Average rent in WA is currently ~$2000.
So for you to not be rent burdened (30% of your income or more goes to rent), your household income needs to be ~$80,000, afer taxes, so more like ~$100,000 before taxes.
Median household income in WA is about ~$100,000.
So basically half the people in the state are rent burdened.
So no, no, this is not already making housing more affordable.
Maybe its laying the groundwork to eventually do that, maybe, if we also did a whole bunch of other stuff as well.
I’m not saying the revising parkings minimums is bad.
I’m saying a whole lot more needs to be done, for that headline to approach being accurate.
LOL, I heard on NPR that housing affordability strategies now include multi generational housing… No, that doesn’t mean that you live with your parents and gramps. It means you, Gramps and parents all work to pay rent.
IE. Not affordable housing.
Just like every other potentially meaningful and transformative concept… capitalism fairly quickly turns everything into a marketing slogan and brand.
Affordable Housing TM, brought to you by … I dunno, Greystar, Lennar, whatever.
It’s similar to the tax breaks given to builders for making affordable units. Most of the units are rentals.
Plus why in the hell give any tax breaks to builders for building HERE of all places. They’re making money no matter what.
There’s space in town (aside from the area where the massive new warehouses are going in) to build. I’m all in favor of having a hard look at how much parking should be required. Not so much in favor of just letting each developer decide if they’d like to have parking or not.
Agreed on the BS headline.
Local jurisdictions in the state are actually at the point of turning away from industries and just want to build housing because it’s the only thing that’s reliable. Especially small rural towns. They can’t do transit though so rural roads are getting jammed with more and more traffic.
And a lot of the business parks and warehouses that came up the last 5 years were contracts from years ago, often pre-covid, being fulfilled.
We’ve been sleepwalking a decade.
“More affordable” by cutting out amenities like how McDonalds makes their burgers “more affordable” by using meat paste to make the patties. These people will still own cars and need to park them somewhere and I’m sure these wealthy developers are also building private parking garages on the side so that they can charge these residents a monthly subscription for something that used to be included in their purchase.
the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots. check out the very third photo in the article (the overhead view of a parking lot), its first example of a housing development benefiting from the change. notice how less than half of the spots and thus less than a quarter of the land was being used
plus, for housing, the parking minimum’s only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft2. family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home
These people will still own cars
not necessarily
There’s few cars in that lot because up until very recently there wasn’t anything in the area worth visiting but a few hotels and restaurants under the interstate bridge. They are definitely making an effort to revamp it into something nice rivaling Portland’s waterfront but once residential buildings go up, there won’t be anywhere to park. The place is surrounded by river, train tracks, and an overhead freeway.
plus, for housing, the parking minimum’s only eliminated for affordable housing, senior housing, childcare, and homes <1,200 ft2. family housing still requires 1 parking spot per home
That seems pretty backwards to me. ‘Family housing’ is going to be purchased by people with the most disposable income who can afford to pay for parking. The affordable housing folks are definitely going to be commuting a ways to work and will need somewhere to park. This area of Vancouver is pretty isolated and the city has almost no public transit apart from busses. The article does mention that a parking garage will be built at some point but I bet all those spots will be gobbled up by the ‘non-affordable housing’ people since its going to be shared amongst several tenant buildings.
This reminds me of NY where the governor just put a cap on car insurance claims to make car insurance “more affordable.” Its just more fake Progressivism enacted by Neoliberals. The real winners here are real estate developers and car insurance companies not the poor.
Giving people a place to live is more important than giving them a place to park, especially in a area with a bus system named North American Transit System of the Year.
once residential buildings go up, there won’t be anywhere to park
The pictured development includes a parking lot.
The development is also surrounded by parking lots.
Yes and no on your first point. The longer a car spends looking for parking, the more pollution it is dumpping into the residential area. And the stress of trying to find parking isn’t great for people’s health either. There is a balance to be had. But I don’t think they did the numbers to figure this one out. Theynof course could just get lucky and hit the balance. Who knows.
If you settle down for something as big as housing and will bring a car, you’ve hashed out where to park already. The true solution to environmental issues is a bike.
You would think, but the number of people I have heard complain about the parking situation where they live and how they had no idea it was so bad… People just don’t usually think of such details. Same with storage space in a house. It looks bigger without the storage space, so there is less and less storage space in houses. Most people are not detail oriented.
The parking garage will be built later as mentioned in the article, and there aren’t any open parking lots in the area. The South and West sides are blocked by railroad tracks and the Columbia river, the East side is blocked by the freeway, and the North side is the very tip of a residential neighborhood.
I agree housing is more important than transportation, but you still need transportation in order to work and pay for this place. This isn’t going be a free shelter.
You have a point with most of these (I’ll concede on the ones I don’t mention) but East is not a freeway but a street with zebra crossings and a roundabout. North is not a residential neighborhood; Aria Apartments is the only residential I can see and the lot North of that is free.
And still, if you have enough money to get a car, you should have enough money for a jacket, a bike, and/or train tickets.
the “amenities” eliminated are parking minimums, and you’re assuming that the parking minimums aren’t causing oversupply of unused parking lots.
That’s like “saving time” by not installing electricity or smoke alarms. What a boondoggle; especially in car-dependent America!
The people who need cars won’t buy these. Not everyone needs every feature. That’s like complaining about lack of an on site gym. If that’s important to you, find a place that has it.
I can name five people who don’t have a car and are happy. Can you name five people who don’t have electricity and are happy? Or will you admit that your point is a bit exaggerated?
fastest way to not be car-dependent america is to remove the cars from places that dont need them. I’ve lived without owning a car for over a decade in the US. surprise! building parking lots in cities doesnt make sense!
That seems entirely dependent on where you live. Some cities make it real easy to live without a car, but most don’t and every city in WA outside of Seattle (2.5hrs from the city in this article) is just the same.
That seems entirely dependent on where you live.
reading comprehension is lacking.
fastest way to not be car-dependent america is to remove the cars from places that dont need them.
So it sounds like we’re in agreement that they are needed in Vancouver, WA.
reading comprehension is lacking.
you really struggle with this. dont put words in other peoples mouths.
Just because your lifestyle requires a car doesn’t mean everyone’s does. I would love less parking lots, less roads with cars on them, less car infrastructure in general. You can have your infrastructure in your suburbs, let us have ours in our cities.
are these causing oversupply that could be reclaimed for other things?
When I was looking at condos, I purposely steered away from buildings with a lot of amenities because we just pay for them in higher HOA dues.
It really depends on where these get implemented. If you want to live in a city, you don’t really need a car as much. Washington apparently built the world’s first floating train and appears to be leading the US in transportation infrastructure with trains and bikes. If anyone can pull it off in the US, it’s probably them.
That’s true of Seattle but not Vancouver which is essentially just a suburb of Portland. They dont have jack shit for public transportation other than some busses, and the city is huge. This area is also formerly an industrial area along the Columbia River (just west of the I-5 bridge) thats pretty cutoff from the rest of the city.
Because they consistently vote against it. Portland would love to expand the max there and has tried in the past
It’a supposed to be included with the Interstate bridge replacement but the sun will probably have run out of fuel before both sides finally agree to build it.
