Michael Sutherland from Open Plans on lifting parking mandates citywide as part of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity
0:33:21
·
155 sec
Michael Sutherland, a policy analyst at Open Plans and native Brooklynite, advocates for the removal of parking mandates in New York City as part of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative. He argues that lifting parking mandates will allow for more appropriate and demand-based parking development, citing successful implementations in other cities, particularly Buffalo.
- Emphasizes that lifting parking mandates does not ban parking, but allows it to be built where appropriate and demanded
- Highlights Buffalo's success in lifting parking mandates, resulting in 47% of major developments including fewer parking spaces than previously required
- Argues that removing parking mandates will enable the creation of more needed housing in areas where parking is unnecessary, while still allowing parking to be built in car-dependent areas
- Lifting parking mandates will not ban parking, but allow it to be built where appropriate
- Many cities across the US have already lifted parking mandates, including less transit-oriented cities
- Buffalo's experience shows that lifting parking mandates works, with 47% of major developments including fewer parking spaces than previously required
- In New York City, more parking than required has been built in areas with high car dependency
- Parking mandates have driven up the cost of building and lowered the number of housing units built in areas with less car dependency
- Lifting mandates will allow for more housing creation in areas where parking is unnecessary
- Urges the inclusion of parking mandate reform in the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity initiative
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- Parking Mandates
The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.
This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.
Read about this AI-generated analysis here.
Parking Mandates
"While there are many parts of this plan that would help our city, I'm here to focus specifically on parking mediate reform."
This quote directly states that the speaker is focusing on parking mandate reform, which is a key part of the Removing Parking Mandates element of the proposal.
"Lifting parking mandates will not ban parking from being created. It simply allows parking to be built where it's appropriate, and evidence from other cities that are significantly less robust transit networks and ours shows that parking is still built where it's demanded."
This quote explains the concept of removing parking mandates, which aligns with the proposal's goal to end mandatory parking requirements for new housing.
"Lifting mandates wouldn't ban parking and it wouldn't permit or require less parking to be built anywhere in particular. In fact, in areas where there is high car dependency parking will often still be built. However, in areas where parking is unnecessary or unneeded, lifting mandates will allow the creation of more sorely needed housing."
This quote further elaborates on the effects of removing parking mandates, highlighting that it allows for more flexibility in housing development, which is a key aspect of the proposal.
About this analysis:
This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.
All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.
You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.
When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.
But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.
In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.