An easy fix might be to turn single story strip malls into two story dual purpose buildings. Stores on bottom, rooms on top. I doubt this would do much to change aesthetics.
Usually when a strip mall is re-zoned for mixed use, they demolish the older structure.
But on the aesthetic side it's possible to turn these buildings into something interesting if they're renovated by someone creative. Worked across the street from this place when an architecture firm bought and renovated it: http://www.rchstudios.com/639-larchmont-boulevard/
If you cut parking spaces without corresponding improvements in transit infrastructure, the city is strictly less livable and living sprawl looks like an even better idea.
You just start charging for curbside parking, and remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for buildings.
People are still free to build parking places (and even charge for them).
The hope is that by ending the parking subsidy for car owners, they choices will be informed by something closer to their full economic impact.
(The cost can even be borne by the same people---ie currently a car owner might as well be paying for his own parking on average with other taxes / higher rent / etc. The economics still work out to better incentives, if we allocate the whole cost to the decision that causes it.)
>they choices will be informed by something closer to their full economic impact.
There's no need for weasel words. We want fewer cars and less driving, so we use policy to make it less pleasant to own and drive a car.
Okay, fine. But what are you replacing it with? Because making driving hurt more is a net loss to subjective well-being unless you're prepared to replace it with something better (i.e. a few billion dollars of rail).
Oh, we don't impose any new costs here. We'd just stop sharing the cost of car ownership like some dirty communists.
People can still do the same amount of car driving and parking as before---and on average [#] the same amount of income will go to parking as before. Only now the cost will be directly visible, as opposed to hidden in other prices.
But of course, decisions on the margin will change. Someone might want to move closer to work, or decide to carshare, or take a job closer to home. (All these options cost money or are inconvenient. But they can save the person in question money otherwise spent for parking. Different trade-offs are viable than before.)
Yes, investing a few billion dollars in rail might make sense. But you don't have to invest in rail before you start de-socialising the price of parking.
This is somewhat covered in the pdf I linked.
[#] On average means: the total amount of resources society as a whole spends on parking won't change. The population won't change. Since the average is just total divided by the population, it will stay constant.
This is somewhat different to eg proposing an extra tax on parking or petrol. And definitely different to eg the price of oil rising on the world market.
Of course, even if the average stays constant, the burden on individuals will change. Eg people too poor to own a car will benefit from other goods and services becoming cheaper, but won't be hit by the de-socialising of parking.
And of course, we want people to `game the tax' by changing their behaviour. Ie encourage stuff like the Google bus for employees even more.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.ht... and http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/351.pdf