Parking Requirements and Housing Development

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Zoning laws that require onsite parking spaces with every residential unit arguably inhibit housing development in center cities and make housing that is built both more uniform and expensive. I test this idea using data from a natural experiment in Los Angeles. In 1999, Los Angeles freed old vacant commercial and industrial buildings in its downtown from all parking requirements if converted to residential use. Using both an original survey and interviews with planners and developers I first document the extent to which these buildings were turned into housing, then compare parking provision at these converted buildings with parking requirements for other downtown housing. I find that developers used deregulation to create thousands of housing units in previously disinvested areas of downtown Los Angeles and departed substantially from conventional parking zoning, mainly by providing parking offsite. I also find strong evidence that units in deregulated buildings are less likely to offer parking, and mixed support for the idea that units without parking are smaller and offered at lower prices. Takeaway for practice: The case study lends credence to arguments that parking requirements create barriers to housing development. Policymakers should be particularly interested in the influence of locational requirements on parking. The biggest departure from the zoning code was not in how many spaces developers provided, but where they provided them. Research support: The University of California Transportation Center funded this research.

[1]  Zhan Guo,et al.  Do parking standards matter? Evaluating the London parking reform with a matched-pair approach , 2014 .

[2]  Amy Ellen Schwartz,et al.  The External Effects of Place-Based Subsidized Housing , 2005 .

[3]  A. Manning Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets , 2003 .

[4]  David Card,et al.  Myth and Measurement , 1995 .

[5]  Martin Wachs,et al.  Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: Case Study of San Francisco , 1998 .

[6]  Donald Shoup,et al.  Turning Housing Into Driving: Parking Requirements and Density in Los Angeles and New York , 2013 .

[7]  Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties , 2007 .

[8]  Gilbert Kelling,et al.  Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in , 1996 .

[9]  Dan Immergluck,et al.  The external costs of foreclosure: The impact of single‐family mortgage foreclosures on property values , 2006 .

[10]  D. Shoup,et al.  PEOPLE, PARKING, AND CITIES , 2004 .

[11]  Wesley G. Skogan,et al.  Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods , 1992 .

[12]  Vicki Been,et al.  Minimum parking requirements and housing affordability in New York City , 2011 .

[13]  William Spelman,et al.  Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime? , 1993 .

[14]  John A. Jakle,et al.  Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture , 2004 .

[15]  Chris Cunningham,et al.  House price uncertainty, timing of development, and vacant land prices: Evidence for real options in Seattle , 2006 .

[16]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  The choice of functional forms for hedonic price equations: Comment , 1985 .

[17]  E. Glaeser,et al.  The Causes and Consequences of Land Use Regulation: Evidence from Greater Boston , 2006 .

[18]  Anita A. Summers,et al.  A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index , 2006 .

[19]  G. Galster,et al.  Targeting Investments for Neighborhood Revitalization , 2006 .

[20]  D. Shoup The High Cost of Free Parking , 1997 .

[21]  D. Shoup,et al.  Parking, People, and Cities , 2005 .

[22]  David R. Bowes,et al.  Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on Residential Property Values , 2001 .