DC's planning & transportation heads op/ed in favor of eliminating parking minimums

[Cirrus]

Harriett Tregoning is the head of DC's Office of Planning. Terry Bellamy is the head of the Department of Transportation.

Originally Posted by Washington Post op/ed

Parking rules for a 21st-century D.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...a13_story.html

Few proposals in the comprehensive overhaul being considered for the District’s 50-year-old zoning code have generated more public interest than proposed changes to parking requirements.

In the draft zoning code, we have proposed dramatically simplifying these requirements. And, yes, we have suggested that, in limited areas of the city, including downtown and other higher-density, mixed-use settings with plentiful access to mass transit, the minimum-parking requirements should be lifted.

If the current requirements had no adverse impact, we could simply say “no harm, no foul” and continue to maintain these cumbersome regulations to ease the fears of some residents. Unfortunately, the regulations have a real cost. A designated parking space can add as much as $50,000 to the price of a residential unit. At a time when our city is struggling to provide enough affordable housing to meet the needs of a growing population, we are duty-bound to explore ways to reduce those costs.

[ardecila]

Hear hear. DC should be able to build proper walkable development in the core without the huge costs of parking. I imagine that the height limits have crossed with the parking requirements to basically force parking underground, which adds tremendously to development costs.

Chicago has actually dramatically reduced parking requirements for all sites within 2 blocks of a rail station; with one prominent exception, developers have not caught on. Partly this is because the Planned Development review process that most major proposals go through already allowed the developer to negotiate with city planners for significant reductions, especially at downtown sites. Yet many developers still choose to build lots of parking despite their ability to skip it. I think both the market demands parking in certain segments, and the city hasn't provided enough alternatives. Since we don't have height limits, developers simply slap their housing on top of huge podiums, killing the street vibe.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yet many developers still choose to build lots of parking despite their ability to skip it. I think both the market demands parking in certain segments, and the city hasn't provided enough alternatives. Since we don't have height limits, developers simply slap their housing on top of huge podiums, killing the street vibe.

Potential buyers demand parking to an extent, but just as importantly the people financing these projects do too—a building with less parking is seen as riskier than one where everyone has a guaranteed, sheltered space or two easily accessible by the building’s elevator, even in transit-rich parts of Chicago.

There’s much more to improving an urban environment than changing regulations—ingrained assumptions and accepted practices often need to be reexamined or altered, which is very hard to do when change is seen as putting someone’s investments at risk.

[202_Cyclist]

Beta_Magellan:

Potential buyers demand parking to an extent, but just as importantly the people financing these projects do too—a building with less parking is seen as riskier than one where everyone has a guaranteed, sheltered space or two easily accessible by the building’s elevator, even in transit-rich parts of Chicago.

Exactly right, and ths is what the entitled NIMBYs who live in upper Northwest and are opposing the zoning re-write willfully forget. Just because a developer is allowed to build an apartment or condo building without parking minimums, in many cases they won't do so because potential buyers will demand at least some amount of parking for the building. This lets developers and market forces decide how much parking to provide rather than have it decreed by half-century old assumptions.

[mhays]

Cities with lower transit ridership and less density seem to do fine with low parking ratios, and zero parking on a lot of projects. Anyone who dives into low/zero parking in DC or Chicago, in some neighborhoods, is going to make a killing.

[bunt_q]

I'm all for this. However, I do wonder if we shouldn't require a mandatory disclosure, to be recorded against title, and an acknowledgment to be included in all purchase docs and leases, that warns people. Basically, "This unit has <=1 off street parking space provided. The city etc. does not provide or guarantee the availability of street or other parking." Etc. Make it clear up front - this isn't a public good we're going to provide when a shortage arises.

I've got one of those now. City cut a deal with lessened parking. Developer provided a few extra spots. And I swear, every single buyer must have assumed they were going to be able to grab that one extra street spot. And it never occurred to them that their 17 neighbors might be thinking the same thing. People are dumb, and we need to acknowledge that, rather than make assumptions that people will "do what's right" or "make smart decisions." They don't.

[mhays]

That sounds like overkill. Do a few of these projects and soon the public will get it. They seem to in other cities.

Heck, every city at least has old buildings without parking. What works for them will work with new buildings too.

[bunt_q]

You think they'll get it? I'm not so sure I do. People surely don't get traffic, that's why every project is going to supposedly generate enough traffic to turn their neighborhood into Tokyo tomorrow. I'm not sure they get the realistic availability of on street and other public parking either. Besides, I hate it when a group of empowered citizens feels like they have a God-given right to on street parking.

Not an issue here. There's no downward pressure on parking minimums so long as developers are providing more than minimum anyways. But in any case, good for DC, truly.

[mhays]

That's why precedent is useful. It does work, developers in some cities do reduce parking substantially or totally, and these buildings fill up. They fill up because a lot of people don't have cars, and because you can get way more apartment for your dollar without parking, or simply pay less of your income for the same type of home.

As for Tokyo, that would be awesome. It's a very orderly city traffic-wise. I think it was even pretty free-flowing on my brief visit.