Report a Comment

While I'd like to see parking minimums go, parking maximums seem unnecessary. It will be a learning process for developers to learn how much parking is truly necessary, but the sheer cost of building parking on high-value land should minimize the amount of parking they build, when they're not required to build it. Sure, in communities where land is cheap and they're trying to promote better streetscapes (i.e., limited front-of-the-lot parking) and more use of alternative transportation, that might make sense. But in a city like DC, where every square foot counts and the developer is unlikely to see a return on structured or underground parking (according to Northwestern, $20K cost for a garage spot and $30-40K for underground), it appears that the market will eventually take care of itself, should minimum amounts of parking not be required. My friends who bought parking spots in their buildings, in valuable areas, are regretting that choice, by and large. Most of them don't own cars, and have now realized that they're not going to see a return on their investment, even if they rent the spot. And guess what, Parking, a handful of those people live in the big Columbia Heights developments. Sure, the cars might *appear* to belong to tenants, but at least some of them are being used by people who rent the spot from the owner of the unit, but don't live in the building. They thought the parking spot was a good investment they could rent out, and are now realizing fewer and fewer people want parking (so they won't be able to sell it easily when they move) and the rent won't cover the purchase cost for over 25 years. Oh, also, the purchase cost likely didn't cover the cost to build it, and, in the absence of minimum parking, so much parking probably would not have been built.

by Ms. D on Oct 22, 2012 8:59 pm • link • report