4 ms·

>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the

>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regulatory parking requirements don't change that, they just make it illegal to not want parking.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
It's funny, in London new housing has been built with the explicit planning condition that residents aren't entitled to on street parking and no parking is included in the development.
- mktmkr 7y ago
  In SF as well, but the local government has shown itself unable to resist calls to later add parking entitlements to structures after they are built. For example all "live-work" developments are forbidden by law from participating in residential parking permit zones, but the city council has repeatedly established RPP zones on blocks where the sole residential buildings are all live-work.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- rory096 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, what mechanism is used to bar residents of new buildings from on-street parking? Pressure on the on-street parking supply is the most common reason given to support off-street parking requirements.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Inner London boroughs issue permits for on street residents parking linked to a car registration. If you live in a new development you can't get a permit. I have been in a queue at the local council offices behind a guy who had bought a 500K+ flat without knowing he could not park his car within 2+ miles of it. Fun. I don't live there any more.
clairity 7y ago
i get all that, and i'm not against this change generally, but i'm wondering about whether the savings are actually passed-through or does the developer/owner capture that value? i'm skeptical that (most of) the savings accrues to the renter.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  Why wouldn't the savings/costs be passed along to the consumer as in every other segment of the market? If I am a strawberry seller and my cost to buy strawberries goes down, I can pass those savings onto the consumer or not. But my competitors will all be making the same choice, so absent collusion, if I don't lower my prices, but my competitors do, then obviously they'll take my business. In other words, profit margins are determined by how competitive a market is, not the cost of production. If this change goes through, I imagine that profit margins for LA developers will remain similar to whatever they are now.
  - mktmkr 7y ago
    I think you are overstating the case that the market will pass this saving through. In reality there is some market-clearing price for a dwelling without a parking space and there's nothing the developer can do to influence it. This is the same reason that it's actually not possible to "build affordable housing" as many people demand. Yes you can build the housing but there's nothing you can do about the price it then commands.
    - clairity 7y ago
      right, my skepticism was about the actual market dynamics and the forces that might compel pass-through savings via competition, not the econ 101 idealization of commodity markets.
- pwthornton 7y ago
  They are passed through, particularly for residential. When apartments and condos require 1-2 parking spaces per unit, it means that we aren't selling to people without cars, who are often people who can't afford cars. My old unit in the DC area had something like $80,000 in parking attached to it. That could have been ground floor units or retail instead. The units would have been cheaper had the parking minimums not been there. In bigger buildings that put parking underground, those units can be very expensive to build.
Reelin 7y ago
> In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term. Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be at least somewhat concerned that without sufficient regulation short term thinking on the part of builders might result in less parking than would be generally desirable. I'm not at all convinced that urban planning should be done by market forces alone.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  I don't see anything odd about the claim. There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. My apartment, like most apartments I've seen, also has it. Turns out that people don't need the government to tell them what they want. People like AC, so most buildings have AC. Not particularly remarkable, but most apartments in my area also come with refrigerators, stoves, ovens, sinks, showers, and dishwashers, all sans-minimum-appliance requirement. To me, a minimum parking requirement seems as weirdly dystopian as requiring ACs or dishwashers. Most people like those things, so most buildings will have them, but it shouldn't be illegal to decide you don't need an AC or dishwasher.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    AC/heating are actually required by law in most of the US. For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement). Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)
    - 7y ago

VBprogrammer 7y ago

It's funny, in London new housing has been built with the explicit planning condition that residents aren't entitled to on street parking and no parking is included in the development.

mktmkr 7y ago
In SF as well, but the local government has shown itself unable to resist calls to later add parking entitlements to structures after they are built. For example all "live-work" developments are forbidden by law from participating in residential parking permit zones, but the city council has repeatedly established RPP zones on blocks where the sole residential buildings are all live-work.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
rory096 7y ago
Out of curiosity, what mechanism is used to bar residents of new buildings from on-street parking? Pressure on the on-street parking supply is the most common reason given to support off-street parking requirements.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Inner London boroughs issue permits for on street residents parking linked to a car registration. If you live in a new development you can't get a permit. I have been in a queue at the local council offices behind a guy who had bought a 500K+ flat without knowing he could not park his car within 2+ miles of it. Fun. I don't live there any more.

clairity 7y ago

i get all that, and i'm not against this change generally, but i'm wondering about whether the savings are actually passed-through or does the developer/owner capture that value? i'm skeptical that (most of) the savings accrues to the renter.

jaredklewis 7y ago
Why wouldn't the savings/costs be passed along to the consumer as in every other segment of the market? If I am a strawberry seller and my cost to buy strawberries goes down, I can pass those savings onto the consumer or not. But my competitors will all be making the same choice, so absent collusion, if I don't lower my prices, but my competitors do, then obviously they'll take my business. In other words, profit margins are determined by how competitive a market is, not the cost of production. If this change goes through, I imagine that profit margins for LA developers will remain similar to whatever they are now.
- mktmkr 7y ago
  I think you are overstating the case that the market will pass this saving through. In reality there is some market-clearing price for a dwelling without a parking space and there's nothing the developer can do to influence it. This is the same reason that it's actually not possible to "build affordable housing" as many people demand. Yes you can build the housing but there's nothing you can do about the price it then commands.
  - clairity 7y ago
    right, my skepticism was about the actual market dynamics and the forces that might compel pass-through savings via competition, not the econ 101 idealization of commodity markets.
pwthornton 7y ago
They are passed through, particularly for residential. When apartments and condos require 1-2 parking spaces per unit, it means that we aren't selling to people without cars, who are often people who can't afford cars. My old unit in the DC area had something like $80,000 in parking attached to it. That could have been ground floor units or retail instead. The units would have been cheaper had the parking minimums not been there. In bigger buildings that put parking underground, those units can be very expensive to build.

Reelin 7y ago

> In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term. Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be at least somewhat concerned that without sufficient regulation short term thinking on the part of builders might result in less parking than would be generally desirable. I'm not at all convinced that urban planning should be done by market forces alone.

jaredklewis 7y ago
I don't see anything odd about the claim. There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. My apartment, like most apartments I've seen, also has it. Turns out that people don't need the government to tell them what they want. People like AC, so most buildings have AC. Not particularly remarkable, but most apartments in my area also come with refrigerators, stoves, ovens, sinks, showers, and dishwashers, all sans-minimum-appliance requirement. To me, a minimum parking requirement seems as weirdly dystopian as requiring ACs or dishwashers. Most people like those things, so most buildings will have them, but it shouldn't be illegal to decide you don't need an AC or dishwasher.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  AC/heating are actually required by law in most of the US. For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement). Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)
  - 7y ago