The war on cars is as ferocious as ever. The Boston Globe published two op-eds of opposing opinions on the need for housing and the need for parking. Both are deemed necessary and in short supply, but can they co-exist?
- Without new parking, there would be more demand for existing spots.
- By not developing parking spots, developers are "dumping" their problems on nearby parking garages.
- Boston is not like Manhattan. It is not a concentrated island but spreads over a much larger area.
- Almost everyone owns a car.
- City dwellers, especially of the millennial kind, opt not to have a car as a lifestyle decision
- But life goes on, like getting older and having a family, moving further away from a job, and owning a car will eventually happen.
- By making it hard to own a car, families are being pushed out to the suburbs.
- People need cars.
- Times have changed: 1970's housing regulations no longer apply to 21st century living.
- It's not possible for every Boston resident to own a vehicle.
- Roads can't handle congestion and there's not enough parking.
- Requiring parking as part of new development is expensive
- City policy assumes that all new housing developments create significant new parking headaches.
- Half of Boston residents take the T, bike, or walk to work.
- There are 27,000 more car-free workers in Boston than there were a decade ago.
- Building regulations should align with the way people actually live.
Basically, it comes down to permitting issues. Boston requires developers of residential housing to set aside parking for a certain percentage of units, regardless if the residents actually have cars or not. It makes building in Boston an expensive and drawn out process. Will the issue ever be resolved? With new developments proposed without parking, like Lovejoy Wharf, the war is far from over.
· Car-free Housing in Boston Would Create Problems [Globe]
· Boston Could Be Car-Free, It's How People Actually Live [Globe]
· Developers to Boston Condo Buyers: Be More New York-y [Curbed Boston]