A Debate That Will Affect Everyone 

​

As with most public policy issues, there are at least two sides to every debate. One side may be built on good intentions and legitimate concerns. The other side often includes activists who craft narratives designed to advance a particular viewpoint. The subject of parking requirements has become one of those debates. 

 

This article is not about one segment of the parking industry. It is about a movement that has implications for the entire industry and, ultimately, for everyone who lives, works, shops, travels, or owns property in America. Commercial office buildings may feel somewhat insulated from this discussion today, but municipal parking systems are already directly affected. Airports, shopping centers, sports venues, churches, schools, and residential developments are all becoming part of the conversation. 

 

Several years ago, I watched a video of an activist standing in the parking lot of his church on a weekday. His argument was simple: the parking lot was empty, therefore the land was being wasted and should be converted into housing. Churchgoers, he suggested, could simply take an Uber, taxi, or rideshare service when they attended services. That example illustrates the broader position. If a parking space sits empty for part of the day, some believe it represents wasted land that should be put to a different use. At TPN, we have been watching this movement from the sidelines for several years because we believe it will have lasting implications for communities across the country. 

 

Understanding the Movement Behind the Message 

​

The core argument is straightforward: America has devoted too much land to parking. If parking requirements were reduced and fewer parking spaces were built, that land could be redirected toward housing, commercial development, or other uses. Many advocates of this movement draw inspiration from Donald Shoup's influential book, The High Cost of Free Parking. Their position is that free parking encourages automobile use and that more appropriate pricing would reduce driving demand while improving land-use efficiency. 

 

There are legitimate questions worth discussing in that argument. However, some advocates have moved beyond Professor Shoup's original work and have adopted a much broader agenda aimed at significantly reducing both automobile use and the parking infrastructure that supports it. As with any movement, some of the ideas deserve consideration. Others deserve closer scrutiny. 

 

Donald Shoup Deserves a Fair Reading 

 

Before discussing the current movement, it is important to understand the influence of Donald Shoup and his book The High Cost of Free Parking. Professor Shoup, who passed away in 2025, was an economist and urban planning professor at UCLA. He brought national attention to parking policy at a time when very few academics or public officials were studying the subject seriously. For that alone, he deserves considerable credit and certainly has my respect. 

 

Shoup argued that free parking often masks its true cost and can contribute to inefficient land use. Whether one agrees with all of his conclusions or not, his work helped elevate parking from an afterthought to a legitimate planning discussion. The challenge is that some of the statistics and conclusions associated with his work have been repeated for decades without sufficient scrutiny. In some cases, advocacy groups and technology companies have taken broad concepts and transformed them into simplified narratives that extend well beyond Professor Shoup's original intent. There is a difference between studying parking policy and using parking policy to advance a broader agenda. 

 

When Good Ideas Become Simplified Narratives 

​

The modern parking debate often revolves around phrases such as "affordable housing" and "walkable communities." The argument is that parking spaces increase construction costs and, therefore, increase housing costs. Advocates also argue that reducing parking would encourage more walkable neighborhoods and reduce dependence on automobiles. These are reasonable goals. The challenge comes when broad slogans replace detailed analysis. 

 

For example, truly walkable communities typically require significant residential density, mixed-use development, and transportation infrastructure that allow people to meet most of their daily needs within a relatively small geographic area. That model works well in some places. It may be less practical in many suburban communities that were designed around different development patterns. The problem is not the goal. The problem is assuming that a solution appropriate for one community is automatically appropriate for every community. 

 

How Parking Requirements Were Actually Created 

​

To understand where we are today, it helps to understand how parking requirements developed in the first place. Every municipality maintains zoning and development codes that establish parking requirements for different land uses. Office buildings, restaurants, apartments, retail centers, grocery stores, and medical facilities all have parking ratios based on anticipated demand. Most of these requirements were developed during the decades following World War II as America experienced rapid suburban growth. Millions of families moved into newly developed communities connected by expanding roadway networks. For many households, the automobile became the primary means of transportation. 

 

Urban planners of that time faced a difficult challenge. They had to estimate parking demand for land uses that were evolving rapidly and often had few historical examples to study. In many cases, planners added a margin of safety because insufficient parking could severely impact the success of a development. Their objective was simple: ensure that customers, employees, residents, and visitors could reliably access the destinations they needed. 

 

The Mall Parking Lot Problem 

​

Shopping malls provide one of the best examples of why parking requirements often appear excessive. When suburban malls were being developed, planners had to determine how much parking would be required to support successful retail operations. Their conclusion was that parking supply needed to accommodate peak shopping periods, particularly the weeks between Black Friday and Christmas. As a result, many malls were designed for the busiest days of the year rather than average days. 

​

The outcome is predictable. A mall parking lot photographed in July may appear largely empty. The same parking lot may be completely full during the holiday season. Yet many activists use the July photograph as evidence that parking has been overbuilt. What the photograph fails to show is that those spaces may be critical during the periods when retailers generate a significant portion of their annual revenue. Judging infrastructure based on a snapshot in time often produces misleading conclusions. 

 

The Hard Work of Planning 

​

The planners who developed many of today's parking requirements were not perfect. Some requirements are undoubtedly outdated and deserve reevaluation. However, they generally relied on research, observation, demand forecasting, and practical experience. Today, some advocates argue for sweeping reductions in parking requirements without conducting the same level of analysis. In some communities, those arguments are influencing policy decisions. That should concern anyone responsible for transportation planning, economic development, property management, or municipal operations. The answer is not to preserve every existing parking requirement forever. The answer is to ensure that decisions are based on real-world data rather than assumptions. 

 

What Comes Next 

​

Professor Shoup believed that charging for parking would encourage alternative transportation choices and reduce parking demand. Whether one agrees with that position or not, the transportation landscape has changed dramatically since his work first gained attention. Technology is changing how people travel, shop, work, and use parking facilities. Remote work, e-commerce, rideshare services, dynamic pricing systems, advanced parking technology, and better data collection are all reshaping transportation patterns. 

 

The challenge is determining which changes improve communities and which simply sound appealing in a policy presentation. The future of parking will require better information, better analysis, and a willingness to question assumptions from all sides. The answer is not to defend every parking requirement in place today, nor to eliminate parking simply because a photograph shows empty spaces on a Tuesday afternoon. The real answer is the same answer it has always been: gather good data, understand how people actually use a community, and make decisions based on facts rather than slogans. 

 

Parking requirements created in the 1950s and 1960s should not be treated as untouchable. At the same time, proposals to dramatically reduce parking should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and research that created those requirements in the first place. Communities deserve better than one-size-fits-all solutions. 

 

The future of transportation, parking, and land use will continue to evolve. New technologies, changing work patterns, and shifting consumer behavior will create opportunities that planners of previous generations could never have imagined. Our responsibility is not to resist change, nor to embrace it blindly, but to evaluate it thoughtfully. If we approach these discussions with curiosity, good data, and a willingness to challenge assumptions on all sides, we can build communities that work better for everyone.