Submitted by RealBurhanAzeem t3_yd4jwf in CambridgeMA
Comments
MyStackRunnethOver t1_itq5mk9 wrote
MVP right here ^
Keep it up, I’m expecting housing affordability within my lifetime ;p
NotValid_123 t1_itr97sk wrote
I’ll move to Cambridge without a car if the housing is affordable. No reason to own a car if I can walk take public transit to everything I need.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ituiy1e wrote
Councilor — when is the city going to tackle zoning restrictions? Is there any good reason why the city can’t have 4-6 story multi families city wide?
vimgod t1_itqmrbk wrote
You're an absolute fucking king
Heebopeebo t1_itqb7ih wrote
Such a fan of yours!!!! Keep up the awesome work.
[deleted] t1_itsoolo wrote
[deleted]
1minuteman12 t1_ittcvpm wrote
It adds 100-$250 in “rent” via converting development costs to rental prices but I don’t see anything that prevents developers from just charging the same market rate rents and pocketing the saved expenses.
Cav_vaC t1_itufor7 wrote
Well, ultimately supply and demand. Developers will use the saved space for more rental properties, all else being equal.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ituj4b6 wrote
Parking takes up a huge amount of space, and developers will often not even bother building a project (especially low-to-average quality housing) because the parking minimums cut into their margins too much
Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_iu46ska wrote
Won't renters decide what they're willing to pay for a given listing? I imagine the market will tend to pay less for listings without parking, just as it does for ones without dishwashers, in-unit laundry, or nice views.
1minuteman12 t1_iu4sipx wrote
I’m a pessimist so my only point is that I don’t think this particular policy will create enough additional housing for prices to meaningfully drop, but it’s certainly a nice step in the right direction. Right now the supply doesn’t even come close to meeting demand so it seems like there’s always someone willing to pay some stupid amount for a closet in Harvard Sq
Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_iu57w9b wrote
Agreed; it's only one step forward.
As a policy, it'll probably seem relatively non-eventful in retrospect for all parties. Spaces/unit won't go to zero suddenly, even for new development. The existing housing stock won't change character. It'll be difficult to see the impact on overall rent inflation. Nobody will complain when 80% vacant parking lots under 100% deed-restricted buildings aren't built. Nor will people building ADUs or other infill projects complain about that one piece of red tape that they didn't have to comply with; plenty remain.
I do think it's a big deal politically. This and the bike safety ordinance reflect a Council acting assertively on a strong mandate from their electorate to rebuke post-war housing, transportation, and land use policies.
CompletePen8 t1_itrekfj wrote
SLAY KING
theWora t1_itqdyt8 wrote
Idk who you are, but if you have the powered to, don't let develops take advantage of this and find loopholes that end up with housing/buildings far off from being affordable.
ik1nky t1_itqfgdl wrote
There's no loophole with this. Developers will now be free to build or not build parking. That will lower development costs, but not make new development cheap. It's a good step towards more affordable construction(way more zoning relief is still needed) and just better overall urban design.
FitzwilliamTDarcy t1_itr71zg wrote
>way more zoning relief is still needed
This. And, way more fixing public transportation. By and large, it stinks right now. And that may be kind.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqmfju wrote
Mandated parking adds 50-60k to the price of each unit, 100-250 dollars in rent, and also restricts the supply of available housing due to how much space these lots take up.
The only possible outcome is a decrease in prices. Whether or not the impact is big is unknown
1minuteman12 t1_ittcz7f wrote
Developers will charge the same market rate and pocket the saved costs
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itufi1t wrote
That’s not how supply and demand work but ok
1minuteman12 t1_itva7hx wrote
You’re assuming that removing parking mandates will increase housing supply enough to meet or exceed an ever increasing demand, which I think is a massive, massive assumption. You’re also assuming that building more would saturate the market such that buyers and renters will have enough leverage to send prices downward, another massive assumption. The most likely scenario is that roughly the same number of housing is developed, or a little more, but the prices are set at market rate and developers hold firm on pricing because they know eventually someone will pay it. Developers and real estate investors would rather and often do have places go unoccupied for months or even a year before they’ll lower prices. It’s naive to think otherwise.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itveqb0 wrote
I don’t know how to argue with someone who believes increasing housing supply isn’t a solution to a housing crisis. Every other town every where says the same thing you are saying, so no housing is being built anywhere.
Cambridge has a tremendous amount of opportunity for growth in terms of 4-6 story multi families being allowed City wide, but it is impossible to build that and mandate everyone home must have a parking spot.
Having a roof over someone’s head is more important than your right to store your car on public streets. If you don’t agree then we will never see eye to eye and this discussion is pointless, sorry.
1minuteman12 t1_itvko8p wrote
I didn’t say it wasn’t a solution, you are arguing with a straw man. I said that the amount of increased housing development that this individual legislation will create is not going to be anywhere near enough to make a meaningful difference in housing affordability. It’s a step in the right direction but people in here are acting like this will cause rents to drop. It won’t.
crazicus t1_iu4rauo wrote
For now yeah. But down the line when we can get more housing friendly policies passed (like the relaxing of zoning), the prices of the apartments aren’t going to pegged to a higher value just so the developers can meet costs. Like you said, a step in the right direction
Cav_vaC t1_itugy4e wrote
They will charge what the market will pay, like always. If they want to charge the same and others offer lower, they will lose money for each month their unit goes unrented
1minuteman12 t1_itvb6a0 wrote
The market has an endless supply of people willing and able to pay current rates. Developers and investors frequently hold firm on pricing and let places go unoccupied for long periods of time before lowering prices, which is only done as a last resort and rarely happens. There would need to be an enormous influx of housing to make a dent in a market where there are millions of people willing to pay out the ass to live in a closet in Cambridge.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itvgnlm wrote
Right, and decades of NIMBYism has led to the need of a “enormous influx” of housing.
The need for housing isn’t a very good argument against policies they make it easier to build housing. In fact… it is just confusing.
1minuteman12 t1_itvkzrj wrote
I don’t know what you even mean to say. My point is that, although we need more housing, this policy is not going to create anywhere near enough new housing to have a perceptible effect on housing prices. It’s a step in the right direction for sure. We should be moving on from car dependent urban planning anyway.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itzdsi3 wrote
There are a large number of policies, including the one being discussed in this thread, that individually don’t move the needle much, but when combined will move the needle in the right direction. However, every single time one of these policies come up, the above argument is used to oppose such policies. “This won’t move the needle on housing, and it will inconvenience me, so I oppose it!” So the policies don’t get enacted, or get neutered, and then the needle never moves because nothing ever gets done.
There are millions of people and hundreds of thousands of homes in the greater boston metro area. Any developer trying to fix prices is just going to be undercut by another developer to make money. The market is too big for the type of collusion (at the scale of the whole region) you are describing.
1minuteman12 t1_itzfxwc wrote
I’m not opposing the policy, it’s good policy and I support it. My commentary is aimed at the people in this sub who are like “this is it, housing will be cheap now!” If we want a systematic drop in rental and real estate prices we need radical change.
Cav_vaC t1_itxn55k wrote
There's not an endless supply of people willing and able to pay current rates. That's just nonsense. There is a large supply, which is different. There are a lot of people making and buying wheat or oil in the world, but the price still goes down if supply increases.
1minuteman12 t1_itxte8f wrote
The price of grain or oil doesn’t drop if the supply only increases marginally and that increase still doesn’t meet or exceed demand. That is especially true if grain and oil sellers decide that long term profits will be higher if they set a price based on the current market and hold or let spoil some of the product that doesn’t sell, while making fewer sales at a higher price point. People in here learned supply and demand in high school and just regurgitate that term as if it will cause some magic fix. There are literal studies and theories widely accepted in macroeconomic circles that argue capitalist society has moved beyond supply and demand based concepts for staple goods such as housing, food, etc.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itzddaw wrote
And yet, here we are living in a region with artificially constrained housing supply with incredibly high demand for that housing. Sounds like “high school economics” to me.
1minuteman12 t1_itzfs3r wrote
No that’s late stage capitalism, which is significantly worse
Cav_vaC t1_iu18vrv wrote
There are a ton of studies showing the also obvious truth that more market rate housing reduces rents (compared to what they would have otherwise been).
theWora t1_itqmsyz wrote
The only possible outcome is not a decrease in prices. It may happen temporarily, but within 5 year span, they prices for the same Apts would go up.
Also, if nothing is done to control rent prices, everything will keep going up and we,ll end up with another NYC situation and plus.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqnyje wrote
100 people want to live in a neighborhood but there are 20 homes. The wealth of these people follow a standard bell curve.
Who gets to live in the neighborhood?
The next year the city passes a policy that leads to the creation of 40 more homes.
What happens to the price of homes, again with a standard curve where everyone has a varying max budget
—-
It is worth noting that there if a regional housing crisis and increased demand for walkable neighborhoods. This example assumes demand is constant. The solution is not to prevent Cambridge from building more housing, but to encourage/force surrounding towns to build more housing.
The population has simply grown and we haven’t built homes to keep up
HaddockBranzini-II t1_ituaihw wrote
Great, now do something about the people who shoot up daily in front of the Central Sq library. Any developers willing to pay you for that too?
ArvinaDystopia t1_itvogg7 wrote
Congrats, a huge victory for gentrification!
zeratul98 t1_itvq8w7 wrote
The general demographics are that car owners are the wealthier people in this area. Removing parking mandates allows for more housing, particularly housing that caters to people who don't own cars (who tend to be poorer)
ArvinaDystopia t1_itvrrre wrote
That's a lie. Housing in cities is vastly more expensive than outside of them.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itze6yv wrote
Then there is demand for city life, while pretty much every town in the country that isn’t already a city has made it illegal to upzone/densify, leading to massively inflated prices in the few cities that are available to live in.
But then, the same people who make the point that you just made will turn around and throw a hissy fit when people propose relaxing zoning restrictions
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu0aljo wrote
What a load of nonsense.
zeratul98 t1_itvs4ma wrote
That's true, and not at all a contradiction to anything i just said
ArvinaDystopia t1_itvtqwg wrote
Guess who needs to park, dufus?
zeratul98 t1_itvtvbl wrote
Tell me, who?
ArvinaDystopia t1_itvus41 wrote
The people who can't afford to live in a city with median housing prices of 1M (I just checked) but still have to work there?
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itzem9n wrote
You could take the T, but suburban NIMBYs have left it to rot because they prefer driving in their GMC suburbans and running over children on their way to work.
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu0aaj3 wrote
Fucktards everywhere, now.
zeratul98 t1_itvykpr wrote
That demographic leans more heavily towards public transportation users.
I also think that people who don't live in Cambridge probably don't care that much about whether the apartment buildings they don't live in have parking
ArvinaDystopia t1_itwc0zz wrote
They care whether there are spots.
But you're one of those "let's make driving worse" sociopaths, so this is pointless.
Emergency-Ad-7833 t1_itxkn72 wrote
We don't care about driving. This has nothing to do with "making driving worse" This is about making walking/biking/public transportation better. Car parking is the largest waste of space in our cities. It spreads the city out and makes other forms of transportation impossible. It also makes building housing more expensive.
You probably "believe in markets" or whatever so you should be happy about this change now the markets will decide how much parking exists instead random political regulations
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu0b3ng wrote
He literally said:
> Pretty simple: discourage driving.
Trying fucking reading, next time.
> You probably "believe in markets"
That's your line, rightist.
Edit: oh, you're an /r/fuckcars troll. That explains everything.
Emergency-Ad-7833 t1_iufx3uq wrote
So you are leftist that kisses the boots of the oil and gas industry? good luck with that. you may want to just move on
ArvinaDystopia t1_iuhn7by wrote
Oh, look, a troll. Let's play "guess which sub he came from?".
Have fun kissing the boots of the wealthy.
"Please triple my commute, daddy Bezos!" "Please remove my flexibility and mobility!"
"You have deiicious boots, mr landlord! I never want to have my own place!"
zeratul98 t1_itwe16m wrote
My favorite thing is when people like you make assertions with no explanation or evidence and then expect people to agree with you. And then when they inevitably don't, you insult them and pretend they're the unreasonable ones. A true masterpiece
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu0bdnn wrote
Yes, that is exactly when you did and are doing.
[deleted] t1_itzegxa wrote
[removed]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu0aekr wrote
Oh, the fucktard is double-replying. And too thick to understand very simple concepts.
[deleted] t1_iu4rgk0 wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4sskj wrote
Total number of spots? You don't have to use something directly to benefit from it.
Analogy time: there are 8 checkout lines at the supermarket. Two of those require the super special supermarket card to use, and you don't have it.
Someone decies to remove those lines. Don't you think you'll spend more time, despite the fact that you weren't using them, because the people that were using them are now in the other 6?
(also, they don't have to be inside)
[deleted] t1_iu4tdfm wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4ur3z wrote
Why do idiots always confuse homonyms? It's so easy not to.
Anyway, that's just displacing the issue.
[deleted] t1_iu4v6es wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4vfep wrote
> Why do idiots always end their sentences with a preposition?
They don't, that's actual English.
Edit: Well, the idiot realised he was wrong and bowed out.
[deleted] t1_iu4vqrt wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu4rnfd wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4sf2d wrote
[x] Doubt.
But anyway, mark my words: housing prices will go up in the area in the next few years, not down.
Come back to this comment in 5 years.
[deleted] t1_iu4sknw wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4teby wrote
Ok, Brussels. Go.
You're going to need price references, so I'll give you a source:
Average house price in Brussels: 500k-800k €.
Average house price in Hastières: 100k €.
Now you do some maths to show me that a car makes up for the 400k to 700k € difference.
[deleted] t1_iu4u5fd wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4udy4 wrote
You said "name a city". If you're going to only accept one city, then use that one, no need to ask for a name.
[deleted] t1_iu4upqu wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4uw4y wrote
You're the one unable to stay on topic: you said commute from outside the city.
And it's faculties, not facilities. When you insult people's intelligence, try to have a basic grasp of your language.
You should be embarassed of making those mistakes and getting corrected by an ESL. I know you aren't, but you should be.
[deleted] t1_iu4vfav wrote
[deleted]
ArvinaDystopia t1_iu4vqsa wrote
> It’s a Reddit comment, not a dissertation.
That's the thing: it doesn't require effort for those of us who aren't morons.
> Not my fault you lack critical thinking skills and have to rely on memorization.
I don't rely on memorisation, and I clearly have better critical thinking skills than you.
I also keep my word, unlike you. Still waiting on those maths.
AwkwardSpread t1_itpwy5b wrote
What’s a parking minimum? Is that where garages always charge for a minimum number of minutes?
RealBurhanAzeem OP t1_itpymsm wrote
Ah sorry! When you build an apartment in Cambridge you have to build a parking spot with it. The problem is 1/3 of households in Cambridge don't own a car and so that space goes unused and it adds about $100-$250 in rents!
anabranched t1_itqy0oc wrote
u/RealBurhanAzeem please put this explanation in the top post! And nice work :D
globetheater t1_itqvi7u wrote
Well done Burhan!
Candid- t1_itrubz1 wrote
Wouldn’t that mean that for new developments (that no longer have parking spots) approximately 1/3 of new owners/tenants would have a car that doesn’t have any allocated parking any more, making the parking issues of the other residents even more difficult?
repo_code t1_itsertx wrote
Developers are still allowed to build parking. They are not required to.
In most of America, it's illegal to build a building without parking and market it to people without cars. That will now be legal in Cambridge.
fps81 t1_ituqbsv wrote
Hilarious watching progressives use free market capitalism as the answer to a question about what will happen when a government protection is lifted.
Parking is stigmatized. Developers will not build affordable parking for those who need or want it, now that they don’t have to. They will charge $1000/month for the handful of garage spaces in a building and everyone else will have to fight for on street parking.
Yes, people living a certain lifestyle can make it in Cambridge without a car. But for those who can’t afford to Uber everywhere or for those who enjoy driving or the outdoors, the free market is not going to help them.
ik1nky t1_itva8us wrote
Car free households are overwhelmingly lower income. The higher your income, the more likely you are to own more cars and drive them more.
fps81 t1_itvdrds wrote
I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a working class person who can live and work car free. Public transit only goes to really high end businesses that can afford the expensive boston/cambridge office space, and doesn't run at all for people doing shift work. People who work at building sites, do in-home work (cleaning, trades, etc.), or who work in warehouses will need a car.
Traveling outside the city without a car is also basically impossible, so you have to live your life inside Boston and Cambridge, or pay thousands of dollars in rental fees to use a rental car when you want to leave.
The people I know who are car free in Cambridge are overwhelmingly high income and spend a lot more on transportation than I do.
Candid- t1_itt2sxd wrote
There are very good reasons why it is illegal almost everywhere else. It isn’t to protect developers, it is to protect citizens from destructively selfish developer practices. I am not sure why we think we are smarter than everywhere else by making legal what they have all learned, painfully, should stay illegal.
This feels very shady. Real estate developers and landlords in Cambridge got a windfall today and I don’t think it will turn into lower housing prices or fewer cars. I do think a few connected developers will get a few more millions of dollars from properties they couldn’t develop before.
holycow958 t1_ittg362 wrote
Parking requirements were created throughout the US as a form of racial segregation after the supreme court outlawed racially based restrictive covenants. Everything else is not smarter for keeping them.
Candid- t1_ittkz8w wrote
I think you could argue they are a form of wealth segregation. I disagree and I think it is more of an attempt to maintain current community ratios for existing residence/voters rather than cater to a group of hypothetical non-residents or vocal want-to-be residents … but I can see an argument for it being deliberate wealth segregation.
You don’t have to play the race card every time. Not everything is about race.
Really, though, I think those regulations are all about preventing predatory developer practices that negatively affect current residents in ways that will last for decades after the developers have taken their profits and moved on.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itujyjf wrote
Given that these parking minimums add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit built in the city, how could you possibly argue that it is anything but wealth segregation?
Candid- t1_itwo3tl wrote
Adding residential property without parking, to a city where 2/3rds of the households have vehicles, is about disrupting the lifestyle and convenience of the majority of the residents in the city, wealthy or not.
Owning a car is not about wealth. It is about lifestyle needs and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that low income people are more likely to require a car than wealthy people.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ity34qz wrote
Then the conclusion is that the lifestyle and convenience provided by the city for the past 60 years, based largely on a population that was 30% smaller than it is today, is not sustainable and must change, and is changing, as the city grows.
Candid- t1_itz8baa wrote
Agreed. This is an interesting step 1. Now further steps need of be taken to ensure this doesn’t result in a ton of new high prices development without actually solving the real problems.
When Boston passed a similar law, the made it only apply to low income housing. I would have liked that better since it drove the right focus.
Canahedo t1_itvenz7 wrote
>You don’t have to play the race card every time. Not everything is about race.
You're correct that not everything is about race, but this is America, a lot of things really are about race.
RevolutionaryGlass0 t1_itwuuei wrote
Plenty of nice places in other countries don't have parking minimums and the citizens aren't asking for more "protection from selfish developers", at least when it comes to parking.
They're unnecessary and waste space that could instead be used to combat the housing crisis, or could be a shop, or literally anything else.
Candid- t1_itwyid9 wrote
There are three recommended steps to solve this problem:
Remove off-street parking requirements. Developers and businesses can then decide how many parking spaces to provide for their customers. Charge the right prices for on-street parking. The right prices are the lowest prices that will leave one or two open spaces on each block, so there will be no parking shortages. Spend the parking revenue to improve public services on the metered streets. If everybody sees their meter money at work, the new public services can make demand-based prices for on-street parking politically popular.
Claiming success after just the first one is potentially problematic…
RevolutionaryGlass0 t1_itwywmb wrote
I agree with that, removing parking is just the first step, it's important the council then uses the extra money and space wisely.
>Claiming success after just the first one is potentially problematic…
But when it comes to this, the US has had problems with urban planning in most places for decades, Cambridge is the first in the state to remove parking minimums. It's understandable people are celebrating progress.
fun_guy02142 t1_itsnj39 wrote
You don’t need a car in Cambridge but if you choose to have one you can park on the street for $25/year or rent a private spot for $150/mo.
Candid- t1_itt4nle wrote
Have you tried to park on the street in Cambridge recently? Time-value-of-money, you’ll spend more than $150/month trying to find street parking for your car.
Having a car isn’t a function of location. It is a function of life. If you have a job that requires you work from different locations every day, if you have kids, if you are old… People won’t stop needing cars.
This will make Cambridge more congested, harder to find parking, and drive out all but a few very targeted demographics.
Honestly, it feels like a few wealthy developers were able to fast-sell a young, single male to do something self-serving without thinking of the long-term repercussions.
I own in Cambridge (lives here 10 years) and I work in Boston. While I take the T to work every day, I have a car and parking, for which I am grateful, because I also have kids who have sports activities, trips to the zoo or the science museums, or just to the Fells for a day hike. We eat at local restaurants that we can walk to but we will also drive to places in the city that aren’t on the red or green lines.
I would think that Cambridge would want to encourage families like mine to want to put down roots in the city. This change does the opposite. I understand that all laws aren’t supposed to benefit one group or another but I don’t see how the only ones who benefit from this really are the real estate developers that can now flip a property that was previously not workable and then walk away from the problem they created.
TheFoun t1_ittt9qa wrote
Nobody is forcing you to live somewhere without parking, and not everyone wants to own a car.
Candid- t1_ituewlr wrote
Nobody is forcing you to spend what it costs to live in Cambridge, and nobody should be making it easier for you to live here just because you yell the loudest.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ituipcr wrote
Weird because last time I checked this law was passed by an elected city council with a near unanimous vote.
I’m sorry you think building more homes for folks who don’t want cars or parking is so evil. I disagree.
Candid- t1_itwqu39 wrote
I wish you wouldn’t jump to such extremes. It makes people infer something that I am not saying. It isn’t evil, it just has an externality that no one is talking about, it benefits wealthy developers, and isn’t guaranteed to drive the intended results.
Existing landlords won’t drop rent because of this, new landlords will continue to charge market rates, and new owners will still have cars without a new place to park them.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ity49rv wrote
People aren’t dumb. Most people sell their car when they to move to NYC. You keep assuming that only people who own cars will move here but that is factually untrue.
Candid- t1_itz83y0 wrote
Factually, 2/3 of households in Cambridge own cars. There is nothing to indicate that the people who move into these houses won’t follow a similar ratio. Even if only 1/3 have cars, it still means more cars than we currently have on the streets. In no scenario does this result in fewer cars in Cambridge.
TheFoun t1_itufbhc wrote
true! if you don't want to live somewhere, don't, exactly as I said before
Candid- t1_itwr8pt wrote
Well, technically I spent a lot of money to live somewhere based on what it had to offer. No one is forcing me to live here, true, but someone did just “take” a piece of the value I thought I was purchasing.
I’m not saying this was an evil thing, I’m just saying I have a right to be frustrated by the change since the beneficiaries of this aren’t residents like me - they are property developers, landlords, and current non-residents.
Edit: spelling
TheFoun t1_ityae03 wrote
I see your point, but it's very likely that businesses you may want to visit will still have enough parking, even if there isn't a legal minimum.
For housing without parking, that probably doesn't really affect you, but it may help make some housing cheaper, which isn't bad.
Candid- t1_itz79jf wrote
I think a lot of the new housing will bring people who actually do have cars and they will just depend on the streets to park them. That will put pressure on everyone already here because of the free parking that Cambridge offers anyone considered a resident.
crawling-alreadygirl t1_ituj5iq wrote
> have a car and parking, for which I am grateful, because I also have kids who have sports activities, trips to the zoo or the science museums, or just to the Fells for a day hike.
If you had better infrastructure, you wouldn't need a car for those activities.
Candid- t1_itwptua wrote
I completely agree.
Cart before horse, taking away parking requirements before fixing infrastructure.
crawling-alreadygirl t1_itx399y wrote
Taking away parking requirements frees up space for other infrastructure improvements and allows for denser, more walkable new construction.
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itt97e0 wrote
"You don't need a car in Cambridge" Just a dumb sentence.
holycow958 t1_ittg8i4 wrote
I mean, over a third of households in Cambridge already don't own a car, so 🤷♂️
Ok_Durian8772 t1_ittnnsr wrote
OMG your logic is so terrible
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ituk6om wrote
“Omg I was presented with reality and it made me screech”
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itujjqf wrote
People who sign these leases will know there is no parking. Some people will choose not to move here because of that. Other (on average less rich people) will be happy to take those homes.
There isn’t enough space in this city for everyone to own a car. Charge market rate for parking and give subsidies to those with real need (elderly, disabled)
The city gives away these spots for free.
Candid- t1_itwodhs wrote
I agree with your suggestion. They should have done that with this change together. By itself this change is bad because it makes the problem of Cambridge giving away parking even worse.
ArvinaDystopia t1_itvp9bp wrote
Yes. The companies have lower costs, the government has to build the parkings. More profits for companies, at the expense of taxpayers' money.
NewLoseIt t1_itqw5h6 wrote
A good case where I’m in favor of less government regulation.
On a case-by-case basis, maybe it’ll make sense for a city to mandate parking spots in certain areas (near stadiums, park&ride transit lines etc), but no need for excessive red tape that forces small businesses to develop their own land - at their expense - in a way that doesn’t fit the needs of their business and customers.
If a business needs parking to accommodate their customers, go for it, but if not, it shouldn’t be forced on them and the community.
1minuteman12 t1_ittdjqp wrote
Government regulation is always a good thing when that regulation is motivated by the desire to improve the lives of its citizens. A significant amount of government regulation since the 1980s works precisely the opposite: it’s burdens the populace in favor of special interests. This is one example. Mandated parking was never about accessibility, it was part of a nationwide effort by the auto lobby to make our towns and cities dependent on motor vehicles. It worked. Ask any European what is sneaky the most surprising thing about visiting America and they’ll say how little public transportation there is and how many American cities aren’t walkable. We have ceded so much public space to cars and we don’t even realize it.
CompletePen8 t1_itrestw wrote
even then a lot of the time the requirements are way too generous and we end up with acres of parking near stadiums that could be housing.
in the uk and eu people put stadiums near well built homes all the time.
It isn't a big deal.
But the big thing is with parking requirements the builders and owners can't pick less parking, they have to build to build a home or whatever.
It should be by choice, not forced.
NewLoseIt t1_itrk3ay wrote
Yeah IIRC there’s actually a new movement to create “walkable” stadium areas in the US because of the additional revenue generated for restaurants and bars in the area (sometimes owned by the same owner as the team). I think Detroit did that recently with most of their professional sports, not sure if it’s caught on elsewhere though
Candid- t1_itrtmsq wrote
The issue is that now businesses aren’t forced to care about parking for customers and the burden falls on the local residential areas.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itujc2l wrote
“Car traffic is awful… when it’s in MY neighborhood” - literal NIMBY that owns a car
Candid- t1_itwpggw wrote
“Car traffic is awful… I wish we had thought of this before we allowed all this construction without parking” - everyone living in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Beijing…
Being a NIMBY isn’t bad if you are being reasonable. I think we can all agree a garbage dump or low-level nuclear waste site in Cambridge would be bad. We purchased homes or signed leases with a certain expectation of what the community was like. That is going to change in a way that is not favorable to the existing residents. Feeling annoyed by that shouldn’t be grounds for scorn or shame.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ity4ugf wrote
When you are forcing people to live 50 minutes away just to work at a minimum wage job because you expect to have a parking space in every home in a city… I think that is worthy of scorn.
Candid- t1_itz7tji wrote
I think I see the disconnect.
- I think minimum wage is criminal and companies that can’t afford to pay their workers enough to live off of should go out of business.
- No one should have to live that far away. The city should structure its housing so that the low income people who support the city can also afford to live there.
- I don’t believe this law will have any impact on housing prices because it isn’t the full solution. It is an easy step 1 that drastically favors groups that are neither part of the short or long-term solution.
mochithenewfie t1_itq176g wrote
This is amazing!!
RebelWithoutASauce t1_ituyhia wrote
Very nice work! It's a subtle thing, but this is a removal of a big roadblock to good urban development and affordable housing.
I hope other cities in New England follow Cambridge's example!
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqm2n0 wrote
Thank you for your work on this councilor.
AMWJ t1_itqukaz wrote
Woohoo! Great job!
j_parkour t1_itvuutd wrote
Will this make it easier to add units in existing buildings? For example, if a single family or two family house has no yard space for additional parking, is this one less zoning hurdle to add a unit in the basement?
Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_iu4xe8a wrote
Yep!
Zaritta_b_me t1_its95gs wrote
I can park on the street now?
[deleted] t1_itq13w4 wrote
[deleted]
WaitForItTheMongols t1_itsuw8x wrote
Is it effective immediately?
Is there anywhere online where we can see the text of the bill?
Italiantrumpeteer t1_iu28c70 wrote
Rent still won’t change. More money for landlords now. Greedy bastards
Ok_Durian8772 t1_iudxeet wrote
Still mad you didn't get into PILOT, huh?
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itv9g1z wrote
Oh... I get it. You're the people sent to destroy all the good things in life for everyone else. You're going to COINTELPRO everything good... Already ruined the CO-OP situation in Boston. You guys suck. And I know you take pride in that... And I thought there was only one Onceler🤷🏾♂️
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itrkyjk wrote
Pat backs now, get rent control back later
fun_guy02142 t1_itsnov4 wrote
Rent control doesn’t work. We had it for decades and overwhelmingly got rid of it in the 90s.
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itsr6xd wrote
Rent control DOES work, you just can't let landowners and City Councilors ruin it. I'm from Cambridge, you just got there... Rent control made sure that Cambridge was a diverse city to live in, now it's just rich twits that think they know what Cambridge is. Rent control worked it kept the schools full of brown children, now you got none. Rent control did a great job making sure that the people were living in cambridge, now you have swimming pools that aren't for everybody.. You know nothing Jon Snow
fun_guy02142 t1_itsseag wrote
I don’t know who you think you are talking to, but I’ve lived in Cambridge for almost 30 years. All rent control did was allow people to live in squalor because landlords had no incentive to make their apartments habitable.
Study after study has shown that rent control doesn’t work as a policy that keeps housing affordable.
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itsv9ac wrote
I'm talking to YOU, now. I was BORN, RAISED in Cambridge until chased out.
If you did nothing to STOP those landowners, you are part of the problem.
Schools closed, and now Parking Spaces is how you fix the problem? Seriously? Again... Pat backs now. And if you aren't renting, you need to hush.
fun_guy02142 t1_itswz0b wrote
Cambridge has a greater percentage of affordable housing than just about any other city in Massachusetts
http://www.massaffordablehomes.org/localrankings.aspx
I’m sorry you couldn’t afford to keep living here, but rent control wasn’t the solution.
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itt8plu wrote
"Affordable Housing"? Affordable to whom? The people that worked at NECCO?
Lol
Another clueless, and condescending person that moved to Cambridge. You UNCambridge when you bring your ideas and impose them on us. NOW... go research George Rothman.
Sloth_Flyer t1_itukhw4 wrote
This is the cringiest thing I’ve read all week. Literally no one gives a fuck how long you’ve lived in Cambridge and it has nothing to do with whether rent control is a good idea.
Ok_Durian8772 t1_itv7nmz wrote
Cringe away, Columbus🦥. It does have everything to do with me being here long enough to know that rent control was working, it was greedy landowners that screwed it up, and the people suffered because of it... (History is repeating itself, hardcore) Rent control kept people in the city modest. Alice Wolf never would have approved this... We're all fake excited about your new found generational wealth, but trying to exact your will onto the people of Cambridge just because you got a little piece of a $200,000 house which is now a million dollars - nobody is fooled by your antics except for people like you!
Sloth_Flyer t1_itvinn8 wrote
Sanest Cambridge commenter
8sGonnaBeeMay t1_its1v5k wrote
I think this is a terrible mistake and I don’t even drive.
GeorgesTurdBlossom t1_ittquho wrote
The parking mandate experiment has been going on for decades and the results are in: it sucks!
crazicus t1_iu4s66u wrote
The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup is a great book that also explains why parking minimums are actually bad, if you’re interested
devmac1221 t1_its6pza wrote
All the down voting in this sub for anyone that points out anything regarding cars or parking is disgusting. God forbid anyone have any kind of opposing opinion.
GeorgesTurdBlossom t1_ittqs9b wrote
Parking mandates are so gross tho. Why don’t the people who want to park build their own spots? Forcing everyone to do it is a major reason for the housing crisis and a reason why American urbanism is often so bad.
[deleted] t1_itreo0j wrote
Aaaaand this city just became trash for disabled people.
Edit: Why did I think it would be a good idea to come to a Boston-area Reddit sub and post a diverging opinion, even though it was completely heartfelt.
rafikiwock t1_itrhkuq wrote
Lol. It’s not taking away the ability to have a parking space. It’s now just not forcing one upon you.
[deleted] t1_itt2kgt wrote
If 1/3 of people drive, now they're all going to park on the street everytime a new building goes up. So, less parking for those of us who really need it. (That's assuming that these high-end developments have the same type of resident as the rest of the city and that they aren't more likely to drive.) Instead of removing all parking minimums, they should have had adaptive parking minimums with 1/3 of residents given 1 space, adjusted for expected needs. Now instead of having an unnecessarily large parking minimum there is an unnecessarily small one (none).
zeratul98 t1_itvpf7o wrote
You can just have parking spaces only available to people with the appropriate disability placard. Somerville is converting some of their street parking to these with the restriping projects. You don't need to give everyone parking spaces to ensure that those who actually need them get them.
It's so infuriating to me that the only time I see people on Boston/Cambridge/Somerville subs give a shit about people with disabilities is when it's an excuse to oppose reducing driving and parking.
[deleted] t1_itvrhsm wrote
Not everyone who is disabled qualifies for a handicapped placard. It's generally reserved for people with more severe disabilities. I've said this over and over again, but it doesn't seem to diffuse into the conversation because people legitimately do not care.
Also, we could easily even run out of those spaces if we put up a bunch of 30-story housing towers with no parking.
>It's so infuriating to me that the only time I see people onBoston/Cambridge/Somerville subs give a shit about people withdisabilities is when it's an excuse to oppose reducing driving andparking.
🙃 I am disabled and I actually got upset over this.
International_Tea259 t1_itt3saa wrote
Why is it a good thing if someone who is legally blind has to drive? Transit should be expanded instead, that's the best thing for disabled people since they can just get shuttled around on low floor busses for like 60$/month maybe even lower(cars that cost less then 100/month with all costs combined are freaking rare).
[deleted] t1_itt5ai1 wrote
I agree that transit for disabled people should be expanded (we have The Ride, but it's chronically underfunded and almost useless). And I keep saying this, and that we should do this before taking away the only other real alternative for a lot of disabled people (driving). And yet, the only interest seems to be in reducing the number of cars on the road. Frankly, I think that because real accommodations for the disabled would require subsidizing taxis or rideshares (not mass transit), the people involved don't want to do it because that would still be cars on the road. It doesn't personally affect them, so they don't care.
International_Tea259 t1_itt70oj wrote
Mass transit is actually good for disables people since it's insanely cheap, and simple to use since busses are tall so they don't have a complicated boarding process and can also have designated seats for them. Especially if someone is in a wheel chair, stuff like low floor busses with ramps for wheel chairs which is honestly a standard on modern day busses. Plus with transit getting better everyone benefits! Since less people will NEED to drive which means that there will be less cars on the road thuss reducing congestion.
[deleted] t1_itt8zah wrote
- All public transit should be fee-free and paid through taxes.
- Yes, busses can be good for certain disabled people, but not all. There are a lot of disabled people not in wheelchairs. And busses also have limited wheelchair capacity.
- I want expanded mass transit, too. But these things have to happen side-by-side. We need a ring line. We need a line that goes from Medford to Somerville to Cambridge to Allston that then also links up all of the Green Lines.
- We also have things in-between. In addition to essentially cars or minivans, The Ride also has small busses. Subsidizing taxis and rideshares is easy and doesn't require much more management cost, but if we really wanted to be efficient we would expand The Ride and make it more effective/efficient. As-is, it's extremely unavailable, slow, and late.
- Edit: Also, The Ride is part of the state government. It's not something that Cambridge could implement by itself.
crawling-alreadygirl t1_itujd8f wrote
Car dependency is trash for people with disabilities.
[deleted] t1_itvrkkq wrote
Nope. But thanks for speaking for all of us just because it fit your viewpoint.
RetiredBrainCell t1_itpze5t wrote
I know we all hate cars here but this isn’t unilaterally good. There needs to be some accommodation for those who do have/want cars
mtmsm t1_itq0zfx wrote
But there doesn’t need to be a 1:1 parking spot to apartment ratio.
RetiredBrainCell t1_itq1bpn wrote
I see your point (not everyone needs a spot so don’t make it 1:1). Buuuut what about the situation when a family or a bunch of random renters actually need more than one spot?
Skizzy_Mars t1_itq3qin wrote
Removing the minimum doesn't mean that developers can't build parking. If a family of bunch of random renters need more parking, they can rent a place that has more parking. Or they can rent parking at one of the many garages in the area that offer monthly parking rentals.
crazicus t1_itq3a79 wrote
They can pay for it at a complex that does have enough parking for them.
International_Tea259 t1_itt2yd9 wrote
Just because developers don't HAVE to build parking, doesn't mean they won't. They can still do it and charge a premium for it.
RealBurhanAzeem OP t1_itq06mu wrote
Absolutely! I don't hate cars at all. You can build the same amount of parking today you could yesterday.
A lot of people just don't own cars and it doesn't make sense to force them to have a parking spot. Just like it wouldn't make sense to force everyone to have a bike rack.
Helen___Keller t1_itq3eoy wrote
This doesn’t force the removal of parking, it stops forcing the addition of parking. More freedom, not less
Really what this will probably do is incentivize construction of multi families / townhouses / small apartments on smaller lots that are underutilized but zoned for multi family. I can think of a few on mass Ave near Arlington.
On sufficiently large projects, there’s usually enough money involved that owners are already looking to include a parking garage of some kind (attractive to wealthy tenants for “luxury housing”) and they will probably go to the zoning board of appeal anyways for other variances. Probably not much change there. Main change might be enabling some smaller projects, which generally don’t have funding to pursue zoning variances
MyStackRunnethOver t1_itq6jqe wrote
I think there’s a good deal more than “some accommodation” for people with cars in this town, even without parking minimums :p
IntelligentCicada363 t1_itqlt38 wrote
Yea, you can pay for it if you want it. Why do you expect real estate to be handed to you for free?
vimgod t1_itqmujy wrote
Let the free market decide then bozo
shoretel230 t1_itqib55 wrote
Yeah. This is where I am. I'm skeptical this will have any effect on pricing.
RealBurhanAzeem OP t1_itpw0pi wrote
Thank you all that came out in support! This was the first bill I wrote and introduced after inauguration and am so excited it got over the finish line.
Edit: Context - When you build an apartment in Cambridge you have to build a parking spot with it. The problem is 1/3 of households in Cambridge don't own a car and so that space goes unused and it adds about $100-$250 in rents!