Why we need to end parking minimums
We know there is no single fix for the housing crisis, but we need every tool in our toolbox to address the invisible, outdated rules that are quietly driving up rents and stalling progress.
One of those tools is addressing an outdated 1950s-era rule known as Parking Minimums.
Let’s clear up the confusion right away: Removing parking minimums is NOT a parking ban.
It doesn't mean taking away existing spots. It simply means restoring choice—allowing us to stop building parking where it isn't needed so we can build more homes where they are.
Earlier this year, Councilor Durkan and I filed legislation to modernize our zoning code by exploring the removal of these mandates for new residential development. Last week, on December 9th, we held a hearing to listen to advocates, experts, and neighbors like you.
In this deep dive, we’re breaking down the hidden costs of parking minimums, proof that reform works, and the key takeaways from our recent hearing.
Let’s dig in.
What Are Parking Minimums?
At its core, a parking minimum is a zoning rule that ties the creation of a home to the storage of a car.
For decades, Boston’s code has carried a requirement: if a builder wants to create new housing, they are legally mandated to construct a specific number of off-street parking spots to go with it.
These mandates apply regardless of:
Whether the future residents actually own a car.
Whether the building is right next to a subway station or bus line.
Whether the neighborhood is walkable and rich in amenities.
How Parking Minimums Work in Boston
This isn't just a simple "one spot per unit" rule. The required number of spaces is determined by a complex set of zoning tables that vary by district (e.g., Downtown vs. the North End vs. Neighborhood Shopping areas), the type of building, and the project size.
(You can view the City's current parking ratios here.)
While the specific requirements vary across our neighborhoods—from the North End to Brighton—the outcome is effectively a "one-size-fits-all" approach that prioritizes parking capacity over housing affordability.
It is important to remember that we are not starting from scratch. Boston has already proven that this policy works—we just haven't gone far enough yet.
In late 2021, the City took a major step forward by eliminating parking minimums for "deeply affordable" housing developments. While this was a game-changer for non-profits, the eligibility rules are strict: to qualify, a project must be at least 60% income-restricted.
Here is the catch: That threshold leaves out the vast majority of new housing.
Most new homes in Boston are built by private developers who are typically required to set aside 13% to 20% of their units as affordable. Because these mixed-income projects don't hit that high "60%" bar, they are still stuck with parking minimums.
A Note on "Maximums"
It is important to note that the City does enforce "parking maximums" in certain contexts—specifically for large developments (over 50,000 square feet) in transit-rich areas—to limit congestion.
However, for the vast majority of residential housing, the minimum requirement remains the law of the land, driving up costs and limiting construction before a shovel even hits the ground.
How Do Parking Minimums Affect Housing?
Parking minimums might sound like a minor technical detail, but in practice, they act as a massive hidden tax on every new home built in Boston.
To be clear, we know that many residents rely on their cars and need places to park. However, we also need to be flexible about when and where we add that pavement. The problem with our current zoning is that it removes that flexibility.
By forcing developers to prioritize car storage regardless of the specific neighborhood or actual demand, we are quietly driving up costs and shaping our city in ways that often go unnoticed until you look at the numbers.
The most direct impact is financial. Building parking in a dense city like ours is incredibly expensive; constructing a single underground spot can cost between $50,000 and $80,000. That cost doesn't just vanish—it gets baked directly into the rent or purchase price of the home. This means a family or individual without a car is often still paying a premium for a parking spot they will never use, effectively cross-subsidizing car ownership at the expense of their own housing stability.
Beyond the price tag, these mandates consume precious land. A standard parking spot, combined with the drive aisles needed to reach it, requires about 300 to 350 square feet. That is roughly the size of a micro-apartment or a large master bedroom. Every time zoning laws demand a parking spot, we are physically forbidding that space from being used for a home, a small business, or a shared garden. We are trading potential living space for vehicle storage.
Finally, there is the impact on our streets. To understand the sheer scale of this policy, consider the data from just one year.
In 2023 alone, Boston approved development proposals that included over 8,000 new parking spaces.
To visualize that, imagine all eight lanes of the Southeast Expressway (I-93) filled with bumper-to-bumper traffic from the Neponset River all the way to Downtown.
By enforcing minimums, we are effectively mandating the construction of future traffic, ensuring our streets remain congested while making the housing attached to those garages more expensive.
How Removing Parking Minimums Creates Opportunities for Affordable Housing
There is an "open secret" in urban planning that often gets lost in the noise: Eliminating parking minimums is not a ban on parking. It is a restoration of choice.
Right now, we are letting an outdated rulebook dictate the future of our neighborhoods. By ending this mandate, we shift the decision-making power back to where it belongs: with the people who live here and the reality of each specific site.
This flexibility unlocks two massive opportunities for housing in Boston.
Picture that narrow, empty lot you walk past in Dorchester or East Boston—the gap between two triple-deckers. Why does it sit empty year after year?
It is often a simple geometry problem. A builder could fit a home for a family there, but they physically cannot squeeze in the legally required parking spots. Under current rules, the car takes priority, the project dies on the drawing board, and the neighborhood loses a potential home.
Removing the parking minimums has potential to solve this geometry problem, turning "unbuildable" land into housing.
Second, this reform tackles the cost of larger buildings near the T. Current zoning forces us to dig deep, expensive underground garages to store cars that transit-oriented residents often don't even own. This drives up the cost of construction and, ultimately, the rent for every single unit.
We don't have to guess if this works.
Data from Minneapolis and Austin proves that when mandates are lifted, developers don't stop building parking—they just stop overbuilding it. In car-dependent areas, parking is still built. But near transit, builders opt for less pavement and more housing.
This flexibility is the key: it allows us to stop pouring concrete for empty spots and start lowering the cost of construction—savings that are essential if we want to stabilize rents and build a city for everyone.
Taking Action: Last Week’s Hearing
Public feedback is the foundation of good policy.
That is why Councilor Durkan and I filed legislation to modernize our zoning code by exploring the removal of parking minimums for new residential development.
On Monday, December 9, 2025, we convened a formal hearing to discuss this proposal with the community. The turnout was robust. We heard from 36 individuals during the hearing and received numerous letters from neighbors.
Special thanks to our panel of experts who provided data-driven testimony on why this reform is urgent:
Jesse Kanson-Benanav, Executive Director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, who highlighted the direct link between parking mandates and our regional housing shortage.
Daniel Herriges, Policy Director at the Parking Reform Network, who shared that over 50 U.S. cities have already successfully taken this step.
Aditya Nochur, Senior Transportation Planner at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), who noted that neighbors like Cambridge and Somerville have already led the way.
Eric Robinson, Principal/Co-Founder of RODE Architects, who offered the technical perspective on how these rules constrain design and development.
I also want to thank the members of the Boston Planning Department and the Administration for their engagement, as well as every resident who took the time to testify in person or in writing.
The Proof: Lessons from Austin, Texas
We do not have to guess if this policy works. Boston is not the first city to consider this; there is a growing list of major cities across the United States that have successfully removed parking minimums to lower housing costs.
In December 2024, I was proud to host members of the Austin City Council to hear directly how their city successfully prioritized housing over parking.
Austin’s experience offers concrete proof that mandates force waste. Since lifting their requirements, developers in Austin are building about 60% as much parking as they did before. This market correction proves that the old laws were forcing the construction of thousands of expensive, empty spots—needlessly driving up rent for no reason.
Our visit and the hearing we hosted with members from Austin’s City Council highlighted a critical lesson: we can spur housing production without sacrificing neighborhood character. By combining this reform with streamlined permitting and strong community engagement, Austin proved that you can respect a city's unique identity while embracing bold solutions.
We can do the same here.
To hear directly about the real-world positive impacts of these changes, I highly recommend watching the recording of our session with the Austin leadership.
No single policy will solve Boston's housing crisis overnight.
It is also worth repeating that this is not a ban on parking. It is simply a move to stop forcing the construction of parking where it doesn't make sense.
We are in a moment where we cannot afford to leave any tool on the table.
This crisis was decades in the making, and solving it requires a comprehensive approach. We need to invest in affordable housing, protect tenants, and remove the outdated zoning barriers that make building homes artificially expensive.
Ending parking mandates is just one piece of that puzzle—but it is a critical one. It is about clearing the way for a city that prioritizes people over pavement.
As we move into the new year, I remain committed to examining every regulation that stands between our residents and a place to call home.