Worcester Business Journal

wbjournal.com | January 22, 2024 | Worcester Business Journal 13 Parking is essential for new developments In an attempt to reduce America's dependence on cars, U.S. cities like Austin, Texas; San Jose, California; and Anchorage, Alaska; have begun to eliminate minimum parking requirements for new developments. Developers and transportation activists argue these requirements drive up construction costs and harm public transit, but neighborhood groups in cities where changes are being considered worry this will lead to clogged streets, leaving residents with no place to park their cars. When polled online, the majority of WBJ readers said Central Massachusetts communities shouldn't eliminate or reduce their parking requirements for new developments. Should Central Mass. cities eliminate minimum parking requirements for new developments? F L A S H P O L L No, but cities should lower the number of parking spaces required. 13% Yes, society needs to ease its dependence on cars. 11% R E A L E S T A T E F O C U S No, having parking is an essential part of any new development. 60% 9% 6% Yes, but only in places where public transportation is already reliable. Yes, but only in places where public transportation is already reliable. "Almost everything built aer the '50s looks like a strip mall or a shopping cen- ter, because that was the only thing you could build to be compliant," he said. e City of Worcester has 40 different use categories as part of its off-street accessory parking requirements, with rules ranging widely by use, according to the City of Worcester's zoning ordinance. A manufacturing facility requires a parking spot for every 11,000 square feet of floor space, but a warehouse requires a spot per 13,000 square feet. A heliport requires one spot per 350 square feet of gross floor area, while a marina requires a spot for every four boat slips. A daycare center requires one spot per staff mem- ber, but a club or lodge requires 2.5 spots per 350 square feet of floor area. Single or multi-family housing requires two spots per unit, while subsidized retire- ment housing requires one spot per unit. "I make jokes that it's like planners were using crystal balls or rolling dice," said Jordan, who noted he's seen min- imums for obscure uses like haunted houses or butterfly breeding facilities. No such thing as free parking Worcester has a rental vacancy rate of 2.8%, according to U.S. Cen- sus estimates, nearly a full percentage point below the nationwide rate. With rental units in short supply, the parking requirements around housing develop- ments can be particularly impactful. Worcester is a hilly, midsize city lack- ing the subways, bicycle infrastructure, and other options for transportation available in places like Boston, but the city's renters do not own as many cars as one might think; 46.2% of renter-oc- cupied units have only one vehicle, and 24.7% of rental units have no vehicles at all, according to the Census. Worcester's parking minimums have been a barrier to otherwise non-contro- versial projects, said Jimmy Kalogero- poulos of RE/MAX Partners - Advance Group in Worcester, who has been in the real estate business for 16 years. Sitting in his Harding Street office, he pointed out the window to a large build- ing at 22 Waverly St., the former site of St. Casimir's School sitting on Union Hill and overlooking the Canal District. e developer who bought the build- ing in December would like to put 24 one-bedroom units into the building, Kalogeropoulos said, but the parking lot associated with the building has 24 spaces, well short of complying with the City's parking minimums. He's not the only one in the city to no- tice the impact of minimums on housing developments. "Parking is not free. Requiring more parking than is necessary drives up project costs, and those costs can make an otherwise feasible project infeasi- ble," Stephen Rolle, commissioner of transportation & mobility for the City of Worcester, said via email. "When proj- ects are constructed, the costs of parking are transferred to tenants whether they are utilizing the parking or not." If a solution can't be found for the Waverly Street project, the developer may have to move forward with building 12 two-bedroom apartments instead, a move Kalogeropoulos said would lead to higher rents and a smaller impact on the city's housing stock. "I don't think the City's parking requirements are conducive to economic development," he said. As the economy shis, Kalogeropou- los is already seeing financing and loans for new developments will not be as available as years past, meaning the City is going to have to take bolder measures to bolster the housing stock. "During COVID, banks were very bullish on the economy," he said. "e next few years are going to be completely different. So what's the City going to do to set itself apart and continue growing?" Potential changes While elected officials and city plan- ners have so far shied away from calling for a complete elimination of parking minimums, smaller reforms have hap- pened, with bolder changes potentially on the horizon. Downtown Worcester already has no parking minimum requirements, and reforms implemented in 2015 led to the creation of Commercial Corridor Over- lay Districts, where parking minimums are reduced. Further change could be on the agenda. e Worcester Now | Next Citywide Plan, a two-year-long planning process aiming to provide a coordinated master plan for development, found the City has had an outsized prioritization toward off-street parking, and land-use patterns are centered around automobile use, according to dra documents pro- duced by the plan's working group. "ere is a preponderance of evidence across the nation to support the notion that parking minimums have contribut- ed to the lack of housing supply," Peter Dunn, chief development officer for the City, said via email. While there seems to be agreement on the need to reform minimums, specific proposals may bring out opposition in some of the city's older neighborhoods. "Some residents express concern because there are areas of the city where it can be difficult to find parking. is is generally the case in resi- dential neighbor- hoods that were developed prior to the automobile, and not a result of current or past zoning," Rolle said. When the average person is asked if developers should be required by offi- cials to designate a minimum amount of parking spots to support a new development, it can seem like it would be obvious to say yes, said Jordan, the parking reform advocate. But developers are unlikely to build a project if profitability would be prevent- ed by a lack of transportation, and that sort of framing is missing the point, he says. "is is where we go wrong. We do community surveys asking if we should get rid of parking minimums and people go 'Hell no!' without thinking about what they actually mean," Jordan said. "e questions for the world we live in today are 'Would you trade parking for walkability? Would you trade parking for affordability?'" City of Worcester off-street parking requirements for developments Development Off-street parking required Single, two- or three-family dwelling 2 per unit Multi-family dwelling 2 per unit Group residence 0.25 per bed Lodging house 0.5 per bed Housing for elderly (subsidized) 1 per unit Dormitory 0.33 per unit Continuning care retirement community facilities 1 per unit, 0.5 per bed for associated medical Temporary shelter 0.1 per bed All other (hotel/motel, hospice) 0.5 per bed, plus 1 per live-in employee Note: The Downtown subarea has no parking minimum requirements. Requirements in Commercial Corridor Overlay Districts are reduced, with variations depending on the specific subarea. Source: City of Worcester Zoning Ordinance Peter Dunn, Worcester chief development officer W

• Cover