While this shift would mark a significant change for our city, the data presented to the Council shows compelling evidence in favor of the reform. After years of monitoring parking utilization, City Staff found that Boulder has an excess of parking, with retail developments showing up to 69% of spaces unused during peak hours and hotels reporting up to 85% of spaces sitting empty. This oversupply is costly for developers and harmful to the environment, contributing to urban heat islands and inefficient land use.

The idea of eliminating parking minimums may sound alarming to some (myself included, at first), but it’s important to remember that this doesn’t mean eliminating parking altogether. Instead, removing parking minimums simply transfers the decision back to the market, allowing developers, property managers and businesses to assess their specific needs. Developers will be free to analyze how much parking is truly required, rather than being forced to follow arbitrary formulas that may not suit the location or type of development.

In a way, this is a much more efficient approach. I think of it as letting the invisible hand of the market take the wheel — and, hopefully, find a parking spot. Sure, developers may try to cut corners to maximize profit, but if they miscalculate parking demand, their project’s selling price and bottom line could suffer. By giving developers flexibility, we can expect parking supply to better align with demand, which could lower development costs. Lowering or removing parking minimums could help make housing more affordable.

Of course, there are valid concerns, especially for residents who rely heavily on cars for commuting or work. Some fear that removing parking requirements could push cars onto the streets, creating congestion and parking shortages in neighborhoods. But this is where smart planning comes in. Cities across the U.S., including our neighboring Longmont, have successfully eliminated parking minimums without chaos ensuing.

Overall, removing Boulder’s parking minimums is a big change, but it’s a necessary one if we want to move toward a more sustainable, affordable and well-planned city. Letting the market dictate parking supply, rather than outdated regulations, is a step in the right direction.

Hernán Villanueva, chvillanuevap@gmail.com

Yes, Boulder should join Longmont and many other cities around the country that are thoughtfully discontinuing minimum off-street parking requirements for new development projects. This requirement is no longer fit for purpose. This is a “Yes, and…” where the “and” must also involve careful attention paid to people who rely on cars for long commutes to/from work as well sensitivity to those with disabilities who rely on their vehicles for mobility in their daily lives, as merely two examples.

There are many reasons why this is sensible. Among them, it is worth considering heat island effects (increased temperatures) that these slabs of asphalt generate, the climate-changing emissions and local air pollutants that come from the automobiles these spaces are for, and reduced reliance on cars with greater public transportation investments and infrastructure.

In the aggregate, Boulder has been found to have many empty spaces in lots all around town over the past decade.

Land in the City of Boulder is expensive and scarce, so let’s take it a step further and prioritize infill development in parking lots around town (like the Wells Fargo lot on Walnut and Broadway that besmirches the downtown area). Infill projects refer to innovative construction on underused or unused land within existing developments. Infill projects also mean smart, inclusive and sustainable improvements to communities. Surface parking spaces and lots — introduced in the 20th century when automobile use was expanding — are great candidates for 21st-century environmentally and socially-conscious development.

Affordable housing construction in Boulder is moving too slowly. There aren’t enough pickleball and tennis court installations to meet the demands of Boulder residents. We would all benefit from more pocket parks for kids, more public art and more green public spaces for us all to interact and commune together throughout the city. These empty parking spots are literally a waste of space that can be put to good use.

Let’s transform parking spots around Boulder — as mandated by development rules — into lively and welcoming spaces for us all. The many empty car parking spaces around town are reminders that we’re no longer in the 20th century and it’s now time to transform current and future parking for our community benefit.

Max Boykoff, mboykoff@gmail.com

I agree it’s time to update our Access Management and Parking Strategy to eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements for new development projects. Surplus parking contributes to the heat island effect and worsens sprawl and flood risk. It also adds to the cost for developers ($9,000-$50,000 per spot in surface lots and garages) — a cost that gets passed along to us.

The movement to eliminate parking minimums isn’t new, so Boulder’s leaders can find lots of examples to study as they work out the details of our own strategy. This actually has to happen because of a new state law — starting next June, since we’re part of the Denver Regional Council of Governments, we’ll no longer be allowed to enforce parking minimums for projects close to relatively high-frequency bus and train lines (a majority of city-owned parcels). There is flexibility in the bill permitting local governments to add requirements for larger and/or affordable housing projects.

Before anyone panics (see “Iris Ave. road diet”), no one’s trying to take away our cars. Developers will not be incentivized to include insufficient parking with projects, whether retail or residential. In the past, formulas for parking minimums weren’t completely random but they also weren’t scientific; even the Institute of Transportation Engineers has reversed its long-held position favoring requirements and now opposes them.

The costs outweigh the benefits, and rigidity doesn’t work in a fluid world of changing life- and work-styles. There will still be oversight but a somewhat more free-market approach will enable developers to determine what’s needed.

When this played out in Seattle, developers in transit-oriented neighborhoods still built parking, just 40% less than previously, saving hundreds of millions of dollars over a five-year period. Seems simple and maybe it is: In addition to significant environmental benefits, less cost for developers may help us reach our goal of more affordable housing as well as more affordable leasing opportunities for local businesses. Eliminating parking requirements can also aid historic preservation and make it easier to be innovative in repurposing buildings — for example, turning unused office space into housing. I look forward to seeing how a change like this might transform our city for the better.

Diane Schwemm, parksidediane@gmail.com