Unbundle the cost
Residents who do not need a space no longer have to pay for one through rent or purchase price.
04
Parking reform
Stop forcing every home to buy parking
Builders can still provide parking. Just stop hiding a mandatory space—and its cost—inside every apartment.
In plain English
Allow residents and builders to choose parking based on actual need instead of requiring a fixed number of spaces with every home.
How it works
Remove the barrier. Let homes respond.
Free constrained sites
Odd lots and existing buildings can become housing without fitting arbitrary parking ratios.
Manage the curb
Cities address street parking with permits, meters, loading zones, and accessibility rules.
The implementation test
Real reform or paper promise?
Ending a minimum is not banning parking. It means a project may provide zero spaces, one per home, or more—while the city manages public curb space directly.
TestStrongWeak or symbolic
Scope
StrongMinimums are removed for all housing types citywide.
Weak or symbolicRelief applies only within a tiny transit overlay.
Curb policy
StrongPermits, prices, loading, and accessibility manage scarce streets.
Weak or symbolicThe mandate disappears without a plan for high-demand curbs.
Choice
StrongParking costs can be separated from housing costs.
Weak or symbolicOther rules quietly recreate the old ratio.
Strong policy principles
- Remove minimums citywide rather than only in tiny overlays.
- Retain accessible parking requirements.
- Price and manage high-demand curb space directly.
- Allow residents to rent parking separately from housing.
Watch for
- Replacing minimums with disguised mandates
- Ignoring curb management
- Confusing fewer required spaces with a parking ban
Pair it with
- Residential parking permits
- Accessible spaces
- Bike and car-share facilities
- Frequent transit
Measure whether it works
- Spaces built per home
- Project cost and feasibility
- Adaptive reuse
- Curb occupancy
In practice
What this reform looks like on the ground.
Buffalo, New YorkApril 3, 2017
Buffalo Green Code
Buffalo's comprehensive form-based code removed citywide minimum parking requirements while retaining other transportation-management tools.
Lesson
Buffalo stopped pretending every building needs the same parking ratio. Builders can provide parking where people value it; the city can manage the curb directly.
Evidence status
Buffalo zoning ordinances ↗ (opens in a new tab)The Green Code establishes the policy. Shoup explains the hidden cost of mandates, and Los Angeles offers an implementation case where removing them unlocked housing reuse.
Austin, TexasNovember 13, 2023
Ordinance 20231102-028
Austin eliminated minimum motor-vehicle parking requirements citywide while retaining accessible-parking requirements.
Lesson
A clear citywide rule is easier to understand and administer than a patchwork of small exemptions, though curb management still requires its own policy.
Evidence status
Executed Austin ordinance ↗ (opens in a new tab)The reform is still young. Its immediate test is what builders choose to provide and which previously difficult projects become feasible—not a premature citywide rent verdict.
Why support it?
The evidence behind the solution.
Established evidence
Free parking is paid for through everything else.
A parking space consumes land, concrete, and money. Mandates hide that bill inside every home—even when a resident would rather have lower rent than a place for a car.
Keep in mind: Removing a mandate does not ban parking. Builders can still provide it where residents will pay for it, while cities manage curbs and accessibility directly.
Strong evidence
A city cannot build homes it has made illegal.
Legalize real projects across enough land and builders respond. Auckland did this at city scale and saw a large permitting boom; narrower reforms have usually delivered less.
Keep in mind: Permission is necessary but not sufficient. Financing, land, construction costs, approval time, and demand determine whether newly legal homes are actually built.
Strong evidence
Legal on paper is not the same as buildable in practice.
A reform can promise density and still bury it under tiny maps, parking ratios, setbacks, fees, hearings, and delay. Good reform makes ordinary projects legal, feasible, and predictable.
Keep in mind: Chicago's narrow reform produced no detectable building increase in its early years. That helps show why scale, feasibility, and follow-through matter.
Figure 2 · Living space after upzoning
The strongest post-reform increases appear after roughly five years, especially for large upzonings.
REDRAWN FROM STUDY DATAFigure 2 · Living space after upzoning
| Years relative to upzoning | All upzonings | Large upzonings | Small upzonings |
|---|---|---|---|
| −4 | -1 | -2 | 0 |
| −3 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
| −2 | -1 | 0 | -1 |
| −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| +1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| +2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| +3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| +4 | 3 | 6 | 2 |
| +5 | 5 | 9 | 3 |
| +6 | 6 | 11 | 4 |
| +7 | 7 | 13 | 5 |
| +8 | 8 | 15 | 5 |
| +9 | 9 | 16 | 6 |
Figure 6 · Estimated treatment effects on dwelling permits
The estimated effects become positive after the reform for both attached and detached homes.
REDRAWN FROM STUDY DATAFigure 6 · Estimated treatment effects on dwelling permits
| Years relative to reform | All dwellings | Attached | Detached |
|---|---|---|---|
| −4 | -0.05 | 0 | -0.02 |
| −3 | 0 | -0.02 | 0 |
| −2 | 0.02 | 0 | 0 |
| −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| +1 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.1 |
| +2 | 0.45 | 0.3 | 0.15 |
| +3 | 0.75 | 0.55 | 0.2 |
| +4 | 1.15 | 0.85 | 0.28 |
| +5 | 1.45 | 1.05 | 0.35 |