Real Estate Trend: Parking-Free Apartment Buildings

A wave of new residential construction projects in places like Seattle, Boston, and Miami are showing that, yes, modern American cities can build housing without any car parking on site.

A rendering of the new Lovejoy Wharf 175-unit condo development, Boston's first car-free housing development. Image: ##http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/no-parking-boston-gives-green-light-to-carless-condo.php## Curbed##
A rendering of the new 175-unit condo development, Lovejoy Wharf, in Boston. Image: ##http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/no-parking-boston-gives-green-light-to-carless-condo.php##Curbed##

Officials in Boston gave their approval last week to what Curbed called the city’s “first big-time parking-less condo,” a 175-unit project named Lovejoy Wharf. The “plan was met with disbelief in some quarters,” according to Curbed, but the city’s redevelopment authority approved it unanimously.

Portland developers have been building housing sans parking for a few years. Last summer, NPR reported that about 40 percent of Portland’s under-construction housing was parking-free. Portland’s zoning rules have allowed zero-parking developments since the aughts, but builders and lenders weren’t pursuing that type of project until recently, the Oregonian reports. Unfortunately, the city pulled the rug out from under parking-free housing this summer, responding to car owners who feared increased competition for curbside parking spots. Portland’s new rule requires some parking in apartment buildings with more than 30 units.

Meanwhile, other cities are marching ahead. In Seattle, parking-free housing developments are becoming more common. Mark Knoll, CEO of Blueprint Capital, led the development of a 30-unit building with no parking in one of the city’s “urban villages.” These designated areas, chosen for their walkability and proximity to transit, have special zoning rules that allow Seattle developers to forgo parking. These relaxed parking requirements were set in motion by Washington state’s Growth Management Act in the 1990s, which was intended to combat urban sprawl. Since the new zoning rules came online in Seattle in 2010, between 20 and 30 parking-free projects have been developed, Knoll estimates.

Car parking is expensive: Each space in a city garage costs tens of thousands of dollars to build and hundreds of dollars annually to maintain [PDF]. Eliminating on-site parking brings down the cost of apartment construction, Knoll estimates, between 20 and 30 percent. That makes it possible for developers to deliver more affordable housing. Knoll’s California Avenue development, for instance, is targeted at people making 60 percent of area median income, or about $15 per hour.

“There’s been quite a few developments [of this type] and they’re quite popular,” said Knoll. “There’s a waiting list for these types of housing.”

Parking-free housing is attracting buyers at the upper end of the spectrum too. Luxury apartments and condos are now appearing in cities like Miami and Portland without any car parking. Miami’s under-development, 352-unit Centro Lofts will have just five Car2Go spaces, covered bicycle parking, and a space for a future bike sharing station. No storage for private cars. That doesn’t seem to be hurting demand, according to the Miami Herald:

If you think this sort of thing won’t fly in auto-centric Miami, guess again. Half of Centro’s 352 units are sold even though the building hasn’t broken ground. Prices start at $220,000 and top out in the mid-$400,000s.

“These types of projects are really the wave of the future,’’ Oscar Rodriguez, the developer, told the Herald.

  • When I was looking for apartments in my neighborhood I noted that the one I wound up getting was much cheaper than ones in surrounding buildings, despite it being a nice building built in the early 20th century with newish appliances, etc. Having lived there for a while now it makes sense why the rent is lower… there are only 2 parking spots in the whole building of 40 1-bed units. There is no garage, they’re just to the side where the yard is.

    Many other buildings around me have surface parking lots in the back and the rent is higher. Probably because the amount of land being used for parking is as high as twice the building footprint! The building next to me has 6 units with 20 parking spaces in the rear.

    I live in a very walkable neighborhood. Many of the older buildings have no parking for residences. I hope that future developments that come around have 0 parking too, but it isn’t the case… just down the street they’re about to build a “tower in the park” with over 500 spaces.

  • Ian Turner

    Moral of the story: When people are forced to pay for the full costs of parking, for the most part they opt out.

  • Dan

    The controversy around these types of developments – which I am in favor of, for the record – is that they will simply overrun the surrounding streets with cars. It would be interesting to see any studies that measure the impact that these development actually have on parking. My instincts tell me that few people who own cars would want to live in a dense neighborhood with no on-site parking. It would just be too much of a hassle and expense. But where’s the data to support or refute that notion?

  • Kenny Easwaran

    It would be nice if the city could make this explicit by having all street parking either be metered, or permit-only. If there is currently uncontrolled street parking, then it could be converted to permit parking, with existing residents getting grandfathered-in permits, and new residents required to buy a permit from existing residents, or from the city if there is still spare supply. That would allow neighbors not to worry about the quantity of their currently available parking, though there might still be some concerns about guest parking.

  • Brian h.

    http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/59974
    Data, Portland has plenty.

    Kenny-
    Ideas that live in the realm of blogs and comments. Cap and trade permits is absurd on all practical fronts. No one owns curb space. It doesn’t matter when you show up.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    Can you explain why it’s absurd? Lots of neighborhoods already have permit parking. I assume the city has a limited number of permits that they sell in those neighborhoods. Is there some reason that this would be tougher in neighborhoods that are undergoing upzoning?

    And I read the PBOT response to the Shoup editorial. But I don’t understand their viewpoint. They say that he wants to charge too much for the permits, but then they complain that the sorts of permits he wants to allow would be somewhat more expensive to manage than existing ones. They say that he’s being discriminatory against new residents by charging them for street parking while existing residents get it free – but their proposed solution is to charge the new residents to put parking garages in their buildings.

    I suppose I had been assuming that permits would be owned rather than rented on a monthly basis. The ownership model makes it easier to grant to current residents and then allow a non-discriminatory market to develop, while the renting model does need some sort of discrimination in order not to feel unfair to existing residents.

  • Fedor Manin

    In Chicago, there’s a proposed building (which has some parking) where the neighborhood association is demanding that residents be ineligible for on-street parking permits!

  • baklazhan

    No one owns curb space?

    How is it that anyone owns non-curb space? They’re both in short supply.

    If you believe that no one owns curb space, read about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.

  • baklazhan

    To play devil’s advocate: if the rent is so much lower, why would anyone want to build a building without parking?

  • andrelot

    Is that even legal?

    In any case, it shouldn’t be. It is the uttermost anti-democratic framework: separating your rights to different things on your neighborhood according to the date you moved in. I can imagine certain Community Boards (or their equivalents), where elected, proposing that only people living 5 or more years in the precinct being eligible to vote…

  • Leo

    It’s simple, because of profit. By dropping parking, you have space for more apartment units in the same lot. Apartment units, even at an affordable price point, bring more profit per floor area than parking does.

    If you want ludicrous profit, you build even smaller apartments. People pay a whole chunk of money for just having privacy and a warm bed, making low-squareage apartments more profitable per floor area than large ones. The extra floor area doesn’t bring as much value as the initial, minimum floor area that fits the bed and nightstand. But as there’s fewer squares to rent, the price point is even lower.

    By stuffing many little apartments close together with few space-hungry amenities bundled, your profit per square rivals that of luxury condos — achieved with affordable prices. But unlike luxury condos, your low-priced apartments have nigh unlimited market demand.

  • BornAgainBicyclist

    This is a more detailed version of what Leo explains below:
    http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/22/apartment-blockers/

  • Ari_FS

    I’ve only lived in one city that had residential parking permits, San Francisco.

    As far as I know, there was no cap on the number of permits. If you had a car registered to your address you could get a permit for it. Period. The permit did not guarantee a spot, just the right to an open spot.

  • Ari_FS

    Permits mainly serve to keep non-residents out. The idea that current residents would get them at the expense of new ones is absurd.

    And let’s please NOT repeat the mistake allowing citizens to own permits. Permits should be RENTED. Or else municipalities lose out on the ongoing funding stream (see NYC taxi medallions as an example).

  • VikingDutchman

    Agree with you on principle, but the idea of giving current residents free permits is usually included in such suggestions with the idea that doing so will mollify them.

    Without giving some kind of a freebie to the NIMBYs, it’s hard to see any sensible parking reform being possible.

  • The 99 unit apartment building is open for leasing right now!

  • I believe the alderman made an agreement that he would not issue residential parking permits to residents from this building. However, not many streets require a residential parking permit.

  • Oregon Mamacita

    Each city is different. I can tell you that studies in Portland showed that 75% of residents (including renters) have cars. Tensions have escalated. For instance, hundreds of cars have been vandalized in and around the areas with the new no-parking construction. Developers have purchased so much influence in Portland that we are leading the
    backlash. We were the first city to re-institute parking minimums.

    Basically, the new policies have divided the city. It’s too cold to ride at night to certain neighborhoods- parking is a mess- so we start to avoid areas we once frequented. This is not good for the community.

  • Oregon Mamacita

    iIn PDX, we call people who use the term NIMBY “density demons” or we use the initials “DB.” Just sayin.’ Parking reform will never happen the way it’s going.

  • Robbie

    In Madison, WI, neighborhoods close to downtown and the University have a “resident parking permit program.” Neighbors can request – via a petition – that the streets around them be 2-hour parking except for permit holders. This allows visitors to park for short periods, but restricts long-term parking except for residents.

    The cost for a permit is minimal – $28/yr, I think – and basically pays to run the program. If you don’t need a permit, you don’t buy one. If you do, you buy one. No guarantees of a spot, just permission to park for > 2 hrs. if/when you find one.

    Developers constructing new buildings with minimal parking – i.e. not enough to meet the anticipated demand of the residents – agree that the residents will not be eligible for these residential permits. That is, “You as the developer agree that you will market to people without cars or with car-lite lifestyles and will not burden the neighborhoods with further parking demand because you chose to not build parking at your own expense.”

    City ordinance requires that all leases prominently state that residents are not eligible for the residential permits, so there are no surprises to people choosing to live there. If you don’t need a spot, you are not required to pay for one, and if you own a car, you know in advance you are going to have trouble parking it or you will have to buy a spot.

    None of this prevents 1. Existing neighbors from complaining about the potential of the new neighbors taking “their” spots (i.e. spots on the public street), and 2. The new tenants from complaining they don’t have a place to park because they signed the lease without reading the part about the “no residential permit.”

    I used to be an alder for such a neighborhood, and had to endure these complaints. Although I was polite, the complainers got little sympathy from me. The existing neighbors that whined usually had houses (not apartments) with insufficient parking for the multiple cars they owned. Not my problem. the tenants that complained were usually students that had learned several hard lessons in moving to a city from a small town. 1. Parking isn’t free. 2. Read your lease. 3. Owning a car can be a pain in the butt.

  • Caleb

    If supply of available parking is too small, it is probably because it is underpriced. It is time to get over the idea of free parking.

  • Fedor Manin

    I didn’t realize that building had the same deal. I was thinking of this new proposal: http://news.eastvillagechicago.org/2013/11/apartments-proposed-along-haddon-alley.html

  • 42apples

    This is great. I hope I’ll be able to find a place without parking after college. I can’t even imagine what would happen if something like this was proposed in Palo Alto.

  • Fabrisse

    Several of the newest developments in my neighborhood of DC are providing motorcycle/scooter spaces, lockable bicycle storage, and Zipcar and/or Car2Go spots as part of their project so the residents have easy access to cars or other transportation besides owning their own. Mind you, we also have good metro access, adequate bus access, and prospects for streetcars.

  • Jame

    This is an excellent plan. I have a car, so obviously parking informs my housing decisions. But I do plan to give up my car in the coming years. The one I have will likely be the last one I own. Considering our crisis in housing prices, and the fact that many people in the forthcoming generations prefer to live car free, it is about time for this to happen!

    Transform, in the Bay Area, is working with developers to build these sorts of developments via the GreenTrip program. To find sustainable workarounds for parking minimums and work with city governments for approval.

  • Jame

    I don’t agree with your stats completely. I want to live in a dense area, but I also wouldn’t choose to live in a dense area where parking is too much of a hassle for me to park my current car. I would either choose to live in a dense area with parking, or give up my car (provided transit/amenities were close by).

  • Alex

    I think you have a good point. Permits like this are a good way to ease in the notion of paying for street parking. But they shouldn’t be free. You can price them pretty low, maybe $25 a year for existing residents. That’s enough to get people used to paying for it. Then, raise the price of permits for new residents as time goes on. You also have to show people what they’re getting out of the fee so things like greening and better street cleaning need to be part of the package. In the end, these are good steps toward pricing parking appropriately.

  • Rabi Abonour

    Or, in the case of angry current car-owning residents, they yell at the government until they get their parking subsidies back.

  • Exactly. Two of my friends, both raised in suburbs, live in Boston without cars. The mere cost of parking in their building was too rich for their blood, so now they take the bus and T everywhere. It was awesome in my two visits up there to see how nice it was to be without a car.

  • Dan

    I’d like to see those studies you’re referencing. Got a link? And yes, I’m aware of the vandalism problem, but there’s no evidence to show that it’s a backlash against apartment dwellers parking on the street. I’m sorry, but your response sounds like your personal opinions and not factually based.

  • Dan

    Yes, you’re right. That’s probably a better way of stating what I think people’s thought process would be when deciding where to live.

  • Oregon Mamacita

    http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/420179
    I am sorry, but the city itself found that 72% of residents in the studied buildings had cars. They also skewed their data by measuring parking problems in the summer (when everyone is out hiking) versus November (more car use). This under-estimated the problem, but that is usually the case with the local consultants, who lack integrity.

    Rather than speculating about my motives, maybe you could bring yourself up to speed. That report was much-discussed in PDX and led to the imposition of parking minimums.

  • Oregon Mamacita

    http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/420179
    is the full link. Be a man and apologize for insinuating that I make this stuff up.

  • Jon

    Parking permits for existing residents, no parking permits around no new parking buildings for people with addresses in those new buildings … and permit parking within eight blocks of new no parking buildings would solve the problem at virtually no expense …

  • Dan

    Thanks for the link. I read through the report. Among the other findings is that despite the lack of on-site parking in the studied developments, and the 72 percent auto ownership, there was plenty of available parking on the surrounding streets. Also, actual auto use of studied residents seems to be much lower than the average, and that if there were better transit and bicycle infrastructure, more of them would get rid of their cars. Your argument that the measurement being taken during the summer needs to be supported, as does your assertion that the consultants lack integrity.

  • infinitebuffalo

    Pittsburgh’s system is similar. If you live in a permit zone (and there are only a dozen or two, most covering a couple dozen blocks near hospitals or popular commercial districts), you can get a permit for your car for about $20/year. The permit, however, conveys the right to park _somewhere_ in the zone, not at a particular place in the zone.

  • Oregon Mamacita

    Dan, no factual support for idea that better bike infrastructure would lead to less cars PDX bike commuting has flat-lined for five years in a row.. If you read the report, you will find the dates that the number of empty parking spots were calculated. The timing was clearly an attempt to influence the outcome.

    The lack of integrity of David Evans and Associates
    is a long story. See their work on the CRC.

    The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability promised a parking count in rainier weather, but they either lied about their intent or suppressed the results. Today as we speak traffic is a mess in inner SE Portland. Cars are overwhelming the charming side streets.

  • Dan

    Weak. SE Portland’s traffic situation is nowhere near as bleak as you paint it. The CRC debacle notwithstanding, you still have offered no proof that DEA’s work on THIS PROJECT is substandard. You’ve offered no evidence to indicate that parking patterns are different at certain times of the year. And there’s clear evidence that people want better bicycle infrastructure.
    http://bikeportland.org/2013/12/11/oregonians-support-for-road-expansion-keeps-falling-98331

    You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts. People are driving their cars less and less in Portland, because we’ve begun to give them options to having to drive everywhere. That job isn’t complete yet. The demand for parking will continue to drop, just as VMT in the Portland MSA peaked in 1996 (undoubtedly lower in Portland proper).

  • Oregon Mamacita

    Where are your facts that transit ridership is up and that there are more bike commuters in PDX?

  • Doug K

    It’s too cold to ride to certain neighborhoods? Where are these cold zones? I did take the bus a couple of days because of concern for icy streets, but I saw quite a few cyclists on even the coldest days (17 degrees, for those outside Portland). Need to get me some of those bike chains!

    I didn’t find traffic a mess at all. On the coldest days, the bus ran on schedule, and there was less auto traffic. Who is avoiding what neighborhoods? I’ve seen no evidence of that .

    And, as was mentioned, there is no evidence tying auto vandalizing to no-parking apartments. Many cases were in neighborhoods with no such apartments.

  • ubrayj02

    The cost of the building AND the cost of parking makes the total cost per unit of housing higher and thus the rents have to be higher.

  • Mike

    This is not a new idea, thirty years ago we call them Projects, and ripped them down for good reason.

  • Tanmoy Singha

    I think this is good idea, Mr. Mike how we can
    understand? What is the call Number of them?

  • Tanmoy Singha

    For more details you can visit here http://www.eppselsonteam.com/

  • I don’t think lack of parking was the problem there.

  • linked1

    What, because if there’s no place for people to park their BMW’s it must be a ‘project’?

  • Alexander Vasilenko

    Yes please, and in more cities!

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Apartment Blockers

|
Alan Durning is the executive director and founder of Sightline Institute, a think tank on sustainability issues in the Pacific Northwest. This article, originally posted on Sightline’s blog, is #9 in their series, “Parking? Lots!” Have you ever watched the excavation that precedes a tall building? It seems to take forever. Then, when the digging […]

Portland’s Parking-Free Apartment Boom

|
Portland is undergoing a bit of a building boom. According to local planners, about 40 apartment projects have come online in the last year and a half. Here’s the best part: More than half of those apartment projects have no parking — for cars anyway. Portland developers have been choosing to forgo building car storage […]

Did Portland’s New Parking Mandates Force Housing Costs Up?

|
There was a window a few years ago when Portland allowed developers to construct large apartment buildings without any parking. But even in Portland there’s pressure to subsidize cars at the expense of housing affordability. In 2013, city leaders decided to require at least one space per five units in buildings with 30 or more apartments. Larger buildings […]
Mexico City will use the powerful lever of parking policy to tackle its congestion problem. Photo:  CarlosVanVegas/Flickr

Mexico City May Abolish Its Parking Minimums

|
Mexico City Mayor Miguel Mancera is pursuing a sweeping overhaul of the city's parking policy that's expected to do away with minimum parking requirements and generate revenue for transit and affordable housing. If enacted, the reforms could set an important precedent for cities in North and South America.

How to Repair a Parking Crater in Three Steps

|
[Before we started up the bracket for this year’s Parking Madness tournament, I got in touch with Donald Shoup, who literally wrote the book on parking reform, and asked him to pick the worst parking crater in the field of 16. Here’s his response, packaged with some advice for cities that have a parking crater problem. — Angie Schmitt] All the entries […]

How Parking Permits Can Improve the Politics of Walkable Development

|
Residential parking permits are often referred to as “hunting licenses” because while they grant permit holders the privilege of parking on the street, there’s usually no limit to how many permits can be issued. If there are more permits in a neighborhood than available on-street parking spaces, there’s still going to be a parking crunch […]