Zoning change could turn parking lots into yards or make life impossible, depending who’s asked
To some, removing parking minimums citywide could mean more housing or at least more space for gardening; to others it looks like a nightmare for seniors and their caregivers, and for parents who rely on cars to run errands for their family. Either way, the idea of changing zoning to eliminate minimums was put on hold Monday after a short discussion by city councillors.
The proposed change was presented by councillor Burhan Azeem, who said he’d spent the past month or so talking with residents and members of the business community before putting a pair of policy orders before the council – one removing references to minimums from zoning and another substituting language to the effect that “the city should not require, but still allow, homes to have off-street parking spaces.” The language also gauges interest among councillors about parking maximums, he said.
That was not enough for councillor E. Denise Simmons, who said she’d done her own talking with members of the community and remained concerned about “unintended consequences.”
“You really have done your due diligence … I look forward to how it turns out in the end,” Simmons told Azeem, but she wished the parking orders had gone to Azeem’s Transportation Committee first. Until she had the chance to talk with him further, “vet this out and hear from stakeholders and maybe make further modifications,” she said she would exercise her “charter right” to set the matter aside for one regular meeting.
Because the Feb. 14 meeting is scheduled to be a roundtable and Feb. 21 is the Presidents’ Day holiday, Azeem’s parking orders can next be heard Feb. 28.
Azeem’s orders came from a personal perspective, as a resident of a triple-decker where none of the households have a car – but do have parking that he estimated takes up about half the 2,000-foot lot. “I do not see this policy order as anti-parking or anti-driving. I simply see this as a way for the one-third of Cambridge households that don’t need parking to do something with a space that is being underutilized on their own land,” Azeem said.
At his own home, “by removing parking minimums we can turn that into a backyard, we can turn it into a garden, you can use it for other things,” Azeem said.
Public comment
His parking orders drew the most public speakers Monday, with a dozen people in favor and five raising concerns. The majority liked the “flexibility” that would be created by taking parking minimums out of zoning.
“This idea of a blanket minimum just doesn’t make sense, especially given the housing crisis that we have and trying to meet our climate goals. Creating more parking induces more people to own cars, which makes them take more trips and makes traffic worse. Many low-income people will end up in units where they have a parking space but can’t afford a car,” meaning they’re paying for a space they cannot use, said one of the speakers, David Halperin.
In a way, Azeem’s orders are a correction to an opposite problem created by passage of the Affordable Housing Overlay in October 2020. The zoning makes it easier to build affordable housing in a few ways, including by having no requirement for parking, but has raised worries about inequity – especially since people qualifying for the housing are, at least anecdotally, more likely to need their cars for income by driving for a ride-share or delivery company, or working shifts on jobs that are far away and outside of mass transit hours.
“Before we roll out popcorn policies such as this, we need to survey people to find out how they will be affected,” said Nicola Williams, a former council candidate who feared the zoning would drive up the costs of having a driveway, making it “a privilege of the rich.”
“No parking at nursing homes, eldercare, for housing givers or for social service agencies? We don’t even have affordable grocery stores in Cambridge, especially neighborhoods with the lowest income in our city such as North Cambridge,” Williams said. “How are we going to expect a family of five to shop for their food and get to Market Basket all the way in Somerville on a bicycle?”
Support among councillors
While views of people such as Williams have some support among Planning Board members, who began looking at ramifications of the Affordable Housing Overlay at a Dec. 22 meeting, there’s less sympathy among councillors. At a Dec. 15 committee hearing, councillors took a strong view on measures that could decrease reliance on cars citywide; Azeem’s predecessor on the council, Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, said the two-tiered approach that took parking away from affordable housing merely suggested that “we should be eliminating parking minimums for market-rate housing as well.”
Azeem said Monday that he was “very receptive to the concerns of many people that we heard in public comment today.”
“This is the start of a conversation,” he said, noting that there was no specific response time requested from city staff. “We’ll go through a long process before this policy will be adapted into zoning changes.”
This story was updated Feb. 8, 2022, to clarify that the reasons given for lower-income residents needing cars are technically anecdotal.
Do you have a source for “people qualifying for the [affordable] housing are more likely to need their cars for income by driving for a ride-share or delivery company, or working shifts on jobs that are far away and outside of mass transit hours”?
My understanding was that, as one public commenter noted, “low-income people are less likely to drive and less likely to own cars … probably because cars are expensive”.
I’m sure there’s a correct answer, but either way, it seems like something that shouldn’t be stated as fact without a citation.
On a separate note, responding to the concern that “the zoning would drive up the costs of having a driveway”… the costs of having a driveway are already quite high – an extra $100/mo in rent, or an extra $60K-$100K in home price. You just don’t notice it because it’s bundled in.
Removing parking minimums unbundles the driveway, and makes it so that those who don’t want to pay that cost don’t have to.
Such comments are typically made anecdotally, it’s true, but I’m not sure I’ve heard of (m)any higher-income people who also drive for Lyft or DoorDash or take third-shift jobs. If there are, I doubt they’re doing it in numbers that make their inclusion meaningful. Do you believe there are market-rate renters or buyers in Cambridge fitting either of these categories?
First off, it’s important not to pretend that “market-rate renters or buyers” and “households qualifying for affordable housing” are distinct categories. The majority of households qualifying for affordable housing ARE market-rate renters. (That’s only slightly relevant to your exact quote here, but it is extremely relevant for the overall conversations about our housing crisis and the merits of production of more lower-cost market-rate housing.)
And second off, while I’d maybe believe you that there are more low-income households than high-income households dependent on a car for employment in those exact ways, I was taking issue with the larger implication that low-income households are generally more dependent on cars overall, because most of what I’ve heard is the opposite.
As a different public commenter noted yesterday, there was a study in San Francisco examining how affordable housing lottery outcomes – with some income-eligible households ending up with parking and some not – affected employment and car ownership. Even as households who ended up with parking were much more likely to drive and own a car, there was no impact on employment or job mobility – households who ended up without parking were just as able to have and get jobs.
(And three is my quota for comments on an article, apologies for posting so much, I’ll stop here.)
Whole scale change of any provision in the Zoning Ordinance must be done deliberately; with robust discussions with all stakeholders involved and careful analysis of unintended consequences. Remember, if you give developers an inch, they will take a mile. They will be able to build any project as of right so long as they meet all the other zoning requirements regardless of consequences of added cars that project might bring to the community. You have to remember many people have NO CHOICE but to drive to their work. My wife and I, as 75-year-old retirees with underlying medical conditions rely on our car to safely go to grocery stores; to drive-through pharmacy to pick up our medications and to go to uncrowded places to take our daily walks to maintain our health, both physical and mental.
Cambridge fell short of its 2020 goal, set in 2014, of reducing car ownership to about 0.8 cars per household. Yet, this Policy Order wants to remove requirement to provide minimum parking spaces? Like the bicycle safety measures, we have to look at any change with big picture in mind holistically, not just one special interest group’s.
Please let’s follow PROCESS! Do more to reduce car ownership; do more to build better public transit system; do more to provide parking for commuters at transportation hubs, in other words do more to improve transportation infrastructure.
An important topic and worthy debate, but it’s difficult to take this effort as serious or even genuine.
First, Councillor Azeem, by his own account, has performed no analysis or systematic outreach. He’s spoken with a handful(?) of neighbors and now asserts driveways will be converted into green space. As Councillor Simmons rightly asserts, and the AHO experience illustrates–we need to do our homework before creating policy, not after.
Second,Councillor Azeem has campaigned hard (twice) on the idea that we should erect larger, taller buildings throughout our many neighborhoods, without regard for either parking or green space. He is not interested in adding green space to existing yards. If he was, he would simply propose zoning that would allow the conversion of existing parking into green space–a much easier and more palatable idea.
Let’s be honest here–Azeem’s stated goal has always been to maximize building size while cutting, yards, parking, and quality of life in general. This is just a new twist on promoting profits for developers at current residents’ expense.
You don’t need to rely on individual stories in this case (car-usage for jobs), there’s actually lots of data from the US Census American Community Survey, and CDD has created a bunch of graphs from it:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/FactsandMaps/profiles/demo_moving_forward_2020.pdf
If you look at commuting by income (“Means of Transportation by Workforce Demographics”), you can see that the lower the income, the less commuting is done by car.
If this idea gets any traction, we’ll see congested streets full of cars roaming around looking for parking spaces, endangering cyclists and pedestrians. You think zero parking will lead to lush gardens or cheaper housing throughout Cambridge? Think again. It will lead to bigger-footprint buildings with more people and no parking except on the public streets. Woe to the elderly, caregivers, people with children, and anyone trying to ride a bike through the slush and snow. This is yet another giveaway to developers. Zero parking is a farce.
For those who are saying the price of car parking is “bundled”, there is an easy way to un-bundle it. Rent out what is not needed. I own a place that comes with parking that I don’t need. So I rent the parking. It was no problem doing so. I traded something I needed (money) with something I had (parking space).
We cannot just get rid of the “car problem” by removing parking. All you are doing is making the streets more congested, slower moving traffic, and higher pollution. If it were that simple, lets just get rid of the mass pike and cover that with field. Then next lets knock down the big-dig, because you know, no highway system means no cars. :)
And then we wonder why the infrastructure in China kicks our ass.
I invite you all to come to my zoning school. It’ll help your comments make more sense.
thank you Patrick for your usual contribution. you could be helpful in educating but sarcasm seems to be your forte. And you and most councilors have driveways. Do you think that getting rid of a parking space will encourage green space in a development built “as of right”? Many contractors and vendors indeed work outside the city. where do they park coming home? less parking does not make for less cars. But they can be rented privately. And no one mentions the commuter parking in East Cambridge, even Central Sq so owners can take public trans into Boston.
Hey pete! If it’s a question of utilization MIT has some great data points as it relates to transit proximity and commercial density. Our zoning is a bit messed up. Do I think in the absence of parking on-site alternative solutions will be explored? Yes I do, especially when there is special permit or variance relief required. I’m also pro centralized parking because like you I too believe, based on usage data, that the car as a primary mode of transportation is likely to be around for quite some time. The absence of a parking minimum isn’t the absence of all parking. Also, and hold on to your monocle, I can already exempt parking on any site through article 6 relief. So in a sense that relief is already present. Projects are, in many ways like cantabridgios, little individual snowflakes each with their own nuances and unique qualities that a one size fits all Euclidean zoning strategy is and will always be doomed to failure. It’s those most invested in maintaining the value derived by such a broken scheme for urban planning that will have the hardest time letting it go. If you need support I’m happy to hold you and provide ice cream or cheeseburgers.
The fact that existing owners can choose the hassle of becoming a mini landlord for a parking space does nothing to solve the problem even for would-be homebuyers, let alone renters. For buyers, required parking increases the purchase price! Saying they can just pay more upfront for spaces and then rent them out is pretty out of touch. It’s like saying we should all just buy mansions and then rent out all the extra rooms we don’t use.
Jess,
“ It’s like saying we should all just buy mansions and then rent out all the extra rooms we don’t use.”
That is exactly how our short term rental ordinance is written. Prior to a change in 2014 that’s how our adu section of article 4 was written. Developers want to add parking for all the reasons and more stated above. My guess is the absence of a minimum will help remove an additional special permit in an application where impracticable. It’s honestly not a big deal at all in terms of impact to streets. It just removed yet one more fang in an abutters appeal.
Jess, I do not need the parking space now, but I might need it at some point in the future. Infact, I know I will need it. So yes, I paid a premium for the place.
You buy what you can afford. I want to buy the penthouse of the Four Seasons so that my commute to work is 5 mins instead of 30 mins. Can I buy the penthouse and rent is out? No, because I will not qualify for the loan. I bought what I could afford. That is just life.
“You buy what you can afford” – so what, we shouldn’t care about the prices of things that are required to live, like housing and healthcare? “You buy what you can afford” is an obviously true statement that is completely useless. Yes, we would like housing to become more affordable! That is an explicit goal of the City and one supported by a large majority of residents. If you don’t care about affordability no one can make you, but you should be aware that most people do care.
If, when you wanted to buy, the only properties available for purchase were penthouses at the Four Seasons because the zoning code written and supported by people who *already owned homes* said that’s all that could be built now, you may have been upset about that. If you were a renter who couldn’t find anything to rent less expensive than a penthouse because securely housed people decided all new houses had to be of the most expensive type, whether you’d prefer something more modest or not, you might have been upset about that. If you looked around you *today* and really saw the suffering caused by the housing crisis, you might be upset about that. And you might want to change it.
Because it’s not “just life.” The housing crisis isn’t a force of nature. It’s not a natural disaster, it’s a human made one. It’s the result of a lot of bad policy choices, and a cool thing about living in a democracy is that we have the power to make better choices going forward. I think we should.
@jess. If the only property available were penthouses at 4 seasons, and I could not afford them, I would move on. I would move on to a place that I could buy. It might be 50 miles out. I would do what it takes and works 15 hours a day if I had to, to someday aspire to have the penthouse, (or the unit below it). If I still could not afford it, I would be fine. I would move on. I would be happy that do I have a place 50 miles out with a view of a parking lot that I can afford. Because as you said, and you agreed – you buy what you can afford.
And talking about the affordable housing in this area, there is plenty available if you move outside 495. Just FYI. Everyone DOES NOT have live in Cambridge. That is a choice, not a requirement.
Healthcare is a different topic. Do not conflate the two.