I'm sure it varies from place to place, but where I live in Melbourne, we had to apply for special approval to build without a car park for my apartment. (I didn't want a car park, because I don't have or want a car.) The regulations are usually that every apartment must have a place to park a car, unless an exception is granted.

I think it's interesting that you are I disagree on this.

From my point of view, there should not be a requirement to include a car park, because that space and resources that are necessary devoted to cars which further entrenches car dependency, even if people would otherwise have not used a car. But it sounds like your point of view is that there should be a requirement to include a car park, because cars are near universal, and without a car park in the apartment, the car must go elsewhere... (And again, from my point of view, on-street parking regulations should be such that people simply cannot store their car like that. If you buy an apartment without a car park, then you should not have a car. If you need a car, then you also need to buy/rent a car park for yourself. It should not be an externality.)

Anyway, one thing I think we do agree on is that it would be nice to improvement public transport services. That would be better for everyone, even if they don't use it. (Because it reduce traffic for people in cars, while providing better transport for people not in cars.)

If developing property becomes more profitable, there will be more competition in the market.

That aside, underground parking spaces are ridiculously expensive to build and requiring every apartment resident to pay for parking spaces regardless of how many they use just drives up car ownership, which is what really drives down the quality of a city.