Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_iu46ska wrote

Reply to comment by 1minuteman12 in Cambridge completely eliminated parking minimums yesterday!! by RealBurhanAzeem

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.

3

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

1

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.

1