55] The upside is that we have a lot of benefits to reap from changing our policies. [6:04] SHOUP: To boil an 800-page book into three bullet points, I have three basic recommendations. [6:10] Remove off-street parking requirements. [6:12] Charge the right price for on-street parking, by which I mean the lowest price the city can charge [6:18] and still have one or two open spaces on every block. [6:21] So nobody can say there's a shortage of parking. [6:23] In order to reach that price you have to vary it by location and time of day. [6:30] But once you've done that, and make it politically popular you can spend the revenue on public [6:35] services on the metered streets. [6:38] Well I'm worn out.