Hey op, could you please post a link to that tweet? I'd like to have a look at the link inside the tweet.

Who is saying no cars ever? I certainly am not saying that, and I doubt many other people are either. There's plenty of parking already, and plenty of people who live in Cambridge perfectly fine without a car.

If not having a car is really that big of a problem, developers will simply continue to build parking. Because otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their new buildings. It wouldn't take a government mandate. If not having a car is OK, then forcing developers to build parking is wasteful. It just takes up so much space that could be used for anything else instead.

i think you are mixing up two arguments. Yes, cities have finite space, and yes space should prioritze towards getting more people in and proving affordable housing. However, people also need to get in an out of the city, and so are usually going to need a place to park. Covering your ears and screaming "lalalalalala no cars ever" is not really an option, especially given the state of the T. therefore, if youre bringing in more people, just like you need extra electric grid and water/sewage resources, you also need to account for parking. otherwise, what are you expecting these people do?

​

where do you expect them to park, since you seem to think space shouldnt be wasted on parking?

If that is the case, it won't take a government mandate for developers to build parking spots. If there's demand for parking spots, then developers will build them, because they wouldn't be able to sell their properties otherwise. If there is no demand for parking spots, then it's wasteful to require them.

Cities having finite space is a great reason not to have parking minimums. We need more housing, not more wasted space.

I live in one of those now. I don't have a car (we rent or zip car when we need to), but I think it's bad policy,.

Every mandated parking spot leads to a new car added to Cambridge. More cars in Cambridge leads to more vehicle miles traveled which increases danger to cyclists. The data is 100% on the side of reducing parking minimums = fewer cars and lower home prices.

Also copying a comment I posted elsewhere on this thread, because I think it’s important to understand the economics of housing here:

Imagine the US government told auto dealers they could only sell 100 cars a year. Which cars do you think they’d focus on selling? Toyota Corollas? Of course not, they’d sell exactly 100 luxury vehicles, where the highest profit margins are. However, auto dealerships are free to sell as many cars as they want, hence we end up with all sorts of cars on the road, at all sorts of price points. Don’t you see how it’s the same with housing construction? That the totality of local zoning laws limit the construction of new housing so much that developers only build luxury units? But if it was even half as easy, legally, to build and sell housing as it was cars, then they’d collectively build and sell a lot more housing units? Taking away parking minimums is one small step toward removing the barriers to mass housing construction. In my hypothetical, it’s like letting auto dealerships sell 105 cars instead of 100. Yes, they’ll still be luxury cars, but that’s only because you haven’t relaxed restrictions enough.

[deleted]

Don’t you think there’s a logical flaw here? Vehicles don’t stay parked, they move around on roads where they also endanger cyclists regardless of where they park. And every zoning regulation we keep or pass that makes it cheap and easy to own a car in a city, promotes more cars in the city, and thus more overall danger to cyclists (and pedestrians—we exist too).

And long-run, mass car ownership in cities will never vanish if we keep blocking dense housing development, as the totality of local zoning regulations (of which parking minimums are a part) actively do.

Imagine the US government told auto dealers they could only sell 100 cars a year. Which cars do you think they’d focus on selling? Toyota Corollas? Of course not, they’d sell exactly 100 luxury vehicles, where the highest profit margins are. However, auto dealerships are free to sell as many cars as they want, hence we end up with all sorts of cars on the road, at all sorts of price points. Don’t you see how it’s the same with housing construction? That the totality of local zoning laws limit the construction of new housing so much that developers only build luxury units? But if it was even half as easy, legally, to build and sell housing as it was cars, then they’d collectively build and sell a lot more housing units? Taking away parking minimums is one small step toward removing the barriers to mass housing construction. In my hypothetical, it’s like letting auto dealerships sell 105 cars instead of 100. Yes, they’ll still be luxury cars, but that’s only because you haven’t relaxed restrictions enough.

Woah. Imagine the US government told auto dealers they could only sell 100 cars a year. Which cars do you think they’d focus on selling? Toyota Corollas? Of course not, they’d sell exactly 100 luxury vehicles, where the highest profit margins are. However, auto dealerships are free to sell as many cars as they want, hence we end up with all sorts of cars on the road, at all sorts of price points. Don’t you see how it’s the same with housing construction? That the totality of local zoning laws limit the construction of new housing so much that developers only build luxury units? But if it was even half as easy, legally, to build and sell housing as it was cars, then they’d collectively build and sell a lot more housing units?

Over 40% of Cambridge residents work from home. Many more are perfectly fine walking, biking or taking the T to work. The idea that it should be illegal to build apartments that cater to this majority doesn't make any sense. There's plenty of housing in Cambridge with off-street parking for those who would like it.
Parking minimums don't provide free parking - they just bake the cost of parking into the rent and everything else. They're not even primarily about "choking out" car usage - it's somewhat confusing I get it but it's a housing policy first, not a transportation policy.

Thanks for reminding me to email City Council to keep parking minimums. I would have forgot.

Yeah if anyone thinks that all the new residents of all the new units without dedicated off street parking will just all decide en masse not to have cars, they’re delusional.

What streets do you mean?

I don’t have personal experience with this garage, but the city is usually very empty of people and cars on Christmas.

Or because a city has finite space, and that's why the minimum parking requirements for new construction exists? Like, where do you expect a new few hundred people to park? Do you readily see street parking available on mass ave?

The nicest parts of Cambridge are filled with buildings with no off-street parking. But they were all built before 1950 or so, because it’s no longer legal.

We should allow it once again. It’s the only way to provide more pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.

I can’t think of any good reason why street parking should be forbidden for the people who don’t have off-street parking, and allowed for people with driveways and garage spaces. That seems totally backwards.

The only reasoning I can think of is selfishness by current residents, to preserve what they have at the expense of newcomers.

This is an obvious ploy by developers to increase their return on investment by enabling themselves to build more overpriced "luxury condos". No one here seems to be thinking this through.

Every vehicle that is parked onsite is a vehicle that doesn't sideswipe a cyclist or kill them opening their door while parking everyday instead on the street. Removing minimums is guaranteed to injure and kill people who wouldn't have otherwise been at risk. It's that simple. Cars are not going to vanish as much as cyclists like myself would wish for. They will only become greener.

This is clearly a plot by developers. They don't want the parking minimums (which are logical and necessary for so many reasons) because it eats into their return on investment. 1/2 parking space per unit means fewer overpriced "luxury" condo sales. It's that simple.

The minimums are required because developers are incentivized to use that space for more luxury condos (greater return on investment) rather than building in the vehicle storage and in-so-doing remove the pressure on street parking which is already limited. Anyone with friends or family who've lived in Southie during the past ten years, for example, understands the value of these minimums and why municipalities institute them. Attempting to park the car you must have due to the constant unreliability of public transportation, for example, may now regularly add on significantly to your workday. If you're scoffing, add up the extra 20-30-40 minutes over time and each day depending on where you live.)

So is the idea to choke out car usage by removing the spaces which store them? I didn't understand that before. Wicked classist, (in that working-class families who need vehicles would be forced to spend a disproportionate amount of income in order to store them), but I think it would work. I mean, it's guaranteed to work. It's just remarkably prejudiced and short sighted.

#Vehicles will not disappear. They will only become greener.

[deleted]