In my last post, I said that the city needs to require for-pay parking on the Riverside site. There are all sorts of challenges implementing such a requirement, as stated. Allow me to refine. The city should require any parking on the site to be provided to any user on the same terms. It would have the same impact.
If the owner of the office building provides free parking and has to provide it free to everyone, some commuters will park for free and take a longer walk. And, inevitably, some office workers will have to pay to park in the spaces intended for commuters. The MBTA doesn’t want to lose revenue from commuters. And, the property owner doesn’t want some tenants to get free parking and others to have to pay, especially if the reason that some office workers have to pay is that the property owner is providing free parking to commuters.
The answer is a coordinated effort to provide parking at a market cost that reflects demand.
The recent efforts of the Board of Aldermen’s Zoning and Planning committee is heading in the direction of shared parking, as they propose requiring a shared parking analysis on the site. My proposal is simpler. Don’t require an analysis, just share all the parking. Let the developer, the MBTA, and the market determine the price for parking.
To return to the main point of my earlier post, with truly shared parking — any space available on the same terms to any user — the interests of the MBTA, the developer, and the city are better aligned.
Hmmm …. If I was either a prospective residential tenant or a potential commercial tenant and heard that there was no way to guarantee a parking space for me or my employees, that would be a powerful negative when considering this property.
“[P]owerful negative”?
I work at 25 First Street in Cambridge. The front door is closer to the Lechmere station than the proposed Riverside office building is to the Riverside station. There is no on-site parking. Drivers pay to park in a municipal garage.
Here are some of the other tenants that you may have heard of: ZipCar, HubSpot, Sonos, AT&T.
Is free parking an inducement? Sure. But, there’s all sorts of proof that not providing parking is not a deal breaker.
Yes, but that’s why the word “suburban” in my original comment was important.
Riverside isn’t First St in Cambridge. Virtually every other commercial premise that Riverside would be competing for tenants with do provide free parking. That’s not the case on First St. So yes it would be a “powerful negative” at Riverside but not on First St in Cambridge.
I’m not necessarily against your idea I just think its important not to gloss over the negatives.
I’m not sure that the Riverside office building would only be competing for tenants against buildings that provide free parking. I think tenants look at a variety of places, both urban and suburban.
No question though, the lack of free parking would be a negative compared to office space on 128 with an (over-)abundance of free parking. But, it has to be balanced against the appeal of space that is within walking distance of the T and close to 128 and the Pike. I’m not sure that there are that many buildings that have T and highway access and free on-site parking.
Even so, if we’re going to really solve some of our intractable transportation problems, we have to rethink the way we require and/or allow free parking. It may be that Newton needs to be a leader.
Hmmm …. If I was either a prospective residential tenant or a potential commercial tenant and heard that there was ultra convenient T and commuter rail service for me or my employees, that would be a powerful positive when considering this property.
I think the idea of “free office” parking is a misnomer. A typical commercial lease provides some number of spots for the tenet in the office park lot. The tenet is paying for those spot and offers them to their employees.
For Riverside, there may be a need to identify the drivers that have paid spots in the office park lot to avoid displacing “paid” parkers by MBTA patrons.
Jerry, excuse the slightly glib earlier response. But our divergent views of the problem/solution of parking reflects the remarkable polar views on parking in the Riverside context. It is kind of like the Old Woman/Young Girl perceptual illusion. You either see it or you don’t. But our perspectives are malleable. When we shift perspective and see the other side, it makes sense.
That people would feel liberated, not hamstrung, by not having to live with or commute by car, is the alternative vision. I found that liberating feeling when we arrived in Boston from California, where life without a car was not possible. And I find support for this when I repeatedly see new professional colleagues place a premium on finding homes near T or commuter rail stations so they can live without a car. We will find an abundance of these kinds of talented urban professionals seeking employment or residence at Riverside.
I believe a Riverside Development can select for a demographic that values the convenience and sustainability of transit rather than sees it as an inconvenience. I also believe there are more than enough of these people to support a vibrant development, even if by making this choice we tend to discourage some committed motorists. It’s a choice of who we want at Riverside, not how many people we want.
Think about this: someone who takes advantage of the Riverside lot to commute by T downtown will pay for parking (and for the T). Unless there is a change in policy, someone who drives to the same property to work will pay nothing.
The question we need to ask is why one set of users gets treated differently than another.