Comments
j_parkour t1_iteszdl wrote
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.
wittgensteins-boat t1_itf57xn wrote
What streets do you mean?
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith0t1t wrote
All of Cambridgeport, Harvard St, a good chunk of Neighborhood 9, etc.
​
Its really ridiculous how these people want to be NIMBYs about neighborhood character but in the same stroke of a pen want the whole city to become a parking lot.
wittgensteins-boat t1_ith8d2c wrote
Inman Sq is short on off street and on street parking and it is no fun parking. The T does not go to many towns at Rt. 128, and I need the car.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith9t8b wrote
So like, why not pick one of the innumerable car dependent suburbs to live if you value it so much?
Cambridge is one of the very few places in the country where a car is unnecessary. I’d like it to remain that way tyvm
[deleted] t1_ithy0ud wrote
[deleted]
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ithyhya wrote
There are many, many disabled people who are unable to drive. Extremely presumptive and borderline offensive to make an argument that all disabled people benefit from car infrastructure.
Also, where in this thread does it say “No cars allowed” ?
wittgensteins-boat t1_ithz579 wrote
I live in Cambridge for reasons, and at present automobile carriages are required for my work.
[deleted] t1_iti29j7 wrote
[deleted]
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith9mgu wrote
Count up the cars on the street and then look up the population density in that area and do some simple math.
A lot of people live there with no car and probably think the neighborhood is very fun.
j_parkour t1_itoqu78 wrote
There are plenty of homes in Cambridge which have off-street parking if it's important to you. Or you can rent a space. Or you can decide to deal with street parking.
With this change, there will gradually be a little more competition for street parking in certain areas. If that's a problem for you, feel free to rent an off-street space.
Meanwhile, the city gets more housing for people who don't require off-street parking.
crazicus t1_itqd26o wrote
Inman Square isn’t a town on 128, thankfully
wittgensteins-boat t1_itqnwf3 wrote
Just the source of the income that pays for my dwelling.
crazicus t1_itqvfko wrote
Then you should be in favor of measures that reduce the number of cars on the road, right?
Responsible-Bath2778 OP t1_itd9ehd wrote
What you can do: email council@cambridgema.gov and CC clerk@cambridgema.gov to say you support removing parking minimums from our zoning code.
CJYP t1_itgyowt wrote
Hey op, could you please post a link to that tweet? I'd like to have a look at the link inside the tweet.
Responsible-Bath2778 OP t1_itgyzum wrote
CJYP t1_itgz4jb wrote
Thank you!
noob_tube03 t1_itdf59f wrote
Does this include a provision that residents of those properties can't apply for parking permits?
j_parkour t1_itescdb wrote
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.
noob_tube03 t1_itetael wrote
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?
CJYP t1_itgwpwj wrote
Cities having finite space is a great reason not to have parking minimums. We need more housing, not more wasted space.
noob_tube03 t1_itgxe67 wrote
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?
CJYP t1_itgydok wrote
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.
noob_tube03 t1_itgz1kl wrote
You didnt even address my question; if more people bring more cars, where do you expect them to park. There's plenty of parking in Cambridge? Where? I find more nights I cant even park in front of my house, and am doing laps of nearby blocks just to find parking.
CJYP t1_itgzhrm wrote
People who need a car will rent an existing apartment with parking spots. People who don't, can rent an apartment without spots. If there's more people who need parking than people who don't, then developers will continue to build parking. And people will park in the off street spots their apartment provides.
noob_tube03 t1_ith0b42 wrote
I trust developers to build less revenue generating property as much as I trust rats to stay out of the trash. I suppose you think developers will create affordable housing all in their own for the good of the residents too
CJYP t1_ith0kh1 wrote
I 100% trust developers to follow the profits. If people want parking, it won't be profitable to build housing without parking, and they will build parking.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith3wol wrote
This person has their slice of Cambridge and wants to shut the door behind them. Its that simple.
noob_tube03 t1_itjkwq4 wrote
This other person seems to think people both need parking and increasing the population of Cambridge doesn't require more infrastructure. Which is it, do people need parking or not? Minimum parking requirements mean new development can accommodate parking. If you think people people don't want parking, then how am I "shutting the door behind me"? Especially since I'm the one who wants parking for them?
noob_tube03 t1_ithugkc wrote
Do you have an example of a recent project that required parking, and the building hit occupancy while the parking wasn't utilized?
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1jfr wrote
You're assuming that everyone is just like you and cares more about their car than they do their own life. Not everyone wants to waste thousands of dollars a year on a metal box, and not everyone wants to subsidize those who do own one.
noob_tube03 t1_ithumtr wrote
I mean, that goes both ways. I don't assume everyone is me, and neither does minimum parking requirements. I do assume that if you increase the population by X%, you will see an increased amount of people needing cars
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ithwatf wrote
Having a forced parking minimum is the definition of forcing people to pay for something they don’t necessarily want, and if you don’t think there are people moving into Cambridge who don’t own cars and don’t want a parking spot, then you are assuming everyone is like you.
And why would increased population density lead to an increase in car necessity?
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itf869x wrote
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.
ik1nky t1_ith1zws wrote
There’s tons of research on parking minimums that show that they increase car ownership, increase traffic, massively increase costs, prevent transit oriented development, produce less pleasing buildings, reduce green space, etc. parking minimums should be abolished.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith421b wrote
these people don't care about data or facts. They will just say "thats not Cambridge -- its different here" to ignore what you just shared.
​
Supply and demand isn't complicated.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqac1v wrote
>Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.
As I posted above. Turns out supply is in fact complicated when it cannot be economically provided.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqc28g wrote
Your father was a city planning engineer, so of the the generation of city planners whose single minded goal was to maximize car usage and infrastructure in cities? You realize that generation of “City planning” Is how we ended up in this mess, right?
The whole premise of your argument continues to rely on your belief that everyone that lives here owns a car which is factually untrue.
as I posted elsewhere, the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused.
Cambridge has an explicit policy outlined in numerous laws passed by the council to reduce the number of vehicles in the city. Restricting supply and giving people other options is part of the point. Sorry.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqjbde wrote
" the city itself found that 30-50% of parking spots are unused." is preposterous on its face. Where are these spots? What days and times of days are they unused? For what duration? Are there reliable transit options to/from these spaces? No. Otherwise parking where it counts in Cambridge - within a short walk of the vast majority of units - wouldn't be such a royal PITA.
Also, no. For NYC, he was mostly on the public transit side (think airports and light rail). So, no. He was very much trying to fix what Robert Moses and his ilk wrought. He also knew that we live in the real world where stuff already exists. Or doesn't.
The thing is you're living in a fantasy world. You keep striving for perfect, as if we're building cities from the ground up from scratch. Except we're not. Let's be real. The T absolutely sucks. It just does. Rail, buses, commuter rail. It all completely sucks. And bicycling isn't realistic for most commuters for 3-4 months every year (and I say that as someone who rides nearly 365 days/year). People giving up their cars en masse in Cambridge just isn't a realistic outcome, sorry.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqjxka wrote
The statistic comes the city council itself clown. If you have a problem with it then email them.
Glad you fall back on to the “everything else sucks because all we’ve designed for is cars, so we can never have anything else ever again” argument.
The minimums have been repealed. I suggest you vote in the next election if you’re so upset about it.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itr6b2n wrote
Please point out where I said I was upset about it. LOL. Talk about clowning.
As for their claim, I stand by it being preposterous as anyone who spends a meaningful amount of time in Cambridge - with or without a car - knows.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itr905a wrote
Random guy on the Internet thinks something is preposterous based off of a personal anecdote. 🤡
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itrjcxn wrote
Random guy on the internet takes nonsense at face value.
[deleted] t1_itqcldj wrote
[deleted]
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itqa2oq wrote
Except that those studies don't control for available off-site options e.g. the density of paid parking lots and garages, the reliability and ubiquity and usefulness of public transportation, and the density of housing in general. Father was a city planning engineer (and architect) so am very familiar with this stuff.
There's a reason Manhattan works so well without car ownership.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1oc7 wrote
If there is no where for them to park their car, they won't really have a choice will they? Or, developers can respond to market demand and build parking.
​
People can decide to live in cambridge and enjoy for what it is -- a dense, walkable city -- or fuck off to a suburb. Stop trying to turn this city into a shitty suburb.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1e49 wrote
Believe it or not, people move here without cars all the time. Restricting parking will increase the number of people here who don't own cars. Supply and demand.
j_parkour t1_itor0tp wrote
The same place people park in existing buildings without off-street parking: on the street, in a nearby rental space, or nowhere.
[deleted] t1_itjjy61 wrote
[deleted]
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith30hh wrote
How about a provision that the city actually charge market rate for street parking instead of giving it away for basically free, in a city where people can walk everywhere.
​
Snowflake syndrome to the max
noob_tube03 t1_ithtyx4 wrote
I mean, that is a good idea. Not sure why you think people are against a higher barrier to entry. I mean sure, it means parking is only available to the rich, but the bigger concern is that it's even available at all
Fleur75 t1_itej2nu wrote
Exactly this. I lived in a Harvard building once that had this deal with the city - we couldn’t have resident or visitor permits - for big buildings, like Market Central in Central Square, it would make sense. Then again charging real money for parking permits would make sense too
charlottespider t1_itgf3ho wrote
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,.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith3gxq wrote
Why people pay Cambridge rents/housing prices but then turn around and demand a suburban lifestyle is beyond me. Fuck off and go to Lexington if that is what you want.
​
Keep Cambridge walkable and beautiful. Leave the parking lots to the suburbanites.
ClarkFable t1_itq0t8p wrote
>Why people want to pay Cambridge Medford rents/housing prices but then turn around and demand a suburban Cambridge lifestyle is beyond me. Fuck off and go to Lexington Medford
noob_tube03 t1_ithudgi wrote
Why people pay Cambridge rents/housing prices but then turn around and demand a massive apartment complexes is beyond me. Fuck off and go to Boston if that is what you want.
​
Keep Cambridge walkable and beautiful. Leave the massive housing complex's to the inner cities.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ithz8ik wrote
There are many large apartment buildings in this city that are over 100 years old. What the fuck is this post even supposed to mean.
“Only the rich or geriatrics who purchased 40 years ago can live in Cambridge!”
Goldenrule-er t1_itdr3zq wrote
I have no problem with onsite parking minimums. Many newer construction places parking on the first level. This reduces necessity for street parking and so makes for safer bicycling with fewer erratic driving cars searching for parking. Keep the minimums for onsite new construction.
People will still keep cars. While Cambridge is walkable, this state and country is not. Many jobs demand vehicle ownership. Unfortunately, onsite parking minimums for new construction residential housing is logical and necessary.
Cattle_Aromatic t1_ite67bc wrote
I feel like you're mistaking parking minimums (the city demanding a certain number of parking spaces per apartment) and the concept of providing parking in general which would still totally be legal and likely to happen in some form, just not required
Goldenrule-er t1_itepqty wrote
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.
Cattle_Aromatic t1_itg5ijs wrote
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.
crazicus t1_itqvpjl wrote
Maybe not disappear, but vehicles have been reducing in number over the past two decades in Cambridge, even as the population and employment grows. Mode share is shifting to walking, biking, and transit, and it’s a good thing.
Responsible-Bath2778 OP t1_itdri7d wrote
Is street level parking really a better use of space than additional housing or retail? If the market demands the parking space it will still be built, but why should it be required in a city where a third of residents don’t own a vehicle and don’t need those spaces? Why should they subsidize the lifestyles of car owners?
CJYP t1_itgx19z wrote
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.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ith1x8p wrote
40% of cambridge households don't own a car dude. Stop acting like you're some downtrodden minority because your nonexistent right to park a massive car on city property is being infringed.
theWora t1_itdvnq7 wrote
I think this is a general step in the right direction. However, I'm sure that developers will do their best to come up with loopholes to overexploit this, and instead of building affordable homes, we,ll have something far from that.
houseofnoel t1_itg8qnz wrote
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.
Goldenrule-er t1_iteqhsb wrote
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.
crazicus t1_itqdu5j wrote
Not a developer. I don’t want parking minimums because parking goes underutilized in Cambridge and it makes the cost of living higher for everyone, including those that don’t own cars.
[deleted] t1_itd9g3h wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itdfw0i wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itdgyjj wrote
[removed]
Goldenrule-er t1_iter2zd wrote
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.
houseofnoel t1_itg8bho wrote
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?
Goldenrule-er t1_iteqwxx wrote
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.
houseofnoel t1_itg9l7h wrote
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.
houseofnoel t1_itg9yfb wrote
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.
Goldenrule-er t1_itit3hq wrote
This is so dumb. There are greater margins for luxury condo sales. If more housing could be constructed in an indemand market such as this, you'll have more overpriced luxury condos-- unless it's gov mandated. Car dealers aren't even close to the situation Cambridge is in. Dealerships have allllll types of buyers. Your analogy isn't even remotely close. Quit spamming.
houseofnoel t1_itj3ci2 wrote
Dealerships have all types of buyers but housing doesn’t? I don’t think you grasped my analogy at all—the literal point was that car dealerships aren’t in the same situation because we DON’T heavily regulate the manufacture and sale of cars. The margins for luxury condo sales are so high BECAUSE new development of ANY kind is so restricted. I’m not spamming, it’s what any person with a basic knowledge of business or economics would tell you.
Edit: Also, if your concern is too many cars in cities, isn’t the logical solution to BAN MORE CARS (rather than ban more housing, which at best indirectly affects the number of new cars in the city)?
ik1nky t1_itgau10 wrote
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.
Goldenrule-er t1_itita5d wrote
What data is that? Can you cite some references please?
[deleted] t1_itg9x5k wrote
[deleted]
crazicus t1_itqe07s wrote
Sideswipes and doorings happen as a result of poor bike infrastructure, not because people don’t have parking in their buildings.
I_Fart_In_Trams t1_itf9bd0 wrote
Thanks for reminding me to email City Council to keep parking minimums. I would have forgot.
General_Corner_8466 t1_itdikxn wrote
Nice try developers.
​
This only serves to help the developers, creating problems for whoever buys these properties. Look at how the 1 off street parking minimum came to be in the first place.
​
Keep the parking minimums! This has nothing to do with the cars, and abolishing it will create problems for residents.
blackdynomitesnewbag t1_itdfq2s wrote
The fear mongers are out with their lies. Don’t let them win. Abolish parking minimums. Cars don’t belong in cities. People do.