Whose Parking Stall is It?
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 | Jon Commers Perhaps parking is in the eye of the beholder. In some circles, car parking is perceived as city land kept fallow, limited in productivity both by user demands or prescriptive zoning codes. To other groups, parking is a necessary cost for proximity to the variety and opportunity that urban life delivers. In still other crowds, no one cares at all about parking, unless there isn’t a spot available right outside.
It occurred to me recently that as hyperbolic as it sounds, public perceptions of parking may well represent a social weathervane.
The English verb, “park” apparently dates to the early 1800s, when it was used among soldiers to describe the arranging of military vehicles in a public open space. By the mid-1800s, the term had expanded to include temporary storage of non-military vehicles, presumably carriages, in designated areas. Today, in an urban setting, parking presents a thorny hurdle for developers, planners, residents and others looking to intensify land use. Underneath this hurdle are four findings that don’t align:
- On their own merit, parking spaces require substantial capital and maintenance cost; and
- Parking consumes finite opportunity for higher-value, higher-return uses on a site, with space that commands weak lease rates and is challenging to reconfigure in the future (though notable exceptions prove it’s possible); and
- Younger Americans continue to pursue a driver’s license at falling rates, represent a shrinking share of the car-buying market, and want the affordability of a home without parking bundled into it; but
- Despite all of that, most office and residential lessees or buyers still demand some level of off-street parking, and it’s built. Of course, there are notable exceptions to this, too.
While serving on the St. Paul planning commission, I found it gratifying to help structure a plan to reduce and even eliminate the City’s minimum parking requirements in commercial corridors, as is code downtown. The City Council adopted the plan in 2011, including discarding the minimum requirements for parking within ¼ mile of Green Line light rail station areas in the “traditional neighborhood” zones. The reduced requirements allow for easier reuse of large and small sites in the City, and look to property owners and developers to gauge parking demand according to their perception of market. Not surprisingly, they appear to be electing to include some level of off-street parking inventory, all the while candid that it’s low in productivity as a component of development. But the amount developers seem to want is less than what many cities would require.
The demographic pressure to change attitudes about parking only seems to be intensifying, as younger Americans’ economic influence continues to build. Developers and property owners are seeking to maximize value on urban sites. Cities, under pressure from diminishing federal and state payments, are examining where jobs, market value, and tax base can become more concentrated. The imperative to move away from high-emissions modes of transportation magnifies each of these. The extent to which car parking – that much-maligned urban feature – diminishes is a function of what choices we make as households in the context of this shift.
The weathervane points to the shift. And those are our cars in the parking lot.
We're glad you've joined the Strong Towns dialogue and invite you to support the work happening here.
Finance, Public Policy and Planning 
Reader Comments (19)
I'm fascinated by the influence that parking policies and practices have on a city, the recent lack of attention to it as a city-building factor, and the very very recent debates over it. I agree with you that off-street parking would not disappear if mandatory minimums were removed. However, it should allow parking supply *and pricing* to be determined by demand. What are your thoughts about free versus priced parking? Should developers expect to provide parking in their development, or is it better if they just build a building and expect that demand for extra parking will result in construction of a parking garage on a nearby property?
Just a few comments:
Parking does require substantial cost which is why developers want less than what Cities require. It's as simple as improving your bottom line. Let the final owner of the property figure out where to park.
When there is inadequate parking for a given land use, parking encroaches on the neighbors and becomes a really ugly issue. I agree the current requirements overdo it, but they are in place to prevent disputes that often come to the City for resolution (rightly or wrongly). Some minimum parking requirements will always be necessary because not all people are good citizens.
Younger Americans pursue drivers licenses at a lower rate because their parents drive them everywhere: Soccer, ballet, gymnastics, school, etc., etc., etc. Every night it's something. Wait until they have kids - Are they really going to pack their kids into a bike trailer to take them to tee-ball after a day at the office? Here's a slice of my life now: This one needs picked up from cross country at 5:30 - stop by Wendy's to get her a sandwich and take her to dance by 6:00. Then pick up that one from soccer by 6:30 and bring home. Feed her something and get homework underway. Spouse will pick up dancer at 8:30. And tomorrow it will be the similar. I am not an outlier. This is our American culture. You really think our kids won't drive? This is how they are growing up. They think this is normal. They will drive. And they will demand parking.
One of my pet peeves is street parking in residential areas....so you buy a house, but then store your car on taxpayer property. Why doesn't the City maintain storage lockers for me to keep my camping equipment?
I think a good first step would be a parking bylaw requiring drivers to use private parking where available--in your driveway, lane or underground parkade. Then we could see how much parking is needed for visitors and access, and use the rest to benefit everybody--instead of just unfairly subsidizing drivers.
The Tyee – Let's Pave Streets Green
Michelle: I agree with your suggestion that all parking has a price, it's only a question of whether it's publicly subsidized ("free") or paid for by users. In many cases, the interest of the public and the property owner (or developer) are aligned in this area: The property owner/developer wants to provide reliable parking to users, and the public wants to have car storage/parking managed. The right balance might be what you mention: Developers are free to provide as little as they want, as long as it reflects most of what their users expect to consume. Which gets to the underlying social change theme that interests me in this subject.
Alternatively, a developer colleague of mine just says it this way: "What memorable urban place do you know that doesn't have an on-street parking 'problem'?" He does have a point.
Jeff,
That sounds like a hectic schedule. But the Atlantic article I linked to describes shifts in the under-19 segment, but also the 19-34 age group. These aren't kids accustomed to being driven everywhere, these are younger Americans who are choosing a somewhat different way of organizing their days than many of us who are older. The Pew Center and others have documented this shift, which may relate to the recession, flat wages, environmental awareness and other trends as much as it relates specifically to transportation mode. Skepticism is always in order, but this is a real trend.
Jeff, your hectic schedule and necessity to drive everywhere is a product of living in a suburban environment. Your argument that such a schedule cannot be maintained without driving is true, but only in that environment and under particular circumstances. Suggesting someone trying to live car-free would pack their kids up in a bike trailer is a straw man argument. Those younger folks who eventually have kids of their own would not be living in the suburbs in the first place. They'd find a city where they kids can walk to school, to Wendy's (though ideally a local place with better food), and even if there's a few activities that may require driving, those are the exception rather than the rule. It's also a matter of setting priorities. For someone who doesn't mind being a chauffeur, and who can afford a car, then driving a kid to gymnastics might be fine, but not everybody is like that. The same goes for the suburbanite who brags about how big and cheap their house is, but some people prefer smaller and higher quality housing with other amenities within walking distance. Again, those are priorities and trade-offs.
I was raised in a suburban environment and was driven everywhere by my parents. After getting a taste of urban life and all the conveniences of it, I haven't looked back. We're still products of our own time though, and it's very difficult to live car-free in most places, but only for lack of choice, not lack of desire. Many of the younger generation are eschewing car ownership, or at least delaying it, in part because cars don't have the same cachet they once had, they're too expensive to operate and insure, and they preclude the use of the high-tech gadgetry that does have cachet among their peers. Plus, the suburban experiment has gone on long enough that there's just so much of it out there to make the whole experience horribly soul-crushing. That younger folks are returning to cities and pioneering urban neighborhoods in every way they can shows that they're fed up with the suburbs and everything they entail. That doesn't mean there aren't issues still to be resolved, but to just throw your hands up in defeat saying that it's too hard to live without cars so let's not bother trying is to condemn yourself, your children, and the rest of us to living a life in environments that are inhospitable, energy intensive, and simply not worth caring about. No thanks!
Great article Jon. Excellent piece. I also love the quote (in the comment section): "What memorable urban place do you know that doesn't have an on-street parking 'problem'?"
I find it very interesting that, when given the opportunity, developers opted to provide fewer parking stalls than what the minimum would have required.
Best -Nate
Agreed with most comments on here... there's no need for parking minimums since if people demand parking (and are willing to pay what it costs) then there will be parking. How is it different from any other business that meets its demand where it exists in the market? No need for government to be artificially inflating supply and therefore indirectly causing some people to subsidize others' lifestyle choices.
Secondly, about car storage on public streets, I agree it is excessive. People often seem to expect that the city provides them with free on-street parking, and it was said above that "their interests are aligned" with the status quo. My SFH has a garage along an alley, and I don't park along the street. So when it comes time to repair my street, where 12+ feet of ROW are dedicated to subsidized car storage, how are my interests aligned with that subsidy? Let the people who use it pay for it.
Is on-street parking included in the Community Facilities District assessment? Make it optional - the developers can choose streets with on-street parking if the maintenance is included in the CFD. Homebuyers could choose whether or not to live in the development. Devolves a small part of the cost of the infrastructure to those it benefits.
It would be great to evaluate how developers would respond to the new parking policy in St. Paul. My research on a similar policy in London shows that parking supply in residential developments between 2004 and 2010 declined almost 40% after the parking minimum was removed.
@Zhan Guo: Can you provide links to your studies? We'll post them on facebook and twitter, if so. Thanks.
The discussion on parking, cars and shuttling kids made me think of Brendon's post over at Net Density - http://netdensity.net/2012/04/30/2676/ about the sale of his family's second car.
The need for a car depends a lot on the proximity of jobs, daycare, schools, and kids' activities. Where these places are close - and walking, biking or transit are options - one car can work. But when a lot of surface parking spreads these places apart, other options don't make sense anymore.
Interesting post! I'd agree that relaxing or eliminating parking minimums wouldn't eliminate the basic provision of parking per se, but that's exactly the point: reformers don't want to ban parking at all; they simply want the market to wring out the costly oversaturation of parking wherever it's mandated.
As for the "less driving among Millennials" meme being bandied about by older folks scratching their heads in bemusement, well the explanation should be pretty obvious: ***We're too poor to drive!!!*** C'mon, youth unemployment or underemployment (and meager compensation in ordinary full-time jobs for those of us lucky enough to have them) is at staggeringly high levels, with no sign of abating.
Used cars are also being circulated longer, with fewer of them filtering down to younger people as they used to (they're quite pricey now too). Gas prices remain volatile, and cash-strapped municipalities/states, besides relaxing parking minimums, are also slapping on/raising fees wherever possible.
Isn't it obvious that some unemployed or underemployed kid isn't going to be driving around under these circumstances, especially if their meager income is redirected towards acquiring social media gadgets that can fulfill many of the same socialization opportunities that cars allow (for much less cost)?
To me it seems like there's a disturbing generational schism between 40+ers and younger people. Does any information travel between these two groups? The blathering in the media and among the politicians about new Millennial "lifestyles" is particularly hilarious, and it seems to reveal a total lack of understanding of the lack of opportunities for younger generations. (That anecdote in the Atlantic about Ford's striving to "get" younger people by being hip is a case in point: no amount of marketing - unless you resort to Housing Bubble Tactics - will get a bankrupt, sporadically-employed Millennial with crushing student loans into a shiny new car.) Maybe American Millennials are too quiet: the austerity facing the younger people in Italy or Greece or Spain is front-page news and kitchen-table discussion over there. Here we're like a new "silent majority" - all the talk is about Boomers this, Boomers that (Medicare, SocSec, bailouts for dinosaur companies resistant to change, etc.)
This befuddled discussion among older generations over Millennial driving habits is also reflected in the (related) widespread political delusion over the need for a housing "comeback": Um, how is that indebted, underemployed Millennial going to get a house in an era of tighter mortgage standards? And there's even something deeper at play: the era of secure, fully-bennied "lifetime" employment with one or two companies in one or two locations is over. It'll be harder to settle down and start a family if your future is uncertain. I'd like to be a homeowner, but why would I buy a house if I might get laid off next month and have to try selling it at a loss (if I can even sell it at all) so I can start a job chase all over again? The flexibility of renting looks much more appealing in an era of employment uncertainty.
There's nothing mystifying whatsoever about the changing attitude of younger generations to the twin yokes of car and home ownership. Millennials are responding rationally to a changing economic reality. If this was the cheap travel 80s/90s, I guarantee we Millennials would be buying just as many cars and drive-till-you-qualify McMansions as the young people of those decades did. But now we're TOO POOR. And poor people drive less and own less (not just houses, but other big-ticket items too). It's that simple!
It doesn't surprise me that an article on parking brings about such diverse (and passionate) opinions. This topic lacks anything resembling consensus.
One aspect not discussed in this article is the public cost of parking. We often hear suburbanites argue against transit and the cost/benefit of that mode of transportation. However, parking is a hidden cost of the current transportation mode of choice. What many cities are finding is that developers "can't afford" to build parking for their developments and that tenets aren't willing to pay higher rates for it (especially with infill/redevelopment projects). So public financing in the form of TIF, CID, TDD, etc is being used to funnel millions of dollars of public taxes from city coffers to developers to pay for parking. These costs are usually not considered part of the city's budget or cost of maintaining the auto-centric transportation network.
The bottom line is that parking is very inefficient (i.e. lots of empty parking spots) in the suburban model and costs a lot more than we realize. If government wasn't distorting the free market by subsidizing parking, then I believe citizens would make better (i.e. efficient) transportation choices.
Jeff's comments echo an all too familiar refrain from folks who cannot wrap their brain around life without a car, or even a life with fewer cars. It's the same refrain regarding younger people choosing to live in more urban areas. "Once they have kids they'll want to get a house in the suburbs, you just wait!" But this all assumes these younger people have the same desires and sensibilities as the three generations before them. Baby boomers and many Gen Xers cannot wrap their brain around a life without a large-lot house with 2 (or more) cars in the driveway. Yet my wife and I live in an urban setting with one car between us and have absolutely no plans to change that. Many of our friends are in the same position, some of them already have a child (or two).
It also amuses me that the notion of not having a car is so inconceivable. Humans existed for thousands and thousands of years without cars. And, to point Chuck brings up often, they designed their cities around that structure and it worked very well. THAT'S what these younger people are attracted to, at least on some level. They don't want to be stuck on clogged freeways for 3 and 4 hours a day. They don't want to have to climb into a car to do every little errand. Does our country lack places that allow for these preferences? Yes, of course it does. Because all these people who can't fathom anything else have built us out of being able to walk. But current real estate trends show that compact, walkable, mixed use areas are very much in demand yet in short supply. But anyone who wants to profit from the preferences of the younger generations will accept that and build to it rather than stand by and say, "Just wait until they have kids!"
Examine demographics again. We will need more handicapped parking spots for aging baby boomers, not bike racks! I'm not that old, but my knees are shot from an active lifestyle, making bicycling impossible. My knees ache after less than a mile of walking now, so driving has growing appeal. After each joint replacement surgery, I'll need handicapped parking spots.
Consider making parking space more efficient in two ways. First, child car seats and booster seats don't allow for three kids per seat row, neither do killer passenger seat air bags. Getting kids in and out of car seats is back breaking. All promote parents to buy huge, 3- row SUVs. Thanks Washington - you didn't thing of any negatives, did you?
Second, the rest of the world except North America has more efficient transportation in the form of scooters, motorbikes, and motorcycles. Yes, we are car centric in not even mentioning nor promoting these modes. Space, fuel, pollution, metal use - all diminished. Users are not protected as in cars, but pedestrians and cyclists are also vulnerable. Having to pay full registration and insurance costs for motorcycles is the biggest impediment - for the same cost, most anyone would choose to have a car instead. Penalties are so bad that motorcycle adoption is down around bicycling nationally. Bad weather impacts bicycling, but motorbikes are superior for non-flat places, cargo, passengers, distance, and lower transit times. Policy support for two wheeled motorized transit could include EPA fuel economy ratings and support for tuning engines for economy instead of just appealing to consumers with ever higher power to weight ratios.
Builders in Portland, Oregon are taking advantage of a longstanding code provision that waives parking minimum requirements for sites near transit. In reaction, neighbor backlash to repeal the law is heating up. So much for "progressive" Portland. Sad.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/northeast_portland_neighborhoo_2.html
^
This gets to the sense of entitlement neighborhoods often have over on-street parking. The battle in Portland is being fueled by the belief that new residents (who won't have any off-street parking) will compete with the existing residents over the limited supply of on-street parking. Since most on-street parking is underpriced (or often even free in residential areas) - even though the public still has to pay to maintain it - a sense of entitlement often emerges whenever there is the perceived threat of more competitors for limited free parking ("this is MY space!").
Despite the obvious advantages of on-street parking (a buffer between pedestrians and traffic, an enabler of convenient shopping in commercial districts, a useful narrower of wide streets, an easy way to get drivers to slow down), this post over at the Walking Bostonian raises the interesting question of whether on-street parking is responsible for fueling anti-infill NIMBYism in urban areas.
The argument has been made that, in some scenarios, it might be better to eliminate on-street parking (taking care to appropriately downsize the street in response) and to privately provide it in some kind of urban-friendly off-street form (in the interior of blocks, in shared garages, underground, etc.) for those residential developments that continue to demand it. With their own private spaces secure from competitors, maybe then there'd be less resistance to infill and densification, because all new developments would either have their own private stash of parking or none at all (with prospective residents choosing what to buy into). No one would be warring over the use of free (taxpayer-financed) public space to stash private goods. Parking would be an "unbundled" good and people who demanded it would have to pay for it fully (either directly via fees/reservations or indirectly through rents and housing prices).
Restricted street parking around Boston has mainly been used to constrain density. My town of Arlingon has no overnight street parking except with limited exceptions. This has forced parking minimums on everyone long before parking minimums were added to zoning rules. Since the overnight parking ban has been so longstanding, off-street parking is sufficient nearly everywhere. The ban helps limit apartment over-crowding and illegal apartments added to existing residences. Apartment rents usually include parking and there is only bus public transit. Brookline is another inner suburb with no overnight parking, yet, has light rail and bus service. Tenants often pay extra for parking.
People with cars will choose to live in Arlington over car-unfriendly areas like the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay where 30% of gasoline consumption will be wasted searching for parking or more money spent renting a leased space. One time I lived in a Charlestown neighborhood of Boston that had been a former ship yard, so there was no legacy parking policy. My building had underground parking that I paid extra for. Street parking existed, but scarce. Worse was that cars on the street were often being broken into at the time as much of the rest of the area was low-income and with housing projects.
Portlandian objections to parkingless, high density, single occupant, micro apartments is for numerous reasons: Inviting people who can't even afford cars into the neighborhood will change its character. Letting developers profit more by not having to supply parking is unfair to those who had to follow different rules, existing property owners will lose property values due to reduced parking availability,and lastly, the added parking demand hurts existing residents and businesses who stay.
In Boston where rules have been consistent for a long time, people choose neighborhoods based on transportation needs among other factors. Nobody is pulling the rug out from underneath them by changing rules. The housing market crash has nearly frozen people's ability to move as needs change. Besides wanting to move to a new workplace, parents often move to other towns that have better programs supporting one special need or another. The result has been increases in special education costs where non-mobile parents need kids bused to other districts and tuition paid. Much more expensive is having to use residential programs.
Changing rules in the middle of the game is compounded currently by much lower homeowner mobility. Renter mobility is lower too as demand has grown from the crisis. Existing homeowners lose property value from diminished street parking availability, while those owning off-street parking will benefit with appreciated values. Neighborhood opposition is completely understandable.