Residents need to relax on parking: Column

• New developments are generally required to have some level of minimum off-street parking.
• Underground garages are very expensive to build%2C and surface lots reduce the walkability of neighborhoods.
• More mandated parking lots will lead to more cars and less walkable neighborhoods.

Some cities around the country, such as Boston and Washington, D.C., have begun departing from a decades-long policy focus on accommodating the automobile in order to sustain existing walkable neighborhoods and encourage the creation of new ones, particularly around mass transit stations. Such changes, especially reductions in the amount of parking required in new developments, often face resistance from residents concerned with the availability of free or cheap on-street parking. While I acknowledge these concerns, there are other issues worth thinking about.

Parking concerns of existing residents are not without merit, but they're nonetheless at least somewhat misguided. It's understandable that homeowners want to maintain the status quo of the neighborhoods into which they purchased. A house is not simply a house, but a residence with associated amenities, including on-street parking.

New developments, both residential and commercial, are generally required to have some off-street parking, based on the square footage of commercial space or the number of housing units being built. These requirements even exist in urban areas that were built up before such requirements were in place. In other words, it's generally illegal to replicate existing cityscapes. New urban developments can't look like old urban developments.

But demanding that new developments have significant amounts of off-street parking also changes that status quo of urban neighborhoods. Remember, many of these neighborhoods were built up before zoning codes had such parking requirements. These places have their form and character because they were built before high minimum parking requirements were enacted. New construction projects built with such requirements will also change a neighborhood's character. Underground garages are very expensive to build, and surface lots reduce the walkability of neighborhoods.

Cars take up a lot of space, and land in desirable urban areas can be very expensive. Parking requirements raise the cost of new housing, pricing out more lower and middle income families. Essentially, existing residents want new residents to subsidize their publicly provided on-street parking.

It's important to note that the reduction of required parking minimumsis not the same thing as a mandated reduction in the provision of off-street parking. Developers will not be prevented from providing these parking spots; they simply won't be required to provide them. Many new residents have cars and will presumably be willing to pay a price for off-street parking, so developers will be happy to provide it.

Again, it's understandable that existing residents don't wish to give up an amenity that they've become accustomed to. Perhaps it's reasonable to consider compensating them for the potential erosion of parking availability in some way, such as by restricting the availability of new on-street parking permits. Such solutions aren't entirely fair to new residents, but they're likely more preferable than continuing to require that all new construction is accompanied by neighborhood-altering parking lots.

Cars are useful and, for many, necessary. Even in walkable urban neighborhoods in an era where more people are choosing to have a car-free existence, many will continue to own cars. Current residents have valid concerns about parking, but they should remember that there is more to the character of their neighborhoods than parking. More mandated parking lots will lead to more cars and less walkable neighborhoods.

Duncan Black writes the blogEschatonunder the pseudonym of Atrios and is a fellow at Media Matters for America.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including ourBoard of Contributors.