This article outlines a case study of Los Angeles parking requirements, studying whether parking requirements impact the amount and type of housing that is developed, particularly in housing developed in old vacant and commercial buildings.

Key findings



"This article suggests that zoning laws that mandate onsite housing with parking could, in fact, discourage housing development in dense urban areas and make housing more likely to include parking in its purchase price. In this way, minimum parking requirements can lead to both less housing and less variety in housing."



"The ARO case study underscores the extent to which parking requirements can restrict choices, and the extent to which removing them can expand choices. Removing the quantity and location mandates on parking helps satisfy varying demands, and gives people more choices about not just housing but parking as well."

‍



"Downtown Los Angeles is only one case, but what happened there lends support to existing arguments for ending residential minimum parking requirements. The Los Angeles case also suggests that cities hesitant to roll back parking requirements entirely might benefit by removing mandates about parking location; the ability to meet parking requirements offsite might deliver large benefits through the more efficient use small sites, existing buildings, and already-built parking."



View



View PDF



Behind a hard paywall (paid accounts only)



Behind a soft paywall (limited views allowed until a paid account is required)