It probably won't be leveled right away, but you describe well the slow-motion bulldozing of usable space into parking lots, and how zoning shuts down development that we desperately need. We need more housing units in Boston and the parking requirement makes that much more difficult than it should be.
I heartily disagree that we need to force new developments to build a minimum number of parking spaces. For one thing, the developers will know their market and can figure out if they need to build parking to serve that market. For another, can you point to the part of the Constitution, or some document of fundamental human rights, which guarantees free parking on the street? That's public right-of-way and a commons, not someone's personal storage space which the rest of us must subsidize.
The idea that we must strangle development in the neighborhood so that a handful of people can monopolize a bunch of free, unregulated commons parking spaces is utterly bonkers. It's the height of arrogance by the selfish, entitled cult of "free" parking to impose that kind of cost on the rest of the community. The rest of us must have our rents go up so that a small minority of car owners can claim "property rights" over a piece of the public commons? The community must suffer from lost opportunity and housing so a select few vehicle owners can monopolize public land for private purpose? At what price "free" parking? I call that extortion.
I did actually have 60 Brainerd and the nearby developments in mind recently. They are supposed to be part of a "Green" district where people are supposed to live in a more "environmentally sound" manner. Creating a whole load of parking spaces seems completely counter to that goal. Not to mention, Allston is an area with already low rates of car ownership, under 50% particularly in nearby census tracts. Brainerd Road doesn't have resident parking permits, so it's not even managed at all. The demands of a small number of car owners that they be given free parking at the expense of the majority -- the non-car owners -- in the area is extortion, plain and simple.
It's also terrible public policy. The last thing we need to do is add more cars in that area. It's bad enough as it is. The idea that building more off-street spaces is going to completely change the character of Allston into West Roxbury is ridiculous. But there you have it: the zoning laws were written by a few ideologues who thought that way. No debate, no democracy. Just a small batch of selfish local car owners forcing the majority of non-car owners to subsidize their vehicles' storage needs.
Sometimes I think we ought to just ban street parking all together, like it used to be. That'll remove the incentive to strangle development in the name of protecting imagined "free parking rights" and it'll also promote a market for garage space. But that's unlikely, so I agree that resident permits should at least cost market price and be monitored.
Once again, you're either ignoring or not comprehending what I am saying-- then turning it around into a conspiracy where a small batch (which by your own admission is not small, and is at worst, 40%) majority of the population enslaving the rest of the population into subsidizing their parking.
Not to mention that you and I both know that the reason that car ownership is low there is because of college students that live in the area. Insurance is also about 50% more than what I pay. I know someone who stopped filing insurance claims after
four smashed/broken/kicked off mirrors and
threesmashed windshields.
Developers do what is in their best interest. It is in their best interest to maximize their net revenue from the lot.
Here is a simple example of why single level parking is going away and why there will not be a line of bulldozers leaving nothing but parking lots in their wake.
Look at the lot behind CVS-- It fits maybe 30 cars, $200/month per spot (not including revenue from towing) so call it $6,000/month of revenue from that parking lot. call overhead costs of $100/spot (probably on the high side) and they are netting about $3,000 a month.
Now look across the street at the four buildings, say each one is a duplex, four bedrooms each level, 8 bedrooms total, across 8 buildings, so 32 total bedrooms. With rent averaging $900/bedroom, the revenue is about $29,000 per month. Now figure overhead costs of roughly $500/bedroom (similar to my cost structure, excluding debt service, but with brookline taxes, so that is probably generous), and they are netting about $13,000 a month.
Now look at the revenue in a parking garage in the same amount of space as that parking lot, call it 25 spaces per level, but with 6 levels (3 underground, one at grade, 2 above) and a price of $300 a month.... $45,000 a month in revenue and call the costs at $200/spot a month the owner is only going to net $15,000 a month for roughly twice the amount of space as those houses across the street take up, so the net revenue per square foot (even at market prices) is roughly twice that of housing.
There is no way in hell that any developer would include a single parking spot when unimproved, early 20th century housing provides almost twice the net revenue of a parking garage.
The reason that driving in that area is bad is because of the intersection between the T, comm ave, and harvard ave. Because of the lack of masspike access and unconstructed inner belt, anyone wanting to drive to Cambridge or the pike needs to drive through that area.
Secondly- I never said that the assumed garage parking was free-- just that a spot had to be available. If you don't want the spot then sublet it to someone who does.
Thirdly-- green is just a goal that everyone has but, like free parking, doesn't want to pay for. But once the true costs become apparent (like unreliable electricity that costs 2x more than conventional sources), the support disappears. In the meantime, politicians will settle with half compromises and false promises.
But ideally the market will solve this problem. A developer wouldn't build units with no parking if people would say, I need parking and there is none around there, ergo, I will not live there. At first, these places will be built, and people without cars, of which there are plenty, will move in. As you along the demand curve, developers will include them in their buildings. Or an person will come along and build a garage to satisfy the demand.
The point is, if you or any developer, wants to build a unit and thinks you can rent it to someone without a parking space, then go for it. As the demand for parking grows, either you or another will be enticed to supply it.
See above response regarding revenue comparison.
Because of zoning, large scale parking to satisfy that demand (even if full market rates were in effect) will never be built and because of political realities, free parking will never go away. If the parking minimum went away developers would treat the on street parking like commons and simply overwhelm the streets with cars, my math proves that. That is why there needs to be a parking minimum.
