7 ms·

Minneapolis Moves to Eliminate Mandatory Parking

50 points by tshannon 8y ago

derp_dee_derp 8y ago
for people reading this that don't live here, you should realize that Minneapolis is very much a commuter city and a huge portion of people live in the suburbs and drive to downtown Minneapolis to work. Minneapolis is also not the only large city here: St. Paul is literally 20 minutes away. The whole area that surrounds Minneapolis/St. Paul is called the Metro area and is essentially contained by the 494/694 loop but many people live outside this area in places such as Wisconsin and the Burnsville/Apple Valley area. Very few people that work in Minneapolis actually live in Minneapolis. Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to get to work. This will result in a decrease in companies based in Minneapolis without affecting the overall number of companies in the Metro Area. For example, 3M is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Medtronic is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Boston Scientific is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Overall this is a short sighted move by the city of Minneapolis that will have lots of negative consequences and very few benefits.
- beat 8y ago
  When you say "downtown Minneapolis", are you talking about just downtown, or about the whole area of Minneapolis proper? I don't think the parking rule applied to downtown in the first place - and if you include the warehouse district with "downtown", the downtown population has grown tremendously over the past two decades. I think this matters a lot more for, say, my neighborhood in SE (down by Minnehaha Park), which is almost exclusively single-family, and a pretty expensive place to live. A lot of 100 year old bungalows are getting torn down and replaced by ugly oversized single-family houses. I'd rather see some small apartment buildings to get more density, but it won't happen if there are strong parking restrictions.
- zwkrt 8y ago
  This in no way affects existing buildings and companies that value parking are still free to provide it.
- aurailious 8y ago
  > Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to actually work in Minneapolis. I'm pretty sure the idea is actually the exact opposite. Mandatory parking is expensive, this drives up the cost of housing. 2040 is about reducing the costs of housing and not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. 2040 is about getting ahead of NIMYism and making sure there is housing that is affordable inside the city so people don't have to drive from the suburbs. >very few people actually live in downtown minneapolis. This way people can live closer to work and not have to drive cars. Its more sustainable, its better for the environment, its better for people. So the idea is to change Minneapolis into a city where people do live downtown again. > a commuter city The result of terrible city planning starting in the mid century that is going to be expensive and difficult to undo. 2040 is a good plan that will fix this.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    I agree. I moved to Minneapolis 20 years ago and one of my first political memories is of Jesse Ventura arguing that mass transit had to be improved because building more roads just means that more people will drive. He was right. Parking is horrendous in Minneapolis. I moved away and now live in rural MN but take the bus into the city. It is far less stressful than driving and then wasting time trying to find a place to park. Especially as the surface lots are sold off to build apartments and condos. The parking situation will only get worse. If it weren't for MetroTransit, etc., building massive Park&Ride lots in the far suburbs, many of us would refuse to even work in the cities, likely causing an outflux of talent to better areas.
    - aurailious 8y ago
      I was never really a fan of Ventura, but he wasn't actually terrible.
  - oftenwrong 8y ago
    >not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. I am happy to report that San Francisco recently voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements: http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-s...
- jaas 8y ago
  What you are saying about how Minneapolis currently works is true, but the car-dominated commuter culture is an unfortunate situation that will not change unless Minneapolis changes the incentive structures that made it this way. Minneapolis proper needs more livable core communities that aren't dominated by cars and commuters. I'm glad they are taking these steps because even though you are right that it makes the status quo more difficult in some ways, the status quo is not good and makes Minneapolis much less attractive long run.
  - beat 8y ago
    Other things need to change in the zoning, too. Like my own neighborhood... I love it, but there is very little in the way of restaurants that are walkable. But we're getting a walking-distance grocery, at least (Cub, unfortunately, but one that fits in the first floor of a new apartment complex).
  - ams6110 8y ago
    The incentive structures are mostly the "go anywhere, anytime" convenience of owning a car. That's a pretty tough one to overcome. For me, I'd say it's impossible.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  If you invest in public transit then it will be fine.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to get to work. This will result in a decrease in companies based in Minneapolis without affecting the overall number of companies in the Metro Area. Ah yes, much like those transit-friendly, job-deficient cities of NYC, Boston, and SF. Cities are cities. They shouldn't be suburbs but bigger, and trying to make them that way just causes problems. Even if what you say is true, a big reason why everyone has to drive is because of policies -- like, say, mandatory parking -- that favor driving at the expensive of transit, biking, and walking. Look at cities where people use transit, and a big part of that is that they usually don't take up enormous swathes of space with parking and huge roads or stroads everywhere. Leaving those policies in place just prolongs the problem.
- cgy1 8y ago
  I'm not following. How would eliminating parking minimums for housing make it harder to get to work? They're not getting rid of parking or preventing people from building parking. Plus there are plenty of large parking ramps downtown, not to mention all the Metro Transit buses and trains.
  - derp_dee_derp 8y ago
    not to mention all the metro transit buses and trains? oh you mean all those non-existent metro transit buses and trains that run out to Plymouth? and the ones that run to Apple Valley? and the ones that go out to Wisconsin? and Roseville? and South St. Paul? and Rodgers? and Orono? and Wayzata? and Edina? and Golden Valley? and the literally dozens of other cities that are in the Metro Area? the cities that everyone actually lives in all have very limited bus routes (sometimes only 2 trips per day: one in the morning and one in the evening) and the 2 existing train lines and the 1 proposed train line simply do not go there. Buses and trains are worthless for the majority of people who work in Minneapolis because they don't run any where near where the people are living!
    - cgy1 8y ago
      Huh? There are bus routes to almost all those towns. I was a daily rider of the 6 between DT Minneapolis and Edina. And what does public transit to these suburbs/exurbs have to do with Minneapolis eliminating parking minimums for new housing?
- duncan-donuts 8y ago
  Don’t all three of those employers you listed have large campuses? Also, aren’t there park and ride stations all over the suburbs? Maybe I just don’t understand because I live in Minneapolis and work downtown, but I also work with a ton of people who don’t and use public transit. I won’t pretend that I understand all of the implications of this change, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a doom-and-gloom as you’re arguing.
- codyogden 8y ago
  > Very few people that work in Minneapolis actually live in Minneapolis. Then they don't have a say in what happens in Minneapolis. You're literally arguing against yourself.
beat 8y ago
As a Minneapolis resident, I applaud the work being done by the 2040 project. As our population continues to grow (because My Town Is Better Than Yours), we need to make real efforts to reduce traffic, increase housing density, and reduce the disparities that lead to segregation.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I hope they budget strongly for enclosed walkways. Minneapolis gets very cold in the winter. Walking won't be pleasant in the open.
- beat 8y ago
  It's aggravating, because places where warm shelter makes sense (like major bus stops), they discourage it, because they don't want to attract the homeless. Sigh.
troydavis 8y ago
Comments by a few users (like “derp_dee_derp”) ignore that this isn’t preventing people from building parking, it’s simply letting the market - customers - decide how much they’re worth. The closest analogy is a city requiring that all housing units contain at least 2 bedrooms, then eliminating that requirement. 2 bedrooms will still be available and, if they’re valued, will appreciate and then more will be built. If buyers pay a higher premium for parking than for other uses of that square footage and expense, developers will still build parking. This is the city accepting that the city isn’t the best entity to decide how valuable parking spaces are; buyers are.
- derp_dee_derp 8y ago
  And your ignoring the fact that the Minneapolis metro area is a commuter city and parking is already limited within residential areas. Where are people going to park their cars if parking is not mandatory for all these triplexes being built? There won't be enough space on the street and you and I both know that developers will save costs by simply not building parking for low or medium income housing projects. So then you've got people who can't own a car because they have no where to keep it, who are then reliant on the bus system to get to work. Great,if the bus goes from your house to where you are working. Too bad it doesnt most of the time. This is a huge problem right now in north Minneapolis: there aren't a lot of good bus routes running through the area that go to where the jobs are and the people who live there that can't afford cars therefore don't have access to good employment. Sure, just do more routes, right? There is already a shortage of bus drivers in Minneapolis and the transit system is hemorrhaging money. How are we gonna pay for it? Or maybe build more train lines? We've already been planning the new sw metro line for a decade and surprise surprise it's still not built. The 2040 plan is not a good solution to the reality of the Minneapolis metro area's problems at all.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    None of these issues are a problem, they're preferred. The excess of parking subsidizes driving leading to more congestion, less density, and less utilization of public transportation. People simply aren't that stupid when it comes to their self interest. If transportation options suck somewhere, then property/rent values go down. This isn't libertarian pipe-dream economics, this is basic direct effects. If anything, it gives developers the choice between building the parking, or lobbying for better bus service, etc. Perhaps if parking wasn't so absurdly subsidized, the bus system would improve markedly?

50 points by tshannon 8y ago

for people reading this that don't live here, you should realize that Minneapolis is very much a commuter city and a huge portion of people live in the suburbs and drive to downtown Minneapolis to work. Minneapolis is also not the only large city here: St. Paul is literally 20 minutes away. The whole area that surrounds Minneapolis/St. Paul is called the Metro area and is essentially contained by the 494/694 loop but many people live outside this area in places such as Wisconsin and the Burnsville/Apple Valley area. Very few people that work in Minneapolis actually live in Minneapolis. Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to get to work. This will result in a decrease in companies based in Minneapolis without affecting the overall number of companies in the Metro Area. For example, 3M is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Medtronic is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Boston Scientific is based in the Metro Area but their campus is not in Minneapolis. Overall this is a short sighted move by the city of Minneapolis that will have lots of negative consequences and very few benefits.

beat 8y ago
When you say "downtown Minneapolis", are you talking about just downtown, or about the whole area of Minneapolis proper? I don't think the parking rule applied to downtown in the first place - and if you include the warehouse district with "downtown", the downtown population has grown tremendously over the past two decades. I think this matters a lot more for, say, my neighborhood in SE (down by Minnehaha Park), which is almost exclusively single-family, and a pretty expensive place to live. A lot of 100 year old bungalows are getting torn down and replaced by ugly oversized single-family houses. I'd rather see some small apartment buildings to get more density, but it won't happen if there are strong parking restrictions.
zwkrt 8y ago
This in no way affects existing buildings and companies that value parking are still free to provide it.
aurailious 8y ago
> Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to actually work in Minneapolis. I'm pretty sure the idea is actually the exact opposite. Mandatory parking is expensive, this drives up the cost of housing. 2040 is about reducing the costs of housing and not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. 2040 is about getting ahead of NIMYism and making sure there is housing that is affordable inside the city so people don't have to drive from the suburbs. >very few people actually live in downtown minneapolis. This way people can live closer to work and not have to drive cars. Its more sustainable, its better for the environment, its better for people. So the idea is to change Minneapolis into a city where people do live downtown again. > a commuter city The result of terrible city planning starting in the mid century that is going to be expensive and difficult to undo. 2040 is a good plan that will fix this.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  I agree. I moved to Minneapolis 20 years ago and one of my first political memories is of Jesse Ventura arguing that mass transit had to be improved because building more roads just means that more people will drive. He was right. Parking is horrendous in Minneapolis. I moved away and now live in rural MN but take the bus into the city. It is far less stressful than driving and then wasting time trying to find a place to park. Especially as the surface lots are sold off to build apartments and condos. The parking situation will only get worse. If it weren't for MetroTransit, etc., building massive Park&Ride lots in the far suburbs, many of us would refuse to even work in the cities, likely causing an outflux of talent to better areas.
  - aurailious 8y ago
    I was never really a fan of Ventura, but he wasn't actually terrible.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  >not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. I am happy to report that San Francisco recently voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements: http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-s...
jaas 8y ago
What you are saying about how Minneapolis currently works is true, but the car-dominated commuter culture is an unfortunate situation that will not change unless Minneapolis changes the incentive structures that made it this way. Minneapolis proper needs more livable core communities that aren't dominated by cars and commuters. I'm glad they are taking these steps because even though you are right that it makes the status quo more difficult in some ways, the status quo is not good and makes Minneapolis much less attractive long run.
- beat 8y ago
  Other things need to change in the zoning, too. Like my own neighborhood... I love it, but there is very little in the way of restaurants that are walkable. But we're getting a walking-distance grocery, at least (Cub, unfortunately, but one that fits in the first floor of a new apartment complex).
- ams6110 8y ago
  The incentive structures are mostly the "go anywhere, anytime" convenience of owning a car. That's a pretty tough one to overcome. For me, I'd say it's impossible.
pertymcpert 8y ago
If you invest in public transit then it will be fine.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to get to work. This will result in a decrease in companies based in Minneapolis without affecting the overall number of companies in the Metro Area. Ah yes, much like those transit-friendly, job-deficient cities of NYC, Boston, and SF. Cities are cities. They shouldn't be suburbs but bigger, and trying to make them that way just causes problems. Even if what you say is true, a big reason why everyone has to drive is because of policies -- like, say, mandatory parking -- that favor driving at the expensive of transit, biking, and walking. Look at cities where people use transit, and a big part of that is that they usually don't take up enormous swathes of space with parking and huge roads or stroads everywhere. Leaving those policies in place just prolongs the problem.
cgy1 8y ago
I'm not following. How would eliminating parking minimums for housing make it harder to get to work? They're not getting rid of parking or preventing people from building parking. Plus there are plenty of large parking ramps downtown, not to mention all the Metro Transit buses and trains.
- derp_dee_derp 8y ago
  not to mention all the metro transit buses and trains? oh you mean all those non-existent metro transit buses and trains that run out to Plymouth? and the ones that run to Apple Valley? and the ones that go out to Wisconsin? and Roseville? and South St. Paul? and Rodgers? and Orono? and Wayzata? and Edina? and Golden Valley? and the literally dozens of other cities that are in the Metro Area? the cities that everyone actually lives in all have very limited bus routes (sometimes only 2 trips per day: one in the morning and one in the evening) and the 2 existing train lines and the 1 proposed train line simply do not go there. Buses and trains are worthless for the majority of people who work in Minneapolis because they don't run any where near where the people are living!
  - cgy1 8y ago
    Huh? There are bus routes to almost all those towns. I was a daily rider of the 6 between DT Minneapolis and Edina. And what does public transit to these suburbs/exurbs have to do with Minneapolis eliminating parking minimums for new housing?
duncan-donuts 8y ago
Don’t all three of those employers you listed have large campuses? Also, aren’t there park and ride stations all over the suburbs? Maybe I just don’t understand because I live in Minneapolis and work downtown, but I also work with a ton of people who don’t and use public transit. I won’t pretend that I understand all of the implications of this change, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a doom-and-gloom as you’re arguing.
codyogden 8y ago
> Very few people that work in Minneapolis actually live in Minneapolis. Then they don't have a say in what happens in Minneapolis. You're literally arguing against yourself.

beat 8y ago

As a Minneapolis resident, I applaud the work being done by the 2040 project. As our population continues to grow (because My Town Is Better Than Yours), we need to make real efforts to reduce traffic, increase housing density, and reduce the disparities that lead to segregation.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I hope they budget strongly for enclosed walkways. Minneapolis gets very cold in the winter. Walking won't be pleasant in the open.

beat 8y ago
It's aggravating, because places where warm shelter makes sense (like major bus stops), they discourage it, because they don't want to attract the homeless. Sigh.

troydavis 8y ago

Comments by a few users (like “derp_dee_derp”) ignore that this isn’t preventing people from building parking, it’s simply letting the market - customers - decide how much they’re worth. The closest analogy is a city requiring that all housing units contain at least 2 bedrooms, then eliminating that requirement. 2 bedrooms will still be available and, if they’re valued, will appreciate and then more will be built. If buyers pay a higher premium for parking than for other uses of that square footage and expense, developers will still build parking. This is the city accepting that the city isn’t the best entity to decide how valuable parking spaces are; buyers are.

derp_dee_derp 8y ago
And your ignoring the fact that the Minneapolis metro area is a commuter city and parking is already limited within residential areas. Where are people going to park their cars if parking is not mandatory for all these triplexes being built? There won't be enough space on the street and you and I both know that developers will save costs by simply not building parking for low or medium income housing projects. So then you've got people who can't own a car because they have no where to keep it, who are then reliant on the bus system to get to work. Great,if the bus goes from your house to where you are working. Too bad it doesnt most of the time. This is a huge problem right now in north Minneapolis: there aren't a lot of good bus routes running through the area that go to where the jobs are and the people who live there that can't afford cars therefore don't have access to good employment. Sure, just do more routes, right? There is already a shortage of bus drivers in Minneapolis and the transit system is hemorrhaging money. How are we gonna pay for it? Or maybe build more train lines? We've already been planning the new sw metro line for a decade and surprise surprise it's still not built. The 2040 plan is not a good solution to the reality of the Minneapolis metro area's problems at all.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  None of these issues are a problem, they're preferred. The excess of parking subsidizes driving leading to more congestion, less density, and less utilization of public transportation. People simply aren't that stupid when it comes to their self interest. If transportation options suck somewhere, then property/rent values go down. This isn't libertarian pipe-dream economics, this is basic direct effects. If anything, it gives developers the choice between building the parking, or lobbying for better bus service, etc. Perhaps if parking wasn't so absurdly subsidized, the bus system would improve markedly?