Baby you can drive my car. . . . . . .if I had one. Making sure Transit-Oriented Development is transit-oriented.
Schrödinger's cat
Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
Pearl Jam’s Yellow Ledbetter
Three very complex works that have something in common.
They all are easier to understand than the rationale behind Municipal Off Street Parking Requirements.
Follow the Logic:
1. Providing safe, affordable, and attractive housing for our young people is a good thing.
2. We want to provide more of it.
3. We want this housing to be sustainable, harmonious with the community, and adaptable to the new, emergent work-live-play residential ethos .
4. The residents of this new housing don’t own cars; don’t want cars and don’t need cars.
5. Huzzah! We will build new Housing next to Mass Transit! We will encourage the use of mass transportation! We will inspire walkability and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods!
6. Then, we will demand that developers provide hundreds of off-street parking spots for cars that don’t exist, cars that aren’t needed , and cars that aren’t wanted.
7. See Item 4.
Only Lewis Carrol would approve.
Here’s what’s wrong.
Parking Requirements Inhibit Development
As noted by the Brookings Institution, nearly every municipality in the United States requires unrealistic minimum amounts of on-site parking for residential development.[i]
Negative Externalities
The enormous cost of constructing parking is hidden from renters because costs are bundled into the price of each unit. This bundling deprives residents of the full benefit of choosing other modes of transportation because they must pay for parking whether they use it or not. People who choose not to own a car are forced by municipal governments to pay for parking.[ii]
Encourages Sprawl
All this parking consumes an enormous amount of space. A parking space requires between 300 and 400 square feet when aisles and ramps are included. These minimum parking requirements make sprawl inevitable rather than the result of market forces.[iii]
Compelling off-site parking when cars are not needed is counterintuitive, is irresponsibly burdensome, and is out of sync with contemporary lifestyle trends.
As recently observed by David Harrison, countless residential parking spots go unused, and many downtown garages sit half empty.[iv] Ridesharing and the rise of remote work during the pandemic have aggravated the trend. The average American drove 4% fewer miles in 2022 than in 2019, according to government statistics.[v]
Buttressing this conclusion, Rachel Quednau, the Communications Specialist for Strong Towns, observed that parking lots are no longer full on Black Friday. If they aren’t full on Black Friday, when will they be full?[vi]
Solving the Problem
We need to change our thinking.
Donald Shoup, an urban planner at the University of California, Los Angeles who pioneered the field of parking research, asked an interesting question: If the Dutch people of the Netherlands reclaimed land from the sea, why can’t we reclaim land from parking?[vii]
Maybe we can.
Recommended by LinkedIn
In a few, select projects, extraneous and wasteful parking requirements are being successfully whittled away.
As recently reported in the Wall Street Journal,[viii] Grubb Properties, a client of ours, built a 104-unit apartment close to downtown Charlotte with no resident parking. That enabled Grubb Properties to build 25% more units than would have been possible had the building included parking, Fitting in the additional units means rents will be about $250 lower than they otherwise would have been. The building sits along a greenway close to downtown and will feature bicycle storage areas that will support the residents’ biking preference as well as access to a ride-sharing arrangement with an EV fleet provider.[ix]
The Wall Street Journal Article contrasted this to a 405-unit apartment project in Aurora, Colo., where city rules required Grubb Properties to build 485 spaces even though residents will only need 390. Being forced to build those extra spots was a complete waste of money, took resources from the space available for apartments, and added more than $100 to the average rent.[x]
Urban planners and economists say reducing parking will reduce construction costs, hold down rents, relieve congestion, revitalize cities, and mitigate the national housing shortage by making better use of some of the country’s most valuable land.
Grubb Properties has demonstrated that it is possible. Residents walk more, use their bikes, and participate in developer-provided ride-sharing services.
Eliminating parking requirements makes economic sense, serves the oft-stated goal of providing affordable housing, and creates the walkable, friendly neighborhoods to which we aspire.
The point is articulated most clearly and succinctly by Jamelle Bouie, the New York Times columnist. He was in the seat next to me on a recent flight to Charlottesville, VA.
As I was writing this article, he tapped me on the shoulder and stated, “Housing for Cars means you can’t have housing for People.”
Very well said, Jamelle.
Beep-beep, beep-beep, yeah.
[i] Parking Requirements And Foundations Are Driving Up The Cost Of Multifamily Housing, Hannah Hoyt and Jenny Schuetz
[ii] Id.
[iii] Id.
[iv] America Has Too Much Parking. Really. by David Harrison for The Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2023.
[v] Id.
[vi] Strong Towns and Parking, posted by Paul Barter on November 27, 2015.
[vii] High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup (2006)
[viii] Harrison, America Has Too Much Parking. Really.
[ix] Id.
[x] Id.
CEO at Grubb Properties
1yEd, what a wonderful article. Thank you for sharing.
Supervisory Attorney at Social Security Administration
1yWe have one of these things continuing to expand here in Ronkonkoma. Back in the development phase of this thing, when speaking with one of my fellow townies (who doesn’t live near it), he’s like, “These things are great! I see them all over the South when I go on my business trips.” Yeah, they’re great for down there— because there’s a ton of land around there. This Ronkonkoma one has been a disruption for years now, messing up the roadways and clogging up traffic. But— as you suggest— eliminating the parking spaces would be a start. If people choose to live in such dwellings, people should embrace it and be inconvenienced by the parking situation as city dwellers are confounded on a daily basis by either not having a car or having to hunt for parking. (The Island going to eventually just be an extension of Queens anyway.)
Founding Member at Economic Development Strategies
1yGood morning, Seth! Thanks for taking the time to comment. As always, insightful and thought-provoking. My point, while inartfully made, is that burdensome parking requirements are not reflective of the needs and wants of younger residents. They use mass transit, ride-sharing and prefer walkable neighborhoods. Horse posts and feeding troughs were once required, as well. It’s a Chicken vs. the egg question. But maybe it’s time. Plutarch hedged, by the way.
Seth Bykofsky a/k/a Pops
1yEd, you must be new here! 🤣 On Long Isand, everyone not only needs a car, they want a car, and they have a car (or two, or three). Given the dirth of affordable housing, with or without parking, all we have are accessory apartments, many, if not most, being illegal. And every one has a car… or two… or three. Go and find a place to park in front of or close to your own home. As for regulations, where they exist, when was the last time they were enforced? Not even on the rare street sweeping days. And planning, zoning, code enforcement? What are they? Without reliable and efficient mass transit on Long Island, and there is none, and both the willingness and desire of residents to abandon their cars (other than mid-block while they run in to the store), the idea of recreating this suburban landscape into a utopia, where one can live affordably, sans the automobile, is not just a pipe dream. It is sheer madness. Beep… Beep… Beep… 🚗