Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

4

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

20

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.

−5

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.

12

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.

1

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?

14

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.

7

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.

6