That phrase—coined by a transportation planner to describe America’s car-centric land use planning—also conveniently sums up what affordable-housing radicals like John Fox want, paradoxically, to create in Southeast Seattle. Fox opposes eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments next to light rail stops—guaranteeing that every new unit of housing built along the light-rail line will cost tens of thousands of dollars more than necessary. But at least all those new residents’ cars will have a place to live!

49 replies on ““A World Where Cars Have a Right to Housing and People Don’t””

  3. Totally true. While Fox might have had something good to say a long, long time ago, he has now become an impediment to the well being of Seattle.

  4. I’d say cars have exactly the same “right” to housing as people currently do — you pay for it, you get it. The phrase is misleading in that it references some nebulous “rights,” when in reality we’re talking about zoning.

  5. Cars are like abortions, Erica. If you don’t like them, don’t have one. But quit fucking with people who choose to have them, and need a place to park them.

    In other words, I’m pro-choice on personal modes of transportation, and you’re not.

    Quit making John Fox the issue. You and your whiny fundamentalism are the issue.

  8. @4: exactly, if you want to pay the roughly $30k or more (the rough added cost of a garage/parking space in a new building) for the ability to park your car, go ahead and pay for it, but don’t mandate regulations that force the rest of us to pay more for housing.

    i’m all for choices, and i would rather choose to not have to pay for a garage/parking space. if you want to, go ahead and pay for it, but don’t force me to do the same.

    fox seems to think that we should all have to pay for the automobile luxury, which seems to contradict his self-styled image as a champion of affordability.

  9. @6:

    People still get to decide that for themselves, and if you think you’ll get to decide that for others, you’ll find that you were sadly mistaken.

  10. Ivan: actually, I’m the pro-choice one here. I want developers to have the choice of whether to build parking. You want to force them to provide parking whether residents want it or not.

  11. @5: ivan – same goes for you. right now folks in seattle (don’t know about vashon) don’t have a true choice about whether they want car parking or not. ecb is asking for that very choice – you and your obstinate opposition advocates for the lack of choice.

    i’m all for letting the market decide on this one. if you want to pay more for a car home, go for it. i’d rather not have to and that’s what ecb is advocating for, too. your position sets you squarely in the camp of more regulation for less affordability. is that where you want to be?

  12. oh man, I am so torn between @5 and @6.

    Can’t I just be pro-choice and choose them both as options for the win? Choice means all choices after all.

  13. @5 requiring a developer to build parking spots is hardly pro-choice anything. The city isn’t saying that developers can’t build parking spots but instead is saying they don’t have to. So ultimately it’s up to the developer and the person buying or renting the property. You’re just a whiney stubborn asshole who believes that developers should be forced to build around one particular lifestyle and not another, instead of allowing them the freedom to choose.

  14. I’m pretty sure that areas which desire business development will want adequate parking to bring in customers. Street spaces taken up by residents who don’t have alternatives don’t help.

  15. ECB: Actually, sound public policy would put that choice in the hands of the prospective homeowner, and not the developer.

    A parking space is a feature, not a bug, except in your tiny little car-hating fundamentalist mind. Residents who don’t want to own a car can rent out their parking spaces — probably without declaring the income.

  16. thought i don’t agree with ivan, i think he might be right about the “choice” thing — consider pharmacies. you don’t give them the choice of which meds to distribute in order to give the customer the choice. so, you don’t give the developer the choice (who would choose no parking and leave more cars on the street) so you can give the consumer the choice of one of those units.

  17. @8, How the heck does a parking spot cost $30K to build? I could maybe see a market value of $30K assigned if that’s what people are willing to pay, but it can’t possibly cost that much per little space.

  18. Ivan: what are you talking about? Are you saying that a homeowner gets to decide that they don’t want a garage after they moved in to the dwelling?

    The idea is that developers build according to market wishes. Hence, they will respond to homeowner desires. If someone wants to spend a ton of extra money for a parking spot, the developers would probably cater to the segment of the market that wants that. For the rest of us, we would not be forced to pay the inflated costs of a car spot (because developers will also build for folks who don’t desire parking). It’s simple and your lecture on sound public policy misses the point. I sure hope you don’t use that same logic on transportation issues for the VMICC.

  19. @15 This public policy does put the choice in the hands of the homeowner they can choose to buy a home with a parking spot or one without. Right now they are forced by the city to buy a residence which has parking they may or may not use. What about this don’t you understand?

  20. Poor people need cars. If you remove the requirements in sub-median neighborhood you probably just increase street parking. Fox’s position on the parking minima likely follows from his anti-gentrification bent. Gentrification might mean more carless folks and thus a demand for units without a parking space, but a large submedian income population would likely mean more poor folks looking for cheaper apartments and willing to take their chances finding free parking on the streets.

  21. @17: that’s the general going rate for garages (think about how townhomes are entirely distorted and uglified because they need to have that little garage at the bottom of the structure).

    cars aren’t cheap. the rough yearly average for car ownership is something like $8k. cars cost a lot and they’re not affordable. i want a city that gives me the choice to not have to endure those expenses and right now it’s not that easy in seattle to live sans car.

    i want more choices: the ability to not pay for housing that is inflated by a car’s parking spot, the ability to move around the city (via public transport, walking, or biking) without a car, etc. these are choices that our current policies don’t foster. i want a more affordable city and providing for choices other than cars is one of the best ways to move in that direction.

  22. I don’t get it. Are you arguing that people who buy condos in South Seattle, next to light rail stations, won’t need or own cars because they will be so well served by Sound Transit and Metro? The only people for whom that is likely to be true are people below 50 percent median income. Those are not the people that the new housing around light rail stations is meant to serve. Getting rid of parking requirements won’t do a damn thing to increase real affordable housing stock, unless it’s tied to mandates for low-income housing not BS “workforce” rental housing or oxymoronic “affordable condos.”

  23. people seem to like to just choose when the market will sort things out and when it won’t. the idea of bringing in the “choice” argument is pretty strange… but as long as we give developers all the choices (not “forcing” them to do anything) we end up with them producing developments we find unsatisfactory. we force them to produce at least a development that meets at least a base level of acceptable standards for the neighborhood. what else do you think the city codes and neighborhood reviews are for?

  25. @ 18, 19:

    You people can’t possibly be so short-sighted as to believe that people’s need and desire for personal transportation will somehow wither and die in the long term, just because we have a global warming siutuation in the short term.

    When most, if not all, cars are electric and nonpolluting, or somehow run for 200 miles on a pint of piss, people will want them for the convenience, the self-reliance, and the possibilities that they afford.

    There simply is no going back to the days when only the nobles and the gentry rode and the peasants walked.

    The present policies are doing you a favor, and you’re too thick to realize it. That parking space that they’re “forcing” you to accept is an asset and not a liability, if you have the wit and the imagination to take advantage of it.

    If you’re a renter, you might not give a shit, and I’d probably agree with that position. If you’re a homeowner, you’d only be screwing yourself at resale time to buy a home without parking.

  26. I think there should be a community parking garage. Keep your damn cars, just not right in front of the house but somewhere a few blocks away that has less effect on the n’hood, like next to a transfer station or something.

  27. Removing parking minimums

    1) makes it easier to tear down existing housing, and regardless of whether you’ve save $15k per unit on structured parking, the new units will rent for substantially more than the old ones

    2) externalizes the impact of new development onto existing residents, who are the ones who bear the brunt of reduced neighborhood parking because they have to park further away, get tickets more often, etc.

    There’s a reason the City promised that parking minimums would be preserved when they upzoned many neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Planning process – the neighborhoods in question would never have bought off on the increased density without mitigating its impacts.

    But then, city planners lie like ordinary people breathe, so I suppose I’m not too surprised that this camel keeps sticking its nose under the tent year after year.

  29. @26,

    And, for years, many of the people who have argued for maintaining minimum parking requirements noted that since there would be continuing demand for parking, it was likely that proposals would arise for publicly funded facilities to provide it – externalizing a cost that should fall on the developer onto the taxpaying public.

  30. @17,

    Building a below-ground parking garage costs a hell of a lot of money. I’m surprised it only costs $30,000 per space.

    @25,

    What. Ever. Not requiring minimums != preventing developers from building parking spaces. Get over yourself. And your fantasy about how cheap, easy, and non-polluting cars will be in the future is just that: a fantasy.

  31. the parking requirement isn’t about the new structure, it’s about the existing neighborhood. in my area 11 townhomes were built on what had been three houses with garages. as it is these new homes have added much pressure on street parking and they were forced to build off-street parking. we won’t have light rail within a mile, our bus runs once an hour during the day and not at all on weekends.

    will these units with no parking have any restrictions on driving or having people over that drive? btw most streets are easements through private property and the paving was paid by LIDs in the distant past. people don’t own the street parking but they have a reasonable expectation that the city will keep it available.

  32. @21, I don’t think it’s just the garages that are making those new townhouses hideous. 😉

    And I agree with all of your points…although I think if people are paying $8K a year just for their car and can’t afford it, maybe they shouldn’t be buying cars they can’t afford. There’s no way I spend that much on my little ol’ Japanese compact (since it’s long paid off, and my insurance/fuel/licensing/maintenance costs are $2250/year total…I probably spend an extra $100/mo rent to have a garage space in Ballard, though). I don’t drive every day, but it is important for me to have my own personal escape pod–and until transit can help me with more than my daily commute, I won’t give up my car.

    Perhaps it would help those who are stuck paying for a parking space they don’t use to rent it out to those who would value it. And because there are always fewer required parking spaces than tenants/unit owners, I’m sure there would be takers!

  33. @23: no one is arguing that we should throw all regs out. you’re right, we should watch over design standards, etc. last time i checked, car parking wasn’t exactly helping beautify new developments, so i don’t see this as a huge problem in the long run.

    @22: i don’t exactly get your argument about 50% median income. are they the only ones who ride public transit? regardless, i think your argument hinges on the permanence of the status quo. you’re right that this isn’t going to change seattle’s dependence on cars overnight, but it’s another step in the direction of providing true transportation choices for seattle.

    still, cutting out the need to build for cars in new construction will reduce overall costs.

    @25: ivan, climate change is a short-term problem? that’s a novel concept. even if you’re saying that we’ll soon fix our oil dependence and be able to drive on in the future, there are still huge environmental externalities with cars that aren’t just about more carbon dioxide. cars cause a lot of non-point source pollution that affects our lakes, rivers, and puget sound. cars also require huge infrastructure expenditures that just aren’t fiscally responsible any more. additionally, cars require large amounts of impervious surfaces that both impact our environment and promote more sprawl.

    in short, cars aren’t ever gonna be non-polluting.

    as for your comments about this policy is doing us a favor and we just don’t know it, i beg to differ. homeowners will pay more and the additional costs will also be passed on to renters. the fact is that we don’t need all the parking we have.

    as for your attempt at classism. i’m not gonna even touch whatever it is you’re trying to say.

  34. There is one issue that I have had in the back of my mind which deals with condos built with parking and plug in Hybrid cars.

    I think that the idea of a plug in hybrid car is a very interesting one. But the down side is, if no one has parking where they live, they will be unable to plug in and charge their electric hybrids. Of course if the technology for this type of hybrid does not advance then this point is moot.

  35. kesh weren’t you a big obama supporter? obama thinks we will have super hybrids and pure electric cars. right now you can buy a geo metro on craigs for a couple of grand that gets 40 mpg.

    there is no reason we can’t have very, if not totally, clean cars within ten years. it will take us a hundred years to provide high quality clean transit to the masses and probably much, much longer.

  37. Also, is there any evidence that killing the required parking minimum will result in less parking being built? Developers are in the business of selling properties, they’re going to build what sells, and in Seattle, that will mean space for at least one car per unit.

  38. @30: the $30k figure for parking is a conservative number. it can cost a lot more…

    @32: i agree that people should live within their means, but unfortunately most folks need a car for work or what have you – and the options for good alternatives aren’t completely viable. hopefully with new policies we can begin to build a city that both allows for cars and other more economical forms of transport.

    your expenses (about $3400/year) are pretty cheap, but they also don’t account for the initial cost of the car. factor that in and you’re moving up toward that figure (even though you’ve got a pretty inexpensive car).

  39. The privately owned fossil fueled car is eventually going to go the way of print journalism. Neither is going to go extinct in our lifetime, but there’s going to eventually be a lot fewer of them around. And only the wealthy will be able to fund them.

    Time to get used to it, and adapt.

  40. @38, just numbers: Calculating in the original purchase price plus interest (about $15,000) – current resale value (approx. 50% original value) + 3,400/year = $4,200/year total cost of ownership at year 8. Of course both the annual cost and the resale value adjust significantly downward if I keep her until she dies in another 20 years as I plan to do… But maybe transit will be so awesome that I won’t need a car then!

    And if that happens, we can always convert those garages into storage units or communal gyms. Maybe not a great option for townhouses, but it might be good for larger buildings with underground parking. If the space is in demand, and cars are not, people will find a good way to use it.

  41. @ 40: glad your costs are so low, but here’s a 2006 article from the Boston Globe that reports the cost of owning a car for an average person is about $7800. regardless of the differences between you and the average american, cars cost a lot: http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles…

    and as for conversion, that might be fine, but in the meantime new buyers will still be saddled with an additional minimum cost of $30k per dwelling. is that something you want to force people to pay?

  42. This is a whole lot of arguing over a pretty simple issue: legally, you have the right to own a car, and you have a right to procure a parking space for that car… but you do not have any kind of protected right to a parking space for that car, and zoning law should reflect that. If you want to live somewhere with a parking space, live somewhere with parking and leave the transit-accessible dwellings to people who actually use the transit.

  43. Wow.

    I’ve given it a lot of thought, and can’t really get behind either @5 or @6, so I’m going to have to go with @16 for the win.

    Let’s break it down. Usually, here in America, we have extremists present two choices as being the only choices.

    But in reality, a state I am far more in tune with than some doubters may believe, there are usually a lot more choices than just the two extremes.

    So, looking at it, we really have a multitude – or spectrum – of choices.

    Including the option to not require people to change the houses they currently own or rent but to make it so when you do a tear down for any reason you have to use the new rules.

    In other words … zoning. You zone for the future (fewer cars) but you permit the past (lots of cars).

    Parking spaces on streets are not sacrosanct. But if you have an existing garage, fine. Just don’t expect one if you tear down the lot and build something new.

  47. @46

    But what about the Arsenal of Democracy?!? What happens if we suddenly need thousands upon thousands of obsolete war machines again? The artificial dominance and centrality of the auto industry and auto culture in America was established for a reason, and by god if that reason was good enough for The Greatest Generation, it’s good enough for us, and don’t let anyone feed you any contrary lies about “modern warfare” or “limited resources.” Don’t you trust the Cold War-era military-industrial complex to know what’s best for you?

  48. I think the one thing that most folks don’t realize about minimum parking requirements is that most of them require an insane amount of parking. I’m not quoting specifics for Seattle’s minimums, so don’t get all literal on me here, but this is how it usually works: minimum parking requirements are based on the greatest number of people who will ever use the building. So if it’s minimum parking for a church, they decide the requirement based on how many people usually attend Christmas Eve services. If it’s a shopping center, the requirement is based on the number of people who will shop there the day after Thanksgiving. If it’s a condo or apartment building, it’s based on each resident having a car.

    Thus a lot of minimum parking requirements are actually *maximums*– for one day, sure, the mall parking lot or garage is packed, but the rest of the time it’s a sad waste valuable real estate.

    Developers are smart. They like to make money. With no minimums, they’ll build the amount of parking they know residents will actually need based on location and resident type. Plus, if they don’t have to waste thousands of dollars on parking, they can build apartments and condos that are cheaper. Some people get to park, some people don’t need to park, and everybody wins.

Comments are closed.