In car-dependent Texas, most cities have rules on how many parking spots must be built anywhere people live, play or do business. But those requirements have come under scrutiny in recent years, with critics saying they do more harm than good.
As the nation tries to curb carbon emissions and fight climate change, climate activists and urbanists have chided the regulations for encouraging car dependency. Housing advocates and developers have also identified those minimums as a barrier to building more homes and taming housing costs.
“This is a pretty obvious target for helping to address [the housing affordability crisis],” said Tony Jordan, co-founder of Parking Reform Network.
In major Texas cities like Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio and El Paso, developers usually can’t build single-family homes or apartments without parking. Government regulations like those, critics argue, effectively force housing developers to provide parking spots where they may have instead built housing — contributing to higher home prices and rents.
Doing away with parking minimums doesn’t mean parking will be abolished, reform proponents say. For instance, cities without parking mandates still must require properties to comply with federal law and build accessible parking spaces for people living with disabilities. And proponents expect developers will still build parking spots even if they’re not required to. But the decision of how much parking they should provide, reformers argue, should be left up to builders, not local governments.
Austin last year became the largest city in the country to do away with its minimum parking requirements, following in the steps of other major cities like Portland, Minneapolis and San Jose. Nixing parking minimums is part of a slate of reforms in Austin to loosen city land-use regulations and allow more housing to be built amid the city’s severe housing affordability crisis.
Before the parking rules were overturned, Austin required single-family homes to have at least two parking spots and apartment buildings to have one-and-a-half spaces for every one-bedroom apartment, plus half a space for every additional bedroom. Those requirements drove up construction prices and resulted in higher rent bills. A city estimate projected that requiring one additional parking space per unit raised monthly rent by up to $200.
And at a time when Austin is trying to beef up its public transit to the tune of billions of dollars and encourage denser transit-friendly development, policymakers concluded it didn’t make sense to continue requiring a minimum amount of parking spots.
“A city like Austin that has adopted progressive mobility, affordability and climate goals should not be in the business of requiring an arbitrary amount of car storage in every new development,” Austin City Council Member Zohaib “Zo” Qadri, the proposal’s author, said in a statement after the November vote.
Dallas could soon take Austin’s place as the largest U.S. city to get rid of its parking requirements. In January, a subcommittee of the Dallas’ City Plan Commission advanced a plan to nix parking minimums — a proposal the Dallas City Council could take up this year.
Dallas is also facing a dire housing shortage. The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan region surpassed 8 million people last year, and that booming population growth has put pressure on its housing stock. Dallas by itself is short some 33,000 homes that would fall within the price range of the city’s lowest earners, according to an estimate from the Child Poverty Action Lab. That shortage is expected to balloon to 83,000 by the end of the decade.
Allowing housing developers to determine how much parking they need rather than imposing city requirements on them is one way to speed up the development process and chip away at those needs, said Michael Wade, senior planner in Dallas’ planning and urban design department.
The current requirements are “slowing things down to a rate that makes it hard to meet our housing goals,” Wade said.
Rethinking parking
Reforming parking requirements isn’t just a big-city fixation. The week after Austin got rid of its parking minimums, Taylor, a town of about 17,000 people perched about an hour away, did the same as part of a broader rewrite of its land development code to allow denser housing stock. Taylor is the latest Texas town to ditch its minimum parking requirements, joining Bandera and Bastrop, according to the Parking Reform Network.
Taylor nixed its parking minimums, Assistant City Manager Tom Yantis said, in an effort to bring down housing costs, boost their tax base by allowing denser development and encourage more walkable development — in line with how the town developed in its early years before the rise of the automobile and parking minimums.
“If we start to build neighborhoods that are built around small walkable blocks, maybe in the future we’ll have the opportunity in neighborhoods for people to walk or bicycle to the grocery store,” Yantis said.
Minimum parking spot mandates arose as automobile ownership took off in the middle of the last century. U.S. cities adopted these rules in an attempt to ease a shortage of curb parking spots, relieve traffic congestion and accommodate suburban commuters and shoppers arriving to the urban core by car. Now, it’s common for cities to have rules on the books determining how much parking should be built with homes and businesses like grocery stores, restaurants, offices, video game arcades and even places that serve and sell alcohol.
Critics say those requirements have had nasty side effects, including increased sprawl, overreliance on cars and a proliferation of unsightly parking lots. If people know there’s a parking spot waiting for them at their destination, they’re more likely to take a car than other modes of transportation. Parking is an invisible cost even when it appears to be free, they argue — landlords and businesses ultimately pass on the cost of providing that parking to consumers via routine costs like monthly rents, grocery bills and restaurant tabs.
Some of the rules are also fairly arbitrary, opponents say. Jordan points out that, for example, Dallas requires sewage treatment plants to provide one parking spot for every million gallons of capacity and water treatment plants must provide two spots regardless of capacity.
“The constraint is completely artificial,” Jordan said. “It’s just based on some number that someone put in a book 40 or 50 years ago.”
Parking minimums drive up the cost of housing, too, critics say. A spot in a typical parking lot can cost between $5,000 to $10,000, some estimates show, while a spot in a parking garage can cost from $25,000 to $65,000. Landlords then pass the cost of building and maintaining those parking spots on to tenants — who are more likely to have fewer cars than homeowners or not own one at all — in the form of higher rents.
“If you’re not having to use land for parking, you can use it for housing,” said Claudia Aiken, director of new research partnerships at New York University’s Furman Center and Housing Solutions Lab. “If you’re not pouring that money into developing parking, you could provide units that are more affordable.”
Minimum parking requirements can limit how many housing units are built on a lot and discourage builders from creating homes with more bedrooms. In Dallas, housing developers must build one to two parking spots for single-family homes and one space for every bedroom in an apartment.
When designing a mixed-income development with 21 units that includes townhomes, duplexes and fourplexes in South Dallas, the city’s parking requirements limited how many housing units could ultimately go on the lot, said Lisa Neergaard, associate director of planning at buildingcommunityWORKSHOP, a nonprofit architecture and planning firm. The rules also prevented designers from including more three-bedroom units designed to accommodate families, Neergaard said.
“Land was pretty inexpensive for a very long time, so parking was not as big of a burden,” Neergaard said. “But as the value of our land continues to increase, because the amount of available land is decreasing, parking is infinitely more expensive.”
Life without parking minimums
Cities elsewhere that have retooled or nixed their parking minimums saw more home construction in the aftermath. Minneapolis got rid of its minimum parking requirements as part of a slate of reforms intended to spur housing production — which has helped the city keep rent growth in check and build housing at a quicker clip than other places in Minnesota and the Midwest, the Pew Charitable Trusts found. Seattle and Buffalo, New York, also saw more homes built after reducing or getting rid of their parking requirements.
Getting rid of parking requirements has its detractors. Neighborhood groups and residents opposed to such reforms worry that developers will skimp on parking spots, forcing drivers who can’t find adequate parking at their destination to search for it on neighboring streets and clog traffic. Laura Palmer, a Dallas resident, told the city panel that approved a proposal to nix parking minimums that patrons of the nearby Bishop Arts District, a pedestrian-friendly collection of shops, restaurants and bars, already take up the curb on streets in her neighborhood.
“We are asking you as the city to help protect our neighborhoods,” she told the panel in January.
There are ways to make sure that neighborhoods don’t suffer spillover effects, reform proponents argue, like only allowing residents to park on residential blocks or installing parking meters. But Dallas city staff and transportation officials with the North Central Texas Council of Governments, which coordinates transportation planning for the region, agree that parking in “local districts, main street-like corridors, and transit-oriented developments tends to be either adequate for auto demand, or to even far surpass demand,” Dallas officials wrote in a recent report.
The decision of how much remaining parking to build will simply be left to developers, proponents say, and financiers are unlikely to back developments without parking if they think offering a certain amount of spaces makes financial sense. After Seattle retooled its parking requirements, developers built about 40% less parking than they would have without the changes, one study found. But more than two-thirds of developments that weren’t required to build parking still included some, the study found.
First: An older apartment complex in East Austin on March 16, 2024. Parking minimums can raise costs on housing and contribute to urban sprawl. Last: New apartment buildings under construction in East Austin. Credit: John Jordan/The Texas Tribune
It will likely take years if not generations to see the full effects of abolishing parking mandates, Wade said, but it’s a small step to allowing denser development and weaning people off of cars.
“We have the power to become an even more resilient city and provide that to the next generation,” Wade said.
–Joshua Fechter, The Texas Tribune
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
D K says
Have you ever lived in Texas or spent time in Austin? I have and it’s extremely hot 6 months of the year. It’s unrealistic to think people are going to walk or take public transportation in their neighborhoods for shopping, work, schools or socializing like in a European village model. We don’t do it in Central Florida. Why? Because you’d melt from the heat and humidity. Great idea if Austin was in a temperate climate but it’s not. The other thing about Austin is it’s a large city that’s pretty spread out. My vote…bad idea – let the people drive their cars and trucks. Give them parking spots.
KOrean vet says
COMMunism hello one World Govt …. good by palm coast ..
The Sour Kraut says
You know what most of those big cities have that Palm Coast doesn’t? Public transit! Doing away with minimum parking spaces will add even greater density to a city that is already having trouble with supporting the existing residents, not to mention all the additional housing already planned. Skimping on parking will exacerbate parking problems in neighboring areas. A lack of parking will encourage paid parking, adding additional cost to residents. There is a reason a certain number of parking spaces are required. This idea will only benefit the developers, not the residentsofPalm Coast!
Laurel says
Sour Kraut: Before I left Delray Beach, they just finished narrowing Federal Highway. The logic was it would encourage more pedestrians. It doesn’t seem logical, but since I left before seeing the results, I don’t know if it was at all successful.
As for parking, Delray Beach required that all parking spaces be double lined. I gotta say that I loved that over the single lines you see here. In Delray Beach, you could get out of your car without squeezing between your car and the next. That also meant that there would be fewer spaces.
The problem with Florida and transportation is that public transportation has never been a priority. It still isn’t. To encourage walkers, the plan must make a community walk-able. That’s a rare situation here, and I see little change in that direction.
The problem with Flagler County, and its municipalities, is that there is no consideration for adequate parking. A perfect example is Margaritaville. That’s a fiasco in the making. Here in the Hammock, cars are illegally parked perpendicular in right of ways, making it very dangerous, yet I see no action taken by the county for correction. A death or two and a law suit in waiting (for the county, FDOT and the commercial business).
JimboXYZ says
Fool’s Gold for dropping minimum parking requirements. That’s a dog whistle for maximizing rental units at the current unaffordable rent prices. All that will happen is that tenants that don’t have adequate parking will pay tow bills, impound fees & parking citations for illegal parking. Those that can’t pay will be forced to sign over titles for vehicles they own or face penalties & fines for more debt. It’s the parasites that continue to pump heir victims from every angle, it’s criminal to no provide adequate parking for someone that is utilizing the bedroom/bath layout. Where it gets fuzzy is when the tenants overutilize the apartment, duplex or home they are renting. It’s why there are ordinances for parking in yards & swales here in Palm Coast.
And the concept of the most recently announced Retail & high rise apartments concept is the same thing. That 1st level will be commercial businesses & the renters on every level above the ground floor will end up without adequate parking. Where that is heading is a Palm Coast parking permit, very much like Miami & other larger cities have. South Beach has always required residential to purchase parking permits where there was no guarantee that residents would have street parking. The towing companies that have contracts troll those streets towing & impounding vehicles. If an apartment complex doesn’t provide a single parking spot, for each bedroom unit they have, they should not be approved to build that apartment complex. There should also be a guest parking area for those that are there short term.
I had a Condo in Country Walk, FL (Kendall/South Miami). That condo was a 4-plex of units. When I purchased my unit, the headers in the parking area were clearly marked for my unit number by the HOA, I had 2 designated spots for a 2BR/1BA unit. Neighbors weren’t bashful to park in my designated spaces, even with guest parking available. Got to the point where I literally had to park my single vehicle to straddle the line of the 2 parking spaces, some neighbors with smaller vehicles still tried to park in what space wasn’t occupied by my car.
This is where the housing & parking situation for overpopulation & over utilization is heading with unaffordable rent. We need to stop blaming the parking for an amenity that is a part of the apartment unit rent package. Because that is what rent entails, the reasonable expectation that a consumer as a renter should be able to conduct their lives paying for the apartment & any profit the Corporation is earning as Rental Income/Revenue. Eliminating minimum parking is lowering the bar for the basic necessity of shelter. Some folks abuse the parking by buying & selling cars to flip them & profit. Sometimes they will even allow a car to sit in disrepair, Apartments have rules against that too. Just as a city won’t allow automobiles to be in disrepair on city street parking.
I have a neighbor that is constantly repairing or flipping cars as his side hustle here in Palm Coast. He’s the same gearhead type that does burnouts & power brakes those cars to leave black tire marks in the asphalt. That’s not in the spirit of the ordinances because often the repairs take weeks to months. What he needs to do is rent a bay at a storage facility as a garage auto repair business or finally just open a commercial garage and operate the business that he hasn’t licensed with City of Palm Coast. That way the rest of the residential aren’t his victims for violating City of Palm Coast ordinances. All of this ties back to the ordinances for commercial signage on (certain sized) vehicles in Palm Coast for ordinances. It’s not the many that ruin Palm Coast, but the few that are always trying the system for profit & gain at the expense of the law & ordinance abiding neighbors. While many areas of Palm Coast aren’t an HOA for rules, the ordinances are in place for the one’s that are chronic offenders.
Ray W. says
Whether I agree or disagree with any of JimboXYZ’s wide-ranging thoughts on the issues presented in this article is of no importance. I have longed for years for the opportunity to read a comment authored by JimboXYZ that neither relies on hyperbolic disinformation or misinformation nor on a “pestilential” partisan member of faction thought process. That is what is important. I always knew you could do it. Thank you!
James says
Wait for it Ray.
I’m thinking it’s gonna be the “side hustling gear head.”
… Anyone out there want to bet on it?
Local double taxpayer says
People are sheep and this is just another way to herd them. How is no parking spaces in places like Manhattan helping with the rent? A cheap hotel there is 600$ per night with no parking.
Capt. Kirk says
Over 1o years ago, an acquaintance told me he was in investing in the autonomous industry. He was going off the theory of how in the future, growth/overcrowding etc would welcome either rideshare or a parade of vehicles that would never stop moving, thus alleviate a need for long term parking that in essence would free up real-estate. Kind a like George Carlin’s take on Golf Courses and supposed overcrowding. I’m simplifying the concept and discussion. However based off this article seems there a lot of things to consider.
dave says
car dependency, never going to go away in our lifetime. Going to your parents or grandparents home in another state by bus, or train or unperforming EV is unrealistic for the overall majority of people living in this country. And the idea of limiting the number of business parking spaces is ridiculous. Take for example right here in Palmy Coast, ya been to the hospital lately, or out to dinner. Valet parking at the hospital, why, limited parking places, or you park out in the north 40 and hike in, if your able. The overall problem,, is not cars its the out of control growth in this country. Cut down all the trees, bulldoze all the hills and land flat as a pancake, pour concrete and build Appt’s and homes. And I guess, the protected lands in our National Parks and National Forest are next inline for cando’s, appts’ and homes and little strip malls. That’s the problem this country is afraid to address, its population.
TREEMAN says
This would only work with a good public transportation system!! Palm Coast does NOT maintain it’s roads; therefore do NOT expect the city to support a public transportation system!
Tim says
No
Endless Dark Money says
Major cities have public transportation. If people use mass transit there is less need for parking not as profitable though so not going to happen. Just stop corporations and investment companies from purchasing single family homes and they will magically become more affordable.
Palm Coast Citizen says
The challenge is that planners cannot unravel suburban sprawl. We have mazes and mazes of residential homes–difficult to climb out of the the depths of a letter section in Palm Coast even to walk. Then, we have commercial hubs. These are the places everyone drives to to buy milk, get a hair cut, or go to a doctor’s visit.
It’s not quite possible to unring this bell and need for parking lots all over, espeically as we anticipate more growth. The parking lots themselvs are the large beasts that make walking seem a formidable task in dodging cars and cars and more cars. Pluse they’re huge, so it’s like crossing the desert to find a retail oasis.
There may be opportunity in some locations in Palm Coast to mix commercial and more dense housing…to decrease lot sizes, etc., and we need these conversations locally. These costs do eat up the affordability. Who that works our median income jobs can afford to stay here? At the same time, costs shot up across the nation. We can do what we can do. Maybe we can get in front of it.
Ed P says
A great idea from a liberal enclave-Austin.
Let’s pack ‘‘em in even more, parking be damned.
A great test will Flagler Beaches new HardRock hotel zoned with fewer parking spaces than rooms/ staffing totals that may be needed during peak times. It’s going to make parking that much tougher for all the neighboring business like Finns and others. Can’t wait for next summer.
The next step should be 40 ft house lots too! Genius.
TR says
ED, your last line has already been put in place. I can’t remember which developer is building homes on 40′ lots. Might be one one north of matanzas woods pkwy on us1. I think it’s DR Horton but like I said, not 100% sure.
James says
There’s a HardRock hotel zoned for Flagler Beach?
Didn’t know that… with that, and the Margaritaville resort I guess the Flagler Beach of old is indeed history.
Rebuilding the pier? Somehow a fishing pier doesn’t seem to fit does it? Seems like the city is going in another direction entirely.
Just an observation.
James says
Scratching Austin off my list… meh, who’s kidding who… scratching Texas off altogether.
Mas problemas… even Billy Gibbons moved apparently.
Although I always did like “Austin City Limits” on PBS back in the good ol’days… in NY.