Skip to main content

Homes with Zero Parking and Reflections on the AARP-MIT AgeLab Roundtable

I spent Friday at the AARP-MIT Roundtable in Cambridge, MA - "Disruptive Demographics: Inventing the Future of Place & Space."  MIT's Joe Coughlin led a great conversation between several companies working in the 50+ space.  The day-long session even included an exercise break from the people at Silver Sneakers, not to mention a great view from the top of the Hyatt.

One major highlight for me was the video of MIT's AGNES suit in action, filmed by one of the retail chains that use the suit to ensure that shelf height, aisle width, and other features work for people of all ages.  I was promised a test run at a future point - I love any opportunity to better understand the challenges that some people are facing.

One concept that kept coming up throughout the day was that we need to begin preparing now, but consumer demand that focuses on current conditions (not long-term benefits), a development / housing industry that is used to the old ways of building homes and communities, and less-than-ideal policies and zoning in many places all conspire to keep us unprepared for the aging of the population. 

Larry Gotlieb of KB Home had several policy thoughts, including his hope that minimum parking requirements would disappear, particularly for 55+ housing.  Coincidentally, I've been thinking about the issues that Portland, Oregon is having with its regulations that allow some apartments to be built with no parking.  

Building homes or apartments with zero parking - I'm sure that it sounds far-fetched for many of you (Take the unscientific poll on and let me know what you think).  I hear from some disability advocates that parking gives them freedom - they argue that easy access to driving gives them the ability to even out some of the other access limitations that they face.  The hopeful community planner side of me says that housing near transit might not need parking - this type of design could be used to encourage transit use and walking (if the neighborhood around the apartment building includes adequate transit and walking options).  That argument relies on the logic that these buildings are built with the idea of limiting everyone's access to automobiles, but assumes wider access opportunities through other means.  Put simply, if the other pieces of the community work, the lack of a car would not be a great limitation and people with physical disabilities would not have any greater access limitation than others.

For those who cannot drive or cannot afford to drive, a well-designed building in a neighborhood with a top-quality transit system, mixed use development and complete streets would mean that everyone could get around. The side of me that's concerned with housing affordability realizes that unnecessary parking spaces can lead to higher housing costs, and the land savings from reducing parking could mean lower rents per square foot of apartment space. In an urban neighborhood with quality transportation alternatives (including walking) it may be a good idea (See some of the lessons learned in our report "Preserving Affordability and Access in Livable Communities" about these topics).

These policies need to be thought out to ensure that neighbors aren't impacted as well - I imagine that the Portland homeowners who have cars belonging residents of the "zero-parking" apartments on the streets in front of their houses are not happy. Additionally, zero-parking homes and apartments will have a limited amount of interest for the foreseeable future - it's a very different concept and way of life than most people are used to. That being said, Gotlieb has a point - older households are smaller, and there will be people who do not want to drive, cannot afford to drive, or are unable to drive.  Additionally, some of the Portland apartments are targeted at younger adults who might not ever want a car.  We should have a range of housing options to address those needs and preferences.  The trick to true housing choice is that is not just the design of the house or building that matters, but the design of the neighborhood and community as well.

There are several variables here and no easy answers, but well thought-out legislation and zoning that takes into account all of these factors is probably a good first step.  This concept would certainly not work everywhere, but poor planning and a lack of consideration for the design and conditions of the neighborhood and transportation system will guarantee that it will not work anywhere.

Thoughts? Please share them below, on or @drurbanpolicy


Popular posts from this blog

Removing Woodrow Wilson's Name from Princeton: Looking Back to Move Forward

I applaud the Princeton University Board of Trustees' decision yesterday to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson from the policy school and residential college that were formerly named for him. While this decision may appear sudden to some, the Board has carefully deliberated on this decision over a number  of years. For alumni like myself, the school's reputation as a place of a world-class education in public policy has long been at odds with the mixed legacy of its eponym. As the board states, "Wilson’s racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school whose scholars, students, and alumni must be firmly committed to combating the scourge of racism in all its forms."

Over the years, alumni have expressed varying levels of pride, discomfort and shame over the decision to continue this honor of having one of the nation's foremost policy schools named after Wilson.  He was the president of the university, a governor of the state and Preside…

The "Boom" in Golden Girls-Style Shared Housing: Where’s the Beef?

NBC, Touchstone Television and their partners should be proud– it has been 22 years since the final episode aired, yet the influence of The Golden Girlsmeans that every year reporters ask about the boom in “Golden Girls Housing.”  This form of shared housing receives a great amount of attention, but we'll miss the big picture if we look for big numbers.
For the last few years, I have looked at data from the Current Population Survey (analyzed by the AARP Public Policy Institute) to count households that are all female (or all male) with at least one non-related housemate or roommate, no spouses, and no one under 50 in the home. This is the classic “Golden Girls” formula.  
The result has become familiar: a very small portion of the population lives in a “golden” situation, around one percent.  The small numbers of people in those situations means that it’s hard to figure out whether it has become more popular.  Though the percentage appears to be holding steady, the number of golden…

Efficiency and Affordability: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

I haven't been posting often lately, as things have been pretty hectic.   I did receive a question the other day about  topic that I haven't spoken about here:  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and it inspired me to write a quick post.  These are sometimes known as "accessory apartments," "mother-in-law suites" or "granny flats" - they are ways to provide more housing options in existing neighborhoods by allowing homeowners to build additional units on their lots.  ADU is a catch-all term for all of these situations - either units attached to existing homes or placed somewhere else on the property, say over a garage or a stand-alone in the backyard. 

They are part of the range of housing options that help to ensure that people of all ages, including older adults, can meet their needs.  AARP's model ordinance on ADUs was written by staff at the American Planning Association and was an attempt to find a set of regulations that would meet livabili…