An end to parking minimums was embraced Thursday by most Somerville city councilors and staff for Mayor Katjana Ballantyne. The resolution presented at the council meeting calls for the two groups to draft a zoning ordinance to “remove the requirement to build unnecessary new parking spaces.”
Officials were braced for backlash.
“Any time that we bring up the words minimum parking requirements, it’s an incredibly hot-button issue,” said council president Ben Ewen-Campen, a co-sponsor of the resolution. “It is also an issue that is incredibly easy to be misunderstood and to misconstrue what we’re actually discussing.”
The problem, he said, is that in much of the city, current zoning ordinances set “very high and completely arbitrary” requirements for the minimum amount of parking that needs to be built “whether or not it is needed.”
“We have some of the worst traffic in the entire country, and one of the prime reasons that we have such bad traffic is because historically, we have allowed or even encouraged large developers – in particular, large commercial developers like in Kendall Square, like in large commercial areas of Boston – to build enormous parking garages,” Ewen-Campen said.
That incentivizes workers to drive back and forth from the suburbs they live in, he said.
Council and staff aligned
Councilor at large Willie Burnley Jr., a co-sponsor of the resolution, said the city has been focusing on issues such as road safety, affordable housing, climate goals and traffic – and “parking minimums sit at the nexus of all of these.” Many have asked him, he said, to push for something like this removal of parking minimums.
Cambridge, he noted, eliminated parking minimums two years ago. “By removing those requirements,” Burnley said, Somerville would be freeing projects to have only the parking “that work best. By eliminating these mandates, we allow the city, our neighbors and strategic partners more freedom to operate, to build the community that we all want to live in.”
Somerville’s transportation director, Brad Rawson, said the city is ready for the “next stage of regulatory reform.”
Currently, the city works on a case-by-case basis to address parking for development projects, which “acts as a drag on housing production” and “constrains the development pipeline,” Rawson said. “Our staff feels strongly that this is essential.”
Councilor reaction
Ward 2 city councilor J.T. Scott expressed support, calling the move coming at “absolutely the right time, if not overdue,” Scott said.
In 2018, his house caught fire, and to get repairs he had to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a waiver from building extra parking spaces – “adding time, costs, complication and frustration to what was already a fairly traumatic experience of trying to rebuild my home after it caught on fire,” Scott said. “I think this is just something that makes all the sense in the world.”
Ward 6 city councilor Lance Davis expressed concerns with the ordinance after Rawson explained that it would be treated as a project staffed by city employees.
“I would start from the position that we should just go through a normal zoning process and have this conversation,” Davis said.
Concerns will get process
Councilor at large Kristen Strezo said it is important to make “intentional” decisions on the ordinance to not “disenfranchise anyone.” She noted that there are still residents who rely on parking and continue to have issues finding it.
“I think it is completely legitimate to say that we are hearing from residents who are concerned – folks who work till 2 a.m. and need a place to park, senior citizens who depend on The Ride,” Ewen-Campen said, referring to the state-run door-to-door paratransit service for older residents and people with disabilities. “Those are extremely legitimate and real issues that are completely unrelated to this proposal.”
Ewen-Campen made sure to note that Thursday’s resolution was to “introduce the concept” of the ordinance and, with the help of Ballantyne’s administration, he and Burnley will work on drafting language.
“We will then submit and then it will be like any other zoning ordinance with a public hearing. It’ll go to Land Use,” he said, referring to a council committee. “So for anyone in the public who is following this, there is going to be a robust public process.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Strezo is so profoundly car brained. She brings up completely irrelevant and knee jerk arguments any time you mention parking. All of her comments seemed to assume that removing parking minimums means removing existing parking, when all it means is removing the requirement to build more regardless if it is needed or not.
She also completely ignores constituents reaching out to her with concerns about too much parking, and about parking requirements driving up the cost of housing. A full quarter of Somerville residents don’t own cars, and they don’t count for her.
Great job, Somerville! Eliminating parking minimums is a crucial step toward affordable housing, safer roads, climate goals, and reduced traffic congestion.
Cities nationwide are recognizing that these minimums exacerbate traffic and inflate housing costs. Following Cambridge’s lead, it’s high time Somerville took action.
“Incentivizes”???
How about “even with crushing traffic driving is the lesser of two evils when considering the barely functional MBTA”?
How about “workers unable to affording housing within reasonable walking/biking distance have had to make a difficult housing choice for their families”?
How about “workers who took advantage of the remote work offerings and escaped the urban jungle are now being forced back at the threat of unemployment”?
Of course Dunce-ilors who live in the area would shrug their shoulders. Privilege comes in many forms.
“How about ‘even with crushing traffic driving is the lesser of two evils when considering the barely functional MBTA’?”
For whom? Maybe personally but not for the long term health of our planet and our city. That’s where incentives might actually help align the personally benefit local decisions with the collectively beneficial ones.
“How about ‘workers unable to affording housing within reasonable walking/biking distance have had to make a difficult housing choice for their families’?” This seems like it doesn’t really apply to Somerville as the whole city is not some cheap but poorly connected place it has very solid transit access with 4 train lines and numerous busses and is easy biking distance of multiple job centers namely downtown and Kendal. Who does this apply to in Somerville exactly?
“How about ‘workers who took advantage of the remote work offerings and escaped the urban jungle are now being forced back at the threat of unemployment’?” This absolutely does not apply in Somerville. Somerville is the urban jungle no one escaped it to Somerville.
“Privilege comes in many forms.”
It does. Including assuming your personal choices are ones everyone has the capability of making, assuming your needs are universal, and especially privileging your right to park over other people’s right to a home.
You may want to revisit past parking policy and history. One reason there is limited parking is the creation of all the high rise buildings with no planned parking. Throw a parking garage in there somewhere. More $$ if you build more! Another reason is definitely the traffic. Traffic and backups due to bike and bus lanes, speed humps (a waste because to much traffic to speed and placed in areas that are not necessary), stanchions blocking parking spots and downsizing from two lanes to one. Just when many small businesses are rebounding from Covid, Somerville takes parking away. Yes there are more cars today so why take away parking only to find out people don’t want to move here
“You may want to revisit past parking policy and history” great idea. This is a good place to start: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/24/parking-has-shaped-our-cities
“One reason there is limited parking is the creation of all the high rise buildings with no planned parking”
Absolutely no it isn’t. First of all there isn’t limited parking. Parking is overbuilt in the Boston area: https://www.mapc.org/news/new-study-finds-off-street-residential-parking-overbuilt-across-metro-boston/ and that is judging based on existing demand not desired demand given our mode shift and climate goals.
Secondly no high rise in Somerville has been built without parking. The taller buildings in assembly and Union all have large and underutilized parking garages.
“Throw a parking garage in there somewhere.”
They have literally every single time, often at the expense of better uses of limited space and resources.
“Another reason is definitely the traffic.”
Traffic and parking actually have the opposite relationship to the one you suggest. Parking drives demand for driving and therefore the more parking the worse the traffic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/study-the-strongest-evidence-yet-that-abudant-parking-causes-more-driving
“Traffic and backups due to bike and bus lanes, speed humps (a waste because to much traffic to speed and placed in areas that are not necessary), stanchions blocking parking spots and downsizing from two lanes to one”
First of all traffic is not caused by bus and bike lanes it is caused by cars. Bus and bike lanes both have higher capacity than general travel lanes and everyone on a bus or bike is one less person in a car you are actually stuck behind. If you hate traffic you should like bus and bike lanes.
Second speed bumps have been very deliberately placed on neighborhood streets with demonstrated problems of excessive speed (which puts not only people walking and biking at risk but also even people inside their own homes as cars keep crashing into buildings). They have not been placed on major corridors.
Again, removing parking actually reduces traffic not the inverse. Although it might take some time for it to level out.
Finally, two lane streets are often less efficient than one lane ones because people do things like lane weaving that slow down everyone else (and create crash risks): https://ggwash.org/view/69795/you-may-have-heard-of-road-diets-why-fewer-lanes-are-faster-and-safer
“Just when many small businesses are rebounding from Covid, Somerville takes parking away.”
Parking is not as crucial for small businesses as people claim. Usually the spot in front of the business is taken by the owner/workers and not available to customers. See around 51:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXfNXLh51yc
On a similar note, business owners consistently over estimate the number of people who drive to their businesses and underestimate the number of people who walk, bike, and take transit: https://phys.org/news/2021-07-shoppers-mobility-habits-retailers-overestimate.html
“Yes there are more cars today so why take away parking only to find out people don’t want to move here”
This proposal will not take away any parking, it only ensures that new parking will not be overbuilt due to arbitrary requirements.
Somerville has already removed these requirements immediately around transit and certainly is not seeing any issues with people not wanting to move there. The opposite in fact. Space for cars doesn’t make places worth living in, spaces for people do, and this would allow more of that.