The national political dialogue is suffusedwith substantive issues likeBenghazi, beauty pageants, and the best debate memes. But the biggest bugbear in neighborhood politics just got some serious side eye from the Obama administration: Parking.
It sounds bitty and trivial, but parking is a very big deal in city halls and neighborhood associations.Even dense cities like New York, Boston, and Washington, DC, have long required developers to cough up enough parking to serve the residential projects they hope to build.
If you live in the neighborhood, this makes sense—you don’t want n00bs taking your spot. But as cities impotently scrabbleto keep housing affordable, requiring developers to provide off-street parking feels like dead weight.The cost—up to $60,000 per underground spot—can kill projects before they even start. And you could argue that it’s better to use that land for bedrooms and kitchens and living rooms, nothunks of metal that spend most of the day sitting still.Don’t forget that in 2013, more than a quarter of USrenters spend over50 percent of their monthly income on housing. Affordability is a huge problem.
Indeed, says the White House. In a Housing Development Toolkitreleased Monday, the Obama administration callsoff-street parking minimums anaffordable housing no-no. “When transit-oriented developments are intended to help reduce automobile dependence,” itsays, “parking requirements can undermine that goal by inducing new residents to drive, thereby counteracting city goals for increased use of public transit, walking and biking.”
Granted, the toolkit is merely a list of recommendations, with no teeth. And cities control zoning laws that dictate things like off-street parking. But the Obama administration is reiteratingwhat urban planners have long said: Parking ain’t great for your city. And cities are finally listening.
Death to the Parking Lot
People have written tomesdetailing thedownsides of the urban parking lot, but lets lay out the case against it real quick. Byinvesting in cycling infrastructure, sidewalks, and bikeshare programs, dense cities have made it clear they don’t want people driving. But requiring developers to provideparking incentivizes car purchases—along with congestion and pollution. UCLA urban planner Donald Shoup found that people searching for parking in one 15-block stretch of Los Angeles burn47,000 gallons of gas and produce 730 tons of carbon dioxideannually.
Parking requirements are especially nonsensicalin a real estate landscape where buyers pay a premium to live near transit and not have a car. In fact, the requirementseffectively tax those who don’t want or can’t afford a car, by passing that cost on to them. And don’t forget that the cost of parking often prevents affordable housing development.
Building parking lots to reduce the demand for on-street parking doesn’t actually work, says Michael Manville, an urban planner who studies land use and traffic congestion at UCLA. The street is an unpriced commons, which is why you have a shortage of parking, he says. Cities once thoughtthey could protect free parking and make existing residents happy by passing the hidden costs of thosespots on to new residents. But the free spots willalways be full—thanks, Econ 101. Manville says any city worried about parking should do the smart but unpopular thing: require permits or install meters.
The Very Slow Death of the Parking Lot
Into this lake of evidence wades the White House. It isn’t the first to do so. People like Manville have been warning anyone who will listen about the downsides of off-street parking minimums for at least 15 years. Andcities have been getting in on the anti-parking lot regs for almost a decade. Seattle relaxed requirements for developments within a quarter-mile of mass transit in 2012. New York City and Denverdid much the same for low-income housing. Other cities are granting developers waiversto parking requirements,but they aren’t making it easy.
You can attribute thechange in part to a growing shortage of affordable housing, says Stockton Williams, the executive director of the Urban Land Institutes Terwilliger Center for Housing. And you can expect such policies to become more popular as the affordable housing crisis reaches ever further into the middle class. Affordability is increasingly understood to be a problem that affects people beyond those in the lowest income bracket, says Williams. Even tech workers feel the squeeze.
Of course, hitting parking where it hurts is no panacea. The White House toolkit points out other important policy adjustments—like taxing vacant land, zoning for density, and letting homeowners build additional dwellings in their backyards—that will promoteaffordable housing. All of them mustbe enacted together to keep everyone housed.
But the White House has said its piece. Obamas a lame duck, but as [his administration is] heading out the door, they can choose to make bold statements on any number of fronts. The fact that one of the fronts they chose to make a statement on is zoning, I think, is symbolically important, says Manville, the urban planner.
Symbols serve their purpose, so go sleep in your nearestparking lot tonight.