A parking lot at the corner of East Marshall and North Second streets. (BizSense file photo)
In a step away from decades of auto-centric public policy, the Richmond City Council followed the lead of other metros across the country in doing away with parking requirements in favor of a more permissive, market-driven approach to providing parking in the city.
At their meeting Monday, councilmembers unanimously repealed zoning rules that required minimum numbers of parking spaces for new buildings and businesses, with the goal of reducing the amount of land used only for surface parking and opening up areas to more pedestrian-focused, urban-oriented development.
City planners say the change will reduce costs to provide parking that can be passed along to residents or prohibitive for small businesses, facilitate shared parking to maximize use throughout the day, reduce stormwater runoff and urban heat from impervious surfaces, and promote denser, walkable neighborhoods that are less “auto-centric,” among other goals.
While councilmembers acknowledged opposing views on the change, they all voted in agreement on repealing the rules, which were mostly drawn up in the 1940s.
Katherine Jordan, whose Second District includes the Fan and Scott’s Addition, acknowledged parking challenges in those neighborhoods and reservations about the policy change that she shared with some of her neighbors.
Katherine Jordan
“Speaking for my district, some of the neighborhoods definitely are split on this as a topic,” Jordan said before casting her vote. “I do think there’s a through line between the people who are for it and against it: that we all really do want a more livable city, and one that’s not congestion, where there are empty parking lots, where we’re not taking advantage of shared parking opportunities.”
Noting Saturday was Earth Day, and expressing a commitment to “a shared parking solution” and review of the city’s neighborhood parking program, Jordan added, “If we want to make measurable gains to protect the health of our climate, we’ve got to take some moves that might be uncomfortable.”
The move follows the lead of more than a dozen other cities that have repealed similar regulations, such as Raleigh, North Carolina; Lexington, Kentucky; and Portland, Oregon.
Previously, Richmond required off-street parking for new structures or for new commercial or residential uses based on number of dwelling units, type of use or total floor area. The change puts the decision for how much parking is needed to support a new business or development into the hands of the business owner or developer, rather than requiring spaces that may not be needed.
A city analysis of 50 large-scale commercial, residential and mixed-use developments in Richmond over the last five years found that, while the city’s rules called for 4,800 spaces across those projects, developers built more than 12,600, roughly three times what was required.
Citing that finding, First District Councilor Andreas Addison said, “The market is driving parking regardless of whether we require it or not. The challenge is: who’s accessing those 8,000 parking spots? They’re in developments all over our city, but because they’re required for that one use as our law currently states, the developers and owners feel that is their right to control that parking.”
Andreas Addison
Addison, who got the repeal ball rolling when he championed the concept two years ago, said the change would allow opportunities for shared parking and other approaches that could not be pursued under the rules.
“I have yet to see, especially in my district, where a parking requirement has actually solved the issues and concerns about parking,” Addison said. “We can require developers to build parking, but we cannot require people to park there.”
Noting the change would not remove any existing parking, he added, “This presents for us a path forward to look at ways to make shared parking available, but more importantly, to stop making a single development solve all of our parking needs in our neighborhoods. Because that’s not going to help address the problem, because that’s only accessible to certain uses.”
Prior to the vote, the council heard from nearly a dozen speakers in a hearing who supported the repeal, and one who opposed it.
Charles Poole, an Oregon Hill resident who said parking is a constant challenge in the neighborhood, urged the council to maintain a say in off-street parking requirements.
“Certainly, tweak the zoning regs for different uses. This gives the city a wonderful opportunity to negotiate for benefits,” he said. “Once you throw out the entire parking regs, the city has lost much opportunity to negotiate.”
Barry Greene Jr., a Ninth District resident, was among several speakers in support affiliated with Partnership for Smarter Growth, a local planning group that backed the policy change.
Noting an abundance of empty parking lots along Midlothian Turnpike, Greene said in the hearing, “Parking lots should not have this much power over our city, they shouldn’t possess this much land in our city, and most importantly, it shouldn’t be prioritized as much in our city.”
A parking lot at the corner of East Marshall and North Second streets. (BizSense file photo)
In a step away from decades of auto-centric public policy, the Richmond City Council followed the lead of other metros across the country in doing away with parking requirements in favor of a more permissive, market-driven approach to providing parking in the city.
At their meeting Monday, councilmembers unanimously repealed zoning rules that required minimum numbers of parking spaces for new buildings and businesses, with the goal of reducing the amount of land used only for surface parking and opening up areas to more pedestrian-focused, urban-oriented development.
City planners say the change will reduce costs to provide parking that can be passed along to residents or prohibitive for small businesses, facilitate shared parking to maximize use throughout the day, reduce stormwater runoff and urban heat from impervious surfaces, and promote denser, walkable neighborhoods that are less “auto-centric,” among other goals.
While councilmembers acknowledged opposing views on the change, they all voted in agreement on repealing the rules, which were mostly drawn up in the 1940s.
Katherine Jordan, whose Second District includes the Fan and Scott’s Addition, acknowledged parking challenges in those neighborhoods and reservations about the policy change that she shared with some of her neighbors.
Katherine Jordan
“Speaking for my district, some of the neighborhoods definitely are split on this as a topic,” Jordan said before casting her vote. “I do think there’s a through line between the people who are for it and against it: that we all really do want a more livable city, and one that’s not congestion, where there are empty parking lots, where we’re not taking advantage of shared parking opportunities.”
Noting Saturday was Earth Day, and expressing a commitment to “a shared parking solution” and review of the city’s neighborhood parking program, Jordan added, “If we want to make measurable gains to protect the health of our climate, we’ve got to take some moves that might be uncomfortable.”
The move follows the lead of more than a dozen other cities that have repealed similar regulations, such as Raleigh, North Carolina; Lexington, Kentucky; and Portland, Oregon.
Previously, Richmond required off-street parking for new structures or for new commercial or residential uses based on number of dwelling units, type of use or total floor area. The change puts the decision for how much parking is needed to support a new business or development into the hands of the business owner or developer, rather than requiring spaces that may not be needed.
A city analysis of 50 large-scale commercial, residential and mixed-use developments in Richmond over the last five years found that, while the city’s rules called for 4,800 spaces across those projects, developers built more than 12,600, roughly three times what was required.
Citing that finding, First District Councilor Andreas Addison said, “The market is driving parking regardless of whether we require it or not. The challenge is: who’s accessing those 8,000 parking spots? They’re in developments all over our city, but because they’re required for that one use as our law currently states, the developers and owners feel that is their right to control that parking.”
Andreas Addison
Addison, who got the repeal ball rolling when he championed the concept two years ago, said the change would allow opportunities for shared parking and other approaches that could not be pursued under the rules.
“I have yet to see, especially in my district, where a parking requirement has actually solved the issues and concerns about parking,” Addison said. “We can require developers to build parking, but we cannot require people to park there.”
Noting the change would not remove any existing parking, he added, “This presents for us a path forward to look at ways to make shared parking available, but more importantly, to stop making a single development solve all of our parking needs in our neighborhoods. Because that’s not going to help address the problem, because that’s only accessible to certain uses.”
Prior to the vote, the council heard from nearly a dozen speakers in a hearing who supported the repeal, and one who opposed it.
Charles Poole, an Oregon Hill resident who said parking is a constant challenge in the neighborhood, urged the council to maintain a say in off-street parking requirements.
“Certainly, tweak the zoning regs for different uses. This gives the city a wonderful opportunity to negotiate for benefits,” he said. “Once you throw out the entire parking regs, the city has lost much opportunity to negotiate.”
Barry Greene Jr., a Ninth District resident, was among several speakers in support affiliated with Partnership for Smarter Growth, a local planning group that backed the policy change.
Noting an abundance of empty parking lots along Midlothian Turnpike, Greene said in the hearing, “Parking lots should not have this much power over our city, they shouldn’t possess this much land in our city, and most importantly, it shouldn’t be prioritized as much in our city.”
I have heard some decent arguments for reducing parking requirements, or for giving the planning office more flexibility. Eliminating all requirements is going to create a catastrophe within a few years. When we find ourselves in that situation, fixing it will take YEARS.
Lenders have often required one space per unit. I’ve been told by developers that their research shows they need 1.1 to 1.25 spaces per unit to meet their needs. I know of some rezonings that required 1.5 spaces per unit and it’s resulted in garage levels that go unused for full capacity apartment communities. I have mixed feelings about doing away completely with the requirements but I also understand Addison’s argument. Let the market decide. I think developers will provide the parking that they need.
A huge step forward for our city, environmentally, socially, economically, and aesthetically. Decades of forced car culture has been dangerous and destructive. The time has come to begin the work of repair and change. Great day to be a Richmonder.
What a wonderful change! This will help make Richmond more walkable, dense, and help improve our tax base. The last thing we need is more empty asphalt lots and parked cars in prime locations. Thank you, City Council!
Another example of groupthink for the inept in Richmond City. I’ve lived downtown for 30 years and I’m exhausted from trying to justify bad city council policy to colleagues who live in the counties. I would urge city residents to protest with their vote but the candidate options are usually worse than those who are electable. This citizen will remember the city councilperson who voted against their constituents. Hopefully others will too. Richmond’s commercial and residential communities have come so far in a generation yet are continually held back by inferior leadership.
Leadership does suck, but this was the right move. I feel like doing this down in my small city of Colonial Heights would help matters down here. We’re almost out of land down here and our developments have really spread into Ettrick, Old Towne Petersburg and Prince George County.
Hey you live in Colonial Heights? I SHOP in Colonial Heights. I’ve long been curious about the workings of CH — I know it at least USED to have good schools (IDK about now, haven’t heard anything) and has some cute historic old suburban neighborhoods but it seems to never GROW even though it seems to have AMPLE tax revenue — what seems to keep Southpark Mall alive is that there is such booming going on all around it! Everytime I drive on 95 the Outback Steakhouse parking lot is full. I was excited to see on these pages the… Read more »
I feel your pain. Not sure this will be another bad thing though, esp depending on where one lives.
I am not going to argue about parking lots, but keep in mind this is one less method for PUBLIC control or input of PRIVATE development, with nothing to replace it. We will see more traditionally working class neighborhoods be replaced by overpriced apartments. ‘Starter homes’ are already gone. I predict this will hurt low income Richmonders, and we will see more poor people forced out of the City. Neoliberals don’t seem to care.
For years, the City has catered to the parking needs of those who live in the counties and commute to the City, then go home again in the evening. This will create more density, more reliance on mass transportation, and more housing opportunities. The City can do more to create affordable housing, using its real estate tax policy as a bargaining chip during rezoning and plan approval, by this easing of parking requirements.
Starter homes have been gone for awhile now when for some reason alot of people are buying too big of a home that they don’t need. Thankfully Colonial Heights has alot of homes below 1500 sqft.
You are correct about the first thing you say — but there are SFHs below 1500 sf EVERYWHERE — the problem is that no one is BUILDING them and hence even the small homes are probably more expensive than they should be in many areas. I used Colonial Heights as an example when a friend was considering buying a large house in Petersburg (he has a wife and 4 kids, thank you very much) and wanted to know if he was getting a good enough deal — I told him look how much it costs to buy even something like… Read more »
Developers being forced to spend extra to meet onerous and outdated parking requirements are certainly not eating that cost out of the kindness of their hearts – that cost is passed down to the buyers. Not sure I buy that this move will make residential construction more expensive. I don’t see how the cost of renting or buying an existing City property that meets the former parking guidelines vs. new construction that can have more units on same amount of land will force out low-income families, especially when this change does not affect completed construction.
I would HOPE that they investigated to results of similar decisions in similar locales — Portsmouth has LONG bee anti-car, pro public transport and “Smart Growth” has made Portland a pioneer in unaffordable housing stock for no real reason (that is, policy driven driving up of prices, unintended consequences maybe.) Best case story would be that this makes building multifamily cheaper which drives up the total amount of units build which fuels COMPETITION for tenants which in turn lowers the price the owners can get, Bonus would be that if there is a marked decrease in rent in the mid-term… Read more »
Don’t show the aces up your sleeve too willingly —- this reads like “we will be giving up one of our underhanded reasons to block things that we are bigoted against” — oh, it’s not that we are opposed to you or what you are doing, it is just impossible for us to let you do it because of ______________. Look, number one, starter homes are gone almost everywhere and it has NOTHING to do with the people who build mutli-family housing — if you care about affordable housing you should PRAY that these people OVERBUILD because some time in… Read more »
Very glad to see it passed unanimously. This feels like the city council as a whole got it right. Despite what those in opposition argue, this is the right move for the city and has the potential for positive change going forward. MAYBE… just maybe… this city is FINALLY going to unshackle herself from car-centric development and auto-dependency and embrace the new, emerging paradigm of redensification of central cities and urban areas, with greater reliance on public/mass transit, and in the process create real, legitimate urban streetscapes that are teaming with vitality and human activity. Downtown has been a ghost… Read more »
Where I live and work, I acutely feel the effect of limited parking. It’s unlikely that these changes will have much effect on new development, but what is overlooked is the effect on EXISTING businesses and residents. The article states: “the change would not remove any existing parking.” Technically true, but what happens when a parking lot gets turned into apartments, simultaneously adding dozens of residents and eliminating hundreds of parking spots? What happens to the businesses, restaurants, and apartments that exist and count on those parking options? If it’s in an area with too much parking, they thrive from… Read more »
Existing businesses should form a coalition to determining ways to share parking and advocate for a way to help more people get into the area without needing a spot at the front door.
This is a interesting turn in events now the City of Richmond. If parking does take a turn for the worst were their is a shortage the city of Richmond could always step in and build neighorhood parking garages. Such as it might not be out of the question for several city blocks to be all homes and apartments and no parking. But have a large public garage for everyone to park at. In terms of alot of these new high end apartments coming in I think a lot of them have parking as a amenity that they talk about… Read more »
One thing I have learned is that it going in one direction or another is fine, but radical transformation is usually dangerous and is often accomplished when some determined minority comes out if force and pushes hard before the rest of the people, who don’t have a big focus on the area in question, have time or reason to say “HEY! What are you people up to?” Now, I am not opposed to encouraging more walking or biking, anyone who knows me knows I believe in incentivising such things — SAFE bike lanes ample bike racks, lovely treed sidewalk areas… Read more »