Promising Parking Reforms Brewing Inside Department of City Planning

A generation ago, every new building in New York City had to include parking. Even in downtown and midtown Manhattan, the law required developers to build parking spaces for 40 percent of all new residences. The most walkable, transit-accessible districts in the country had mandates to set aside space for car storage.

The Department of City Planning is preparing a set of reforms that would strengthen the parking maximums in place in much of Manhattan. Image: DCP

The passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 changed that. A series of lawsuits brought under the new law forced the city to reckon with the fact that parking mandates were making New York’s traffic and air pollution problems worse. The city changed course. In 1982, parking maximums replaced parking minimums in Manhattan below West 110th Street and East 96th Street. Nearly 30 years later, the limits on parking in the Manhattan core — parking is capped at 20 percent of new residential units below 60th Street, and 35 percent on the Upper West Side and Upper East Side — still constitute perhaps the most important use of parking policy to limit traffic in any American city.

Their effect is diminished, however, because the rules are riddled with loopholes. Special permits allow developers to skirt parking maximums, and parking minimums still impede the construction of affordable housing. Now, the Department of City Planning is undertaking a major rewrite of the Manhattan core parking regulations that could address these and other shortcomings. A summary of the proposed changes [PDF] prepared by the law firm Kramer Levin at the end of August for clients in the real estate industry and two documents outlining DCP’s research obtained by Streetsblog [PDF 1, 2] reveal the department’s thinking. (DCP would not comment for this story other than to say it has not yet produced a final proposal.)

According to parking policy experts, DCP’s Manhattan core proposal, as it appears in these documents, would be a significant improvement over the status quo, tightening the restrictions on parking and eliminating major loopholes and incentives that lead to parking construction. Parking maximums are also in place in parts of Long Island City, but it is unclear whether the reforms will extend into Queens; none of the documents Streetsblog obtained mention Long Island City.

The enactment of these reforms is far from certain. The real estate industry is lobbying against the changes and pushing for existing parking maximums to be loosened. At the same time, a faction within DCP believes that current limits on parking have failed to reduce driving and that building more parking is necessary to attract high-income residents and families with children. The future of parking reform in the Manhattan core is still very much in question.

While market-rate housing construction in the Manhattan core is governed by parking maximums, affordable housing is not. In fact, the city still requires parking in public and publicly-assisted housing built in the area. John Rhea, the head of the New York City Housing Authority, has stated that parking minimums impede the redevelopment of public housing. In the private sector, minimums have forced developers to cut affordable units from their projects.

DCP would eliminate those parking minimums and replace them with the standard Manhattan core parking maximums, according to the Kramer Levin summary. “That should be citywide,” said David King, a planning professor at Columbia University. “The evidence is becoming overwhelming that minimum parking requirements are a hindrance to affordable housing.”

Perhaps the most sweeping DCP proposal would eliminate the current distinction between accessory parking and public parking inside the Manhattan core. Why does this matter? First, some definitions. Parking spaces designated for a particular building or tenant are called “accessory” spaces — these are what parking minimums require. Parking spaces that anyone can use are considered “public” spaces.

Parking experts cheered the prospect of getting rid of the distinction between accessory and public parking. “Single use accessory parking is hugely problematic,” said Rachel Weinberger, a planning professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “Making all the parking public use represents the epitome of shared parking, which is one of the holy grails.”

The provision of accessory parking is based on the idea that every tenant or development should have its own parking. Under this model, a motorist should be able to pull out of the garage attached to his apartment building, park at his workplace, and park again at the gym on the way home. There has to be a space for him at each destination. Shared parking, in contrast, consolidates those spaces, allowing them to be used more efficiently and encouraging people to park only once per trip. “Requiring parking on premise is the wrong way to approach parking in an urban area,” said King.

Without accessory parking, DCP will also have to reconsider how it grants exemptions from parking maximums. Currently, developers can flout parking maximums by getting a special permit from the City Planning Commission. Though there are restrictions on issuing those permits, in practice, almost every request is granted, flooding neighborhoods like Hell’s Kitchen with new garages and allowing developments like Riverside Center to build enormous garages against the wishes of the local community board and elected officials.

Under the new proposal, to grant a special permit for a residential project, the City Planning Commission must find that “there is an imbalance between existing parking supply and new housing that generates new parking needs within a 1/3 mile area,” reported Kramer Levin.

“To require a demonstration of need based on area-wide availability is also an excellent idea,” said Weinberger. “It’s absolutely impossible to determine the ‘correct’ amount of parking required on a per use or building basis.” Even so, using an area-wide focus isn’t enough to ensure that special permits are not granted too freely, Weinberger said. “The potential downside is in how DCP determines ‘need,'” she explained. “That’s the $64,000 question.” If City Planning assumes that large numbers of people will drive no matter what, the agency will grant a large number of special permits, said Weinberger. If instead they look for ways to add transit capacity instead of parking, they might find far fewer spaces are needed.

The DCP proposal also targets an incentive to build parking caused by an exemption for above-grade parking. The zoning code restricts density using a measure called floor-area density. But parking built up to 23 feet above grade doesn’t count toward the allowed density. “The floor area exemption for parking essentially acts as a modest bonus if you build parking,” explained Raju Mann, the director of planning for the Municipal Art Society. A building limited to eight stories could potentially grow to ten if the first two floors were used for parking. That “doesn’t fit with the city’s transportation or land use priorities,” said Mann.

Under DCP’s August proposal, the floor-area exemption would be limited to underground parking, which the department sees as more pedestrian-friendly than ground-floor parking. It’s also much more expensive to build. “Developers are going to be less likely to want to build below-grade parking,” said King.

Four other proposals would also augment the existing parking rules in the Manhattan core:

  • In order to ensure that retail in particular be designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner, DCP suggests dropping the parking maximum for retail from one space allowed as-of-right per 4,000 square feet to zero. King called that “a no-brainer.”
  • Despite the stated goal the reduce the total amount of parking by 40 percent, the 1982 zoning rules prohibit the removal of any parking space that had previously been built to satisfy parking minimums. That provision would be eliminated under DCP’s proposal, allowing for the conversion of many lots and garages to different uses.
  • The creation of any new surface parking lot in the Manhattan core would require a special permit.
  • Currently, curb cuts are prohibited within 50 feet of an intersection. DCP would extend that to 70 feet.

“On balance,” concluded Mann, “the changes proposed are targeted but important improvements to parking rules that have worked pretty well for the Manhattan core.”

Those promising improvements, however, are threatened on all sides. Almost all are opposed by the real estate industry. DCP’s own studies appear to be deliberately written with the intent to undermine the city’s parking maximum policy. We’ll have more on the considerable challenges facing the Manhattan core parking proposal in a follow-up post.

  • Non of this matters as long ad any parking placards are issued.  Just go to downtown Manhattan.  There is no parking allowed anywhere.  Yet every space if full, 24×7 7 days a week by cars with parking placards. You can generally make up your own and as long as it’s not in crayon you will never get a ticket, much less towed.  Solution starts with enforcement. And there will be no enforcement

  • Gg

    PDF links appear to be broken

  • i feel like a dork for thinking it, but these changes sound AMAZING! if we get some real placard reform, smart meter pricing, and a few reserved spaces for car sharing spots… then I’m liking the look of NYC’s future.

  • Oscar R

    Thanks for breaking down a complicated issue. 

  • AlexB

    Will there be any changes to the parking minimums in the other boroughs or manhattan north of 110th/96th?

  • Anonymous

    Build parking to attract high income families?  That’s idiotic.  

    If we’re talking masters of the universe, then more parking is going to turn NYC into Dubai.  

    If we’re talking run-of-the-mill high-income families who want cars, the city is never going to be auto-centric enough for them — they want a 3-car garage 20 feet from their kitchen.  They’re going to move to the suburbs eventually, and leave the city stuck with the negative consequences of parking lots.

    The city is incredibly attractive to high-income families because they are liberated from the shackles of a car-dependent place.  The city’s sidewalks, mostly unbroken by parking garage driveways, enable parents to relax as they walk with their young kids.  The city’s transit network and dense grid allow young teens to travel on their own.  So being a parent of kids in the city is liberating to the kids and the parents!  Why would DCP want to screw this up?

  • Cberthet

    The removal of the distinction between public and accessory parking has a serious downside: it wil bring much more traffic to residential streets . Typically a residential parking space will generate at most two trips a day , to go to work and then return. In many cases the car will be used only once or twice a week, for week end trips. By contrast, a public parking space generates ten to twenty trips a day. On quiet residential streets, around schools, this could multiply traffic by ten , not a desirable outcome.

    City planning intends to ask the department of environmental protection to remove parking control from the list of measures required to reduce pollution in the city. This does not bode well for future compliance with parking maxima.

  • carma

    @HamTech87:disqus i consider myself relatively high income.  and i wouldnt move to the suburbs b/c i DO love the mobility of the city.  having lots of land and a huge lawn is not attractive to me when i have to drive everywhere.  even to get a slice of pizza would require me to drive 10 minutes to a strip mall.
    versus now, i go down the block for a VERY good tasty slice in 3 minutes walking time.

  • Alex

    When are we going to focus on the real parking issue…residential parking that accounts for the majority of parking in Manhattan.
    Stop focusing on off-street parking and raising meter rates…introduce permit parking, like EVERY other major US city, that limits parking for more than two hours on residential streets to those who live in and pay taxes to the city.  Even if is a free permit, it would at least reduce traffic and maybe get some people to pay city taxes.
    By doing so you would reduce the number of cars driving into the city (across free bridges…another flaw) to park for free on side streets.  Reduce the amount of cars trolling looking for free residential spots.
    And maybe incr

  • I wonder what would happen if there were NO restrictions.  Parking minimums are what have been killer across the nation.  Now parking restrictions…

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

City Council Passes Changes to Manhattan Core Parking Regulations

|
This afternoon, the City Council passed the Manhattan Core parking text amendment with a vote of 47-0, with one abstention (Jessica Lappin). The zoning change, which modifies off-street parking rules in the densest parts of Manhattan, is as good as law now, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s approval basically a given. The zoning change modifies the […]

Developers Adding More Parking Than They’re Supposed To, Thanks to DCP

|
For years, the City Planning Commission approved special permits that let developers in Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea get around limits on parking construction in the Manhattan core. Recently, the city implemented a new formula that reformers hoped would curtail these permits. But Community Board 4, Council Member Corey Johnson, and Borough President Gale Brewer say the city’s math […]

Flawed DCP Studies Might Undermine DCP’s Own Parking Reforms

|
What appears to be an internal rift within the Department of City Planning could disrupt attempts to reform the city’s parking policies for the Manhattan core, in the face of opposition from the powerful real estate industry. Streetsblog reported yesterday that DCP is preparing significant revisions to parking policies in the Manhattan core. Limits on parking […]