Policy Minute: Eliminating Minimum Parking Requirements

New York City zoning laws require minimum off-street parking in many areas, which often results in an oversupply of parking spaces where market demand for off-street parking is relatively low. These mandates increase development costs, reducing the feasibility of new housing projects and ultimately limiting the supply of housing.

The New York City Council is currently considering the Department of City Planning’s City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYHO) zoning reform proposal, and is set to vote on the proposed changes by the end of the year. COYHO is aimed at easing New York City’s housing shortage by updating zoning regulations to encourage more housing development across the city. These provisions include implementing the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP), making office to residential conversions more feasible, allowing accessory dwelling units, and encouraging transit-oriented development. 

One proposed provision of COYHO that has been a source of controversy is eliminating minimum parking requirements in residential developments. While proponents of the measure argue that it will encourage housing supply and contribute to the city’s climate goals, opponents worry that it will lead to a dearth of parking in neighborhoods with poor access to transit.

From an economic perspective, this type of regulation distorts market outcomes and risks misallocating resources by prioritizing parking over housing. Eliminating these mandates allows developers to respond to actual demand, thereby lowering development costs along with the opportunity cost of the space provided. As shown in the map below, many community districts have low rates of car ownership, and eliminating parking minimums would put the onus on developers to calibrate parking amenities to local demand. Conversely, in neighborhoods with higher rates of car ownership, developers, in order to be competitive, would likely meet demand by offering parking as an amenity. By allowing developers to provide parking according to local demand, the elimination of parking minimums would encourage greater housing production, helping to address the city’s housing shortage.

Share of Households with at Least One Vehicle by Community District

Sources: ACS 5-year Survey (2022), NYU Furman Center.

By the Numbers

New York City’s current rental vacancy rate is just 1.4 percent, according to the 2023 Housing and Vacancy Survey.  

A majority of New York City households (56 percent) do not have a car, according to the 2023 1-year American Community Survey.

Furman Center Resources

• In October, the NYU Furman Center provided testimony on City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, noting that eliminating parking minimums will make development more feasible, particularly in neighborhoods with good transit access.
• In March 2012, the NYU Furman Center’s Vicki Been and Simon McDonnell published a policy brief, Searching for the Right Spot: Minimum Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability in New York City. The authors find that some developers built more parking than required, implying that market demand alone might lead some developers to build parking even without minimum requirements. However, they concluded that the city’s parking requirements generally mandate more parking than developers believe the market will demand. If developers are perceiving demand correctly, the mandate causes  an oversupply of parking, potentially raising housing costs and exacerbating environmental impacts.
• The 2010 article by Vicki Been, Simon Thomas McDonnell, and Josiah Madar, A Continuing Role for Minimum Parking Requirements in a Dense Growing City? Evidence from New York City, finds that the city’s per-unit parking requirements are typically lower near rail transit. However, the number of parking spaces required per square foot of lot area is generally higher in areas accessible to transit. This discrepancy suggests that parking requirements may inadvertently undermine the city’s goals for transit-accessible neighborhoods.
• In 2021, the NYU Furman Center’s Local Housing Solutions published a brief on Reduced Parking Requirements. The piece notes that cities interested in adding new housing may want to consider reducing parking requirements, and reviews a number of the factors that should be considered when implementing such a change. 

Additional Research and Reports

• In City of Yes and Missing Middle Housing, the Regional Planning Association (RPA) argues that the COYHO would encourage much needed housing supply in a number of ways, including by lifting parking requirements for new development.
• Additional research from the Regional Planning Association found that ending parking minimums encouraged additional housing supply, including affordable housing.
• In Minus Minimums: Development Response to the Removal of Minimum Parking Requirements in Buffalo (NY), Daniel Baldwin Hess and Jeffrey Rehler found that almost half of major developments provided fewer parking spaces after a citywide repeal of minimum parking requirements, indicating those requirements may have been excessive. 
• A report by the Sightline Institute found that mandated parking spots in Washington state often surpass the number of cars owned by renters and homeowners.

Media 

• In The New York Times, Emily Badger, Mihir Zaveri, and Larry Buchanan outline both sides of the debate over minimum parking requirements, and detail how they apply to an example apartment building just blocks from a subway station.
• In AMNY, City Councilmembers Erik Bottcher and Jennifer Gutierrez argue that in New York City, where space is such a valuable commodity, we should eliminate parking mandates. They say this would allow more housing to be built, reduce housing costs, help in our fight against climate change, improve building aesthetics, reduce congestion, lower air pollution, and encourage the use of public transportation.
• In Streetsblog New York City, Sara Lind argues that removing the elimination of parking mandates from the proposed City of Yes for Housing Opportunity would severely hinder the positive effects of City of Yes.