The Role of Parking Access in the Affordable Housing Crisis

The affordable housing crisis in North America has many contributing factors, ranging from land costs to zoning laws and regulatory requirements. Among these, parking access requirements have emerged as a critical and often overlooked obstacle to the development of affordable housing. The mandates for off-street parking spaces can significantly increase the cost of construction, limit the number of units that can be built, and, in some cases, prevent developments from moving forward altogether. In response, several American and Canadian cities have begun implementing policies to mitigate the prohibitive impacts of parking requirements on affordable housing.

How Parking Requirements Impede Affordable Housing Development

Increased Development Costs Parking structures and lots require substantial capital investment. Structured parking costs between $25,000 and $50,000 per space to construct, while underground parking can exceed $60,000 per space. These expenses drive up overall development costs, making affordable housing projects financially unfeasible. The additional costs often lead to higher rents or sales prices, undermining affordability goals.
Reduced Land Efficiency Parking requirements consume valuable land that could otherwise be used for additional housing units, green spaces, or community amenities. This is especially problematic in dense urban areas where land is already scarce and expensive. Mandated parking minimums force developers to allocate substantial portions of a property to parking instead of maximizing residential capacity.
Zoning and Regulatory Barriers Many municipalities have zoning codes that mandate a minimum number of parking spaces per unit, regardless of actual demand. These one-size-fits-all regulations fail to consider the needs of residents in transit-rich or walkable neighborhoods, where car ownership rates are lower. Strict parking minimums can prevent projects from meeting density goals and disqualify them from financing mechanisms that prioritize high-density development.
Community Resistance and NIMBYism Parking concerns often serve as a rallying point for opposition to affordable housing projects. Local residents and business owners frequently argue that new developments will exacerbate on-street parking congestion. This opposition can delay or derail projects, increasing costs and reducing the likelihood that affordable housing gets built where it is most needed.
Environmental and Transportation Concerns Encouraging car dependency through excessive parking mandates conflicts with sustainability goals. Parking requirements discourage the use of public transportation, walking, and cycling, which are critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting livable cities. By limiting the amount of parking required, municipalities can promote a shift toward more sustainable transportation modes.

Policy and Legislative Solutions

Recognizing the barriers that parking mandates create, several cities across North America have begun to reform their policies to promote affordable housing development. These measures include eliminating or reducing parking minimums, adopting shared parking models, and incentivizing transit-oriented development.

Eliminating or Reducing Parking Minimums

Several cities have reformed zoning codes to eliminate or reduce parking minimums, particularly in areas with good access to public transportation.

California (Statewide Reform): In 2022, California passed AB 2097, a law that prohibits local governments from imposing minimum parking requirements on developments near major transit stops. This legislation helps streamline housing approvals and reduce costs.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: In 2021, Minneapolis eliminated parking minimums citywide, recognizing that market forces should determine parking demand rather than rigid mandates.
Portland, Oregon: Portland reduced parking requirements for developments that include affordable housing units, further incentivizing lower-cost housing construction.

Shared and Flexible Parking Models

Instead of requiring every building to provide its own parking, some cities are encouraging shared parking models where multiple users (e.g., residents, businesses, and visitors) can use the same spaces at different times of the day.

Seattle, Washington: The city allows developers to propose shared parking arrangements, reducing the need for redundant and underutilized parking structures.
Toronto, Canada: The city has introduced parking reductions for developments that implement car-sharing programs, allowing developers to substitute traditional parking with shared vehicle access.

Incentivizing Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

Transit-oriented development policies focus on building housing near transit hubs while minimizing parking requirements.

Vancouver, Canada: The city has promoted high-density residential development near SkyTrain stations with minimal or no parking requirements, encouraging transit use and reducing housing costs.
San Francisco, California: The city offers density bonuses and reduced parking requirements for developments near BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) stations, ensuring that new housing maximizes proximity to public transit.

Parking Maximums and Unbundling Parking from Housing

Some cities have gone beyond reducing minimums by implementing parking maximums or requiring parking to be rented separately from housing.

New York City, New York: In select areas, the city has capped the amount of parking that can be built in new developments, discouraging excessive car use in highly urbanized districts.
Montreal, Canada: The city encourages “unbundling” parking, allowing tenants or buyers to opt out of paying for a parking space, thus lowering the overall cost of housing.’

Moving Forward: Policy Considerations

To ensure that parking policies support affordable housing development rather than hinder it, cities should consider the following strategies:

Assess Parking Demand Accurately: Instead of relying on outdated formulas, cities should conduct real-time studies to determine actual parking demand based on location and resident demographics.
Engage Communities Proactively: Public education campaigns can help alleviate concerns about reduced parking requirements and emphasize the benefits of housing affordability and sustainable urban development.
Leverage Technology and Data: Smart parking systems, dynamic pricing, and digital permitting can optimize parking availability without requiring excessive space allocation.
Encourage Multi-Modal Transportation: Investments in public transit, bike infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly urban design can reduce reliance on personal vehicles, making reduced parking requirements more viable.

Conclusion

Parking access plays a significant but often underappreciated role in the affordable housing crisis. Mandatory parking minimums increase construction costs, reduce land efficiency, and serve as an obstacle to affordable housing approvals. However, cities across North America are beginning to implement innovative policies to address these challenges, including eliminating parking minimums, encouraging shared parking, and promoting transit-oriented development. As municipalities continue to rethink parking policies, they can unlock new opportunities for creating more affordable, sustainable, and livable urban environments.

With your jurisdiction’s unique zoning, building code, and permitting requirements ‘baked’ into your POSSE PLS configuration and civic permitting portal, a firm foundation is established to quickly transform the strategic aims of your affordable housing initiatives into the powerful automation assisted workflows required to turn paper policies into concrete results.

Interested in finding out more, including how POSSE PLS can support your community’s strategic goals?