Something you might have missed in all the talk about the “grand bargain” from Mayor Ed Murray’s 28-member Housing Affordability and Livability (HALA) committee: apparently, gloriously, the committee hates parking. That’s because lots of parking in Seattle is a waste of space, makes housing more costly to build than it should be, and doesn’t contribute to livable, walkable neighborhoods. Check out all the times they mention how much they hate on parking in all its forms—off street parking (lots, garages), curb parking, etc.:
Remove the parking requirement. Currently, an off-street parking space must be created for an additional ADU or DADU. [ADU and DADUs are accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling units, otherwise known as ‘mother in law’ apartments or additional living spaces built onto a property].
Parking quotas are a major driver of the construction cost of new housing, especially of small dwellings in more- urban zones. They can dramatically constrain the supply of new dwellings built, because off-street parking requirements consume large shares of building lots.
Recent research shows that throughout Seattle, multifamily buildings continue to have excess parking capacity.
This change will allow production of more housing and reduce the cost of the construction by requiring fewer costly parking stalls to be built.
To make these innovative housing types work, the 1:1 parking requirement should be reduced or removed. The City should not require parking for these new low-density residential housing types.
Therefore, the City should consider removing the parking requirement for single family homes.
I asked HALA member Alan Durning why the committee is declaring on war on parking (tongue firmly planted in cheek, folks). “HALA is not opposed to parking,” he said. “But… no one person’s curb parking should be a reason to deny someone housing. And that happens all the time in Seattle. We are opponents of the war on housing that takes the form of exclusionary zoning, excessive mandates for off street parking, and unwillingness to chip in for housing subsidies.”
None of this rabid parking hatred was particularly controversial within the HALA committee. The committee’s votes on a raft of policy changes to get rid of parking quotas and reduce parking (page 57-58 of the report) were virtually unanimous, with no more than two votes against each of them.
Durning points out that parking spots cost $50,000-60,000 per spot to build, quotas restrict how many units you can fit into a building, and because of the geometry of constructing them within or attached to new buildings, they are an “essential driver” of increased housing costs.
“Look, the city codes don’t specify how many dishwashers should be in each home,” he said. “But we specify parking.” Why? “The reason we have a housing crisis in Seattle is that the solutions are things that are opposed by many, many people”—including neighbors who are rabidly protective of the curbside parking on their streets.
HALA’s report represents a broad consensus-driven mandate to get rid of parking quotas once and for all. Pay no attention to the NIMBYs and village idiots. Over to you, Seattle City Council.