Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Streetsblog.net

Study: Loosening Parking Mandates Leads to More Affordable Housing

A recent study by Michael Manville at UCLA [PDF] has been making the rounds on the Streetsblog Network. Examining areas of Los Angeles where parking regulations had been loosened, Manville found that "when parking requirements are removed, developers provide more housing and less parking, and also that developers provide different types of housing: housing in older buildings, in previously disinvested areas, and housing marketed toward non-drivers."

Shane Phillips at Network blog Better Institutions offered this take on the new research:

Minimum parking requirements result in more space being dedicated to parking than is really needed; in a world of height limits, floor-area ratios, and endless other development regulations this necessarily leaves less space for actual housing. What really struck me, though, was the straightforward assertion that housing marketed toward non-drivers sells for less than housing with parking spaces. It's powerful, but it's also obvious: parking costs money to build, so of course buildings with less parking are cheaper. But to have research-driven data behind it adds force to the conclusion.

Right now, parking is usually required in most localities at a ratio of at least one parking stall per housing unit (often more), and in newer buildings it's mostly provided underground. Even though it's ultimately just a big slab of concrete, underground parking spaces cost between $30,000 and $50,000Each. Sometimes more. Diggin' ain't cheap.

Developers aren't stupid, and they aren't interested in building parking spaces as charity, so they're going to recoup those costs one way or another. They could try to charge residents for the parking, a difficult prospect in some locales where curbside parking is abundant and cheap (or free). To break even, they'd have to rent out every space for every month for thirty years, for between $85 and $140 per month. Or they could just wrap the cost into everyone's rent and give everyone a free parking space. As you add more parking spaces, obviously the cost goes up.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Walkable Dallas Fort Worth writes about the long-term savings that cities will reap from embracing bike infrastructure. Carfree Baltimore looks at the problems with passive safety measures -- airbags, wide streets, bulky cars -- and how they can be obstacles to reducing traffic fatalities. And Hard Drive reports that a proposal to allow gas tax revenues to be spent on bike projects is progressing in Oregon.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Thursday’s Headlines Are Charged Up for the Fourth

The Republican megabill is bad for the electric vehicle industry, but it could be worse.

July 3, 2025

Why is the Secretary of Transportation Begging Americans to Take More Road Trips?

Instead of making America easier to see on all modes, the US Department of Transportation is encouraging U.S. residents to just get in their cars and drive.

July 3, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Are for the Children

From mothers with babies in strollers to preteens on bikes, much of the U.S. is hostile to families just trying to get around without a car.

July 2, 2025

Ambulance Data Reveals That Boston Drivers Are 4 Times More Likely to Run Over Pedestrians From Black Neighborhoods

"Overall, residents of predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods are about four times more likely than residents of predominantly white neighborhoods to be struck as a pedestrian."

July 1, 2025
See all posts