24-05-2025
EDITORIAL: Rochester should relax its rules on parking minimums
May 24—Joni Mitchell sang that they "paved paradise and put up a parking lot." A little more of paradise will be spared from the steamroller, if the Rochester City Council greenlights a proposal to reduce minimum parking capacity requirements for new apartment buildings in the city.
Reporter Randy Petersen described the situation in his in-depth report in last weekend's edition. He found that, in this case at least, developers, new urbanists, and, well, paradise-lovers have a common goal: not to build excess parking just for the sake of meeting some arbitrary standard.
The old standard, prior to 2022 when the city implemented its Universal Development Code, called for a minimum of one parking spot per studio or one-bedroom apartment, 1.5 spaces per two-bedroom apartment, two spaces per three-bedroom apartment, and three spaces per four-bedroom apartment.
But what if an apartment's developer doesn't expect that many of its tenants will have cars?
Just consider the cost of car ownership. A pretty basic ride, a 2025 Toyota Corolla, costs about $24,000. With dealer financing, the monthly payment on a five-year loan comes to $564. Add to that the cost of insurance, registration and gas (to say nothing of the hidden cost of depreciation) — and further, add to that the cost to rent a parking space — and the price of convenient, individual transportation easily tops $1,000 per month.
That's money that can be put to a lot of rideshares.
So, it's easy to see how Nathan Hoover, one resident whom Randy interviewed, says he gets along fine without a car, even when life calls for a trip to the grocery store or a Target run. And Nathan is not alone.
Rochester is becoming a bigger city, with all the attendant concerns about congestion. Other, larger cities have already come to grips with the fact that their regulations were impeding smarter development, and Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth already have done away with parking minimums, as Rochester soon might. Even a small city like Northfield has taken the step.
You might ask: If there are no parking minimums, what's to stop unscrupulous developers from building apartment structures without any parking? Will my neighborhood's streets be clogged with parked cars from a nearby high-rise?
The answer lies in the relationship between developers and the lenders who finance their projects. A lender won't extend credit to a project that, due to a lack of amenities, shapes up to be a failure. And the truth is, that even though many people might find it reasonable to live without owning a car, still more — the majority of people — still do. They will expect the convenience of available parking. That's a strong safeguard against dereliction.
We favor the goal of having the city move to eliminate parking requirements, if not immediately, at least gradually. And that's not all. We also find merit in the city's efforts to extend the availability and reach of public transportation, and to improve the ever-growing network of public facilities including bike lanes and pedestrian routes, because as more people choose to forego car ownership, those services and facilities will be in greater demand.
Does all of this mean that Rochester is setting itself up to become the paradise that Joni sang of? We wouldn't go that far, but it's hard to argue that it isn't a step in the right direction.
