2) They notice it because they're used to getting it for free. Do people notice pay-renting in the US because everyone needs to sleep somewhere? Or do we just understand that using land comes with a cost?
It shouldn't cost less to give a place to sleep to a car than to a person.
Really? It shouldn't? Beyond the obvious fact that people in the US _need_ cars (it's not an option for most), parking space costs far less to build and maintain than does a home.
because you can't walk to things.
Why can't you walk to things?
Because they're so far apart.
Why are they so far apart?
Because a) parking minimums mean more land is given to parking than the actual amenity, and b) zoning forces single-use and density maximums
Why do people want parking minimums and zoning restrictions like that?
Because it's annoying to drive through high density.
Why do they need cars?
on and on and on
It's not an option because we built an entire country for 2 ton beings that need 30 feet to move in a circle, rather than humans. Can ants walk across Manhattan?
Seriously, look at your standard US "shopping center" and it's almost entirely parking. The lots dwarf the actual buildings.
I agree that we have done a putiful job in providing public transportation and designing cities around the notion that reducing cars is a good thing, but to argue that a parking spot should cost as much as rent is ludicrous. It is completely impractical and will never happen.
Not true. A car can function as a home, but not vice versa, so in extreme cases this is almost unilaterally untrue.