Boston's housing problem

I think it was mass-motorist that said it about just doing a full upzoning of the city to give developers more certainty (btw, nimbys this isn't saying they can do whatever, its saying they can do whatever inside the bounds.) The artificially low heights and limits kills too many projects.

The neighborhood residents should be included in this process, and their on the ground concerns should be taken into account (i.e. maybe there shouldn't be a club in the first floor, just a restaurant, or a community space of X has to be included, or as someone said $ to a fund for local events).

Parking minimums should be gone, and it should be said, you can build to this height with this FAR on this street.
I also agree that affordable housing is important, not only for diversity for diversity's sake, but I think it creates more healthy, active neighborhoods for all. We don't want to ghettoize societies. So how you can build whatever in the zone space, but there are perks for builiding more affordable spaces, or just regular apartments vs. luxury apartments (Maybe they can be pegged to like 80% of a neighborhoods average- which for a place like Back Bay is still pretty pricey). If developers CHOOSE to do that, they get more height and greater FAR. Thoughts?
 
Publicly funded housing programs (vouchers, subsidized units, backed mortgages, etc) have a role to play when the market isn't providing housing for low income residents. But when the market isn't providing low income housing because government blocks construction, turning around and having the government also provide housing funding seems like a tenuous solution at best. That's my relatively centrist take at least.
 
Then again, I'd be happy with the mortgage-interest deduction going away.

Please do not share this information with the bill payer in my household.
 
Matthew said:
Giving the neighborhood groups control over such a fund would actually be a tremendous increase in their power over the status quo. Perhaps instead the revenue could be put into a local neighborhood improvement district (similar to Shoup parking benefit districts) to connect the idea of revenue increase to tangible local improvements. Another idea from Ryan Avent is that of the fixed zoning budget.
Click to expand...

How much power they have isn't what matters. It's their incentives to wield it that matter.

Right now, a neighborhood group gets basically nothing out of a new development unless they're in a blighted area. There are lots of reasons they might want to delay, block, or reduce the scope of a project. There's virtually no reasons they would be anything other than neutral towards a project. Basically you have some residents on one side, lots more in the middle, but no one on the other side. So the incentives run towards reducing the scope of a project, if anything.

If you give the group funding from a percentage of tax revenue for 3 years after the project is built, suddenly the paradigm shifts and they have an incentive to promote development instead of say "no, no, no" all the time. I'm sure there'd be enough naysayers that projects would still be changed, but you would hugely reduce the scope of wholesale NIMBY blocking of projects.

Matt Yglesias wrote something about this a long time ago but I can't find it. For now:

Developers Should Be Able To Bribe Homeowners
Brookland NIMBYs Killing The Environment
The Excessive Localism of Urban Planning
 
I wouldn't say they gain nothing. There is a gain from increased development in a neighborhood; done right, it should mean more opportunities for business and leisure activities close to home. They may be loathe to admit it, and fear of change is nothing new, but there is gain.

Of course it is possible to do development in a neighborhood-unfriendly manner and that is where the community groups are useful. A developer who walls off benefits and externalizes costs won't be welcomed.

I'm not opposed to making that gain more tangible in the form of revenue for the local area, if that's what it takes (and no need to hunt for the article, I've likely read it). Of course that's supposed to be taken care of by property taxes. And it's already the case that developers will commit to local improvements in order to ease opposition. For example, New Balance was very proactive about this in Brighton, they are beginning local street improvements in short order, and plan to continue for the next few years while they build their new HQ. They are also funding the new CR station entirely.

I noticed something that Harvard did this past summer which was smart: they allowed a small team of members from the community to interview and help choose the developer for one of the big sites. That team came back and chose a company, and reported that they were very satisfied and confident in who they chose. As a result, when NIMBYs try to push for lowered height/reduced density, the team of accountants from the developer can stand firm with their analysis. It is respected because of the trust established by the earlier community involvement.
 
Given that even in Boston, a majority of people drive alone to work, the suggestion that parking minimums should go away is delusional at best. All that will happen if the minimums are eliminated is that street parking will become even more scarce and more sensitive of an issue than it already is.
 
Kahta said:
Given that even in Boston, a majority of people drive alone to work, the suggestion that parking minimums should go away is delusional at best. All that will happen if the minimums are eliminated is that street parking will become even more scarce and more sensitive of an issue than it already is.
Click to expand...
It seems like if parking is such a necessity, then people will want parking when looking for housing, and developers will be incentivized (I don't think that's a word but eh) to build accordingly.

If there is a decent population for whom driving is unnecessary (and in Boston this does seem to be the case, even if drivers are the majority), then developers should be able to target them too.
 
Kahta said:
Given that even in Boston, a majority of people drive alone to work, the suggestion that parking minimums should go away is delusional at best. All that will happen if the minimums are eliminated is that street parking will become even more scarce and more sensitive of an issue than it already is.
Click to expand...

No, a majority of people in Boston do not drive alone to work. According to the American Community Survey 2006-2010, 38.7% of Boston residents drive alone to work, followed very closely by 32.9% taking public transportation. Data here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2507000lk.html then click "Economic Characteristics."
 
And even if they do drive to work, "parking minimums" aren't necessary. If there is demand for parking, then someone will step up to supply it. The point of "parking minimums" is to reduce the price of parking artificially, providing a subsidy to automobile users through enforced land usage.

There is no excuse for "minimum parking requirements" in any free market society. It is an intrusion by the state into the market. Period. And for what gain?
 
There is a reasonable case for parking minimums in certain developed suburban areas where on-premises parking is almost universally sufficient to accomodate existing residents and street parking is basically nonexistent (along with on-street parking regulations). In places like that (and there are a lot of them!) a lack of on-premises parking in new development can become a negative externality affecting other residents as people park along streets not designed to be parked along. This often leads to stupid and rarely enforced laws like the one in Waltham (street parking prohibited citywide unless posted otherwise).

But in cities, the solution is simple, because street parking is already there, already in demand, and already needs to be regulated. Price street marking at market rates. Because of the convenience factor, that means higher than what any garage would charge for a particular period of time.
 
What makes parking on a suburban street any different from parking on a city one? You don't need parking minimums to incentivize developers to include parking in the suburbs... the fact that they decided to build in a transit wasteland works wonders on its own.
 
omaja said:
What makes parking on a suburban street any different from parking on a city one?
Click to expand...

Growing up in South County, RI, my experience might be more "exurb" than "suburb" but the roads in those kinds of places tend to feature half-width or less shoulders, no sidewalks, and the road geometry just generally discourages stopping or pulling over. In a way, it's just as unfriendly to drivers as it is pedestrians.
 
Why would you need to pull over? Doesn't everyone have a private driveway?
 
omaja said:
What makes parking on a suburban street any different from parking on a city one? You don't need parking minimums to incentivize developers to include parking in the suburbs... the fact that they decided to build in a transit wasteland works wonders on its own.
Click to expand...

If there's tons of theoretical but ill-suited "street parking" available, then a developer could theoretically not build on-premises parking - or build, say, one space per unit in a dense development - in a way that pushes the costs onto others. This problem would probably be more likely to occur with a commercial development.

Commuting Boston Student said:
Growing up in South County, RI, my experience might be more "exurb" than "suburb" but the roads in those kinds of places tend to feature half-width or less shoulders, no sidewalks, and the road geometry just generally discourages stopping or pulling over. In a way, it's just as unfriendly to drivers as it is pedestrians.
Click to expand...

I grew up in that type of area (though it was solidly "suburb", 15 min train ride to Boston) and it was awful as a pedestrian and dangerous as a driver to park on or drive on with people parked. Luckily parking on-street was rare because of sufficient driveway space.


Again, the point is simple - context matters, and blanket rules that apply universally are rare.
 
bbfen said:
Why would you need to pull over? Doesn't everyone have a private driveway?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the point - it's because parking is easy and abundant off of the roads that you can get away with making roads ranging from "unfriendly" to "impossible" with regards to stopping and pulling over.

Now, on a broader level, I would oppose parking minimums in all circumstances - because, the same amount of regulatory headache can be applied to a much more worthwhile cause in banning on-street parking.

Per massmotorist's suggestion of Anywhere, USA that has lots of hypothetical on-street parking but parking on those streets is a very bad idea - it's better to just reaffirm that, in addition to being impractical, parking on the street is illegal. The parking lot you pave can always be developed later, minimums or otherwise - but it seems to be a much more difficult proposition to shut off street parking once you allow it - even if you only implicitly allowed it by failing to explicitly prohibit it.

I think the dream of a walkable suburb or a transit-oriented suburb can be achieved, and roads in these places can be reconfigured with the pedestrian in mind - but I also think that allowing new street parking anywhere it doesn't exist already is a huge step in the wrong direction.
 
massmotorist said:
If there's tons of theoretical but ill-suited "street parking" available, then a developer could theoretically not build on-premises parking - or build, say, one space per unit in a dense development - in a way that pushes the costs onto others.
Click to expand...

Requiring excessive number of parking spaces is another way of pushing costs onto others. Now I am forced to pay for all those parking spaces with higher rent, fewer opportunities, and a community strangled by traffic and asphalt.

Why do you think the suburban pushers are so eager to create and defend parking minimums? It's an immense subsidy, a way of making everyone pay for automobile infrastructure costs.
 
Matthew said:
Requiring excessive number of parking spaces is another way of pushing costs onto others. Now I am forced to pay for all those parking spaces with higher rent, fewer opportunities, and a community strangled by traffic and asphalt.

Why do you think the suburban pushers are so eager to create and defend parking minimums? It's an immense subsidy, a way of making everyone pay for automobile infrastructure costs.
Click to expand...

First off, you're not forced to live anywhere. Second, the reality is that in more premium developments, such as virtually everything going up in Boston proper these days, parking is a necessary amenity, akin to a fitness room or roof deck. Even without the minimums, most developers pushing higher end properties will inevitably have to include parking the get the most bang for their buck(thus making the thing worth building in light of the high costs and all the hand outs forced upon them by liberal politicians).
 
^ That's it, it's an amenity. not a right. In luxury buildings where you don't think you can sell a $3million condo without a parking spot you better build it. But you can certainly build a $2k/month apt. downtown without a garage and find people that want that. Parking minimums essentially require buildings to be built with parking. Meaning if I rent an apartment in the building with no car, then my rent is covering part of the cost of parking for my neighbor and both our rents are higher because of it. Like any floor or ceiling, it distorts the market. I know there are several major developments looking to get around the parking minimum requirement for this issue. It's not that private off street parking shouldn't be available for it, it should be that I don't have to be forced to subsidize it through inflated prices on other services.
 
I'm not forced to live anywhere but everytime a parking space takes the space that could have been used for another housing unit, it means my rent is slightly higher. Less supply, same demand = higher prices.

I'm not opposed to developers building parking, I'm opposed to government FORCING developers to build parking against their will. I'm opposed to overbearing, intrusive, harmful overregulation.

I spoke to the developer building a set of apartment buildings in Allston yesterday about this issue. He said that even with the lowered requirements (1 space:1 unit) they are still not filling up the parking lots. He said there's a lot of wasted space in his new buildings that goes towards providing parking that nobody wants. It's a sacrifice made to the gods of zoning and over-regulation.
 
kmp1284 said:
Second, the reality is that in more premium developments, such as virtually everything going up in Boston proper these days, parking is a necessary amenity, akin to a fitness room or roof deck. Even without the minimums, most developers pushing higher end properties will inevitably have to include parking the get the most bang for their buck(thus making the thing worth building in light of the high costs and all the hand outs forced upon them by liberal politicians).
Click to expand...

Right now the waterfront doesn't have enough sandwich shops to serve all of the patrons that will exist once it's built out. They also don't have enough fitness rooms and roof decks.

Should the government forecast the number of fitness rooms, roof decks, and sandwich shops that it believes should be required, and then mandate that the developer reserve that amount of space for them? Or should that be left to the market?

What makes parking any different from those examples?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top