If there’s anything that gets people in Bend fired up, it’s talking about parking. Whether it’s the relatively recent addition of paid, permitted parking around Drake Park or the recent conversation happening among the Bend City Council about eliminating parking minimums in the city, people are passionate about the topic.
In order to comply with the State of Oregon Land Conservation and Development’s Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules that were adopted in July, cities of a certain size—including Bend—are presently tasked with reforming their rules around parking. The idea is that by reducing the number of parking spaces required for new developments, there will be more room for housing for people—a higher need in Maslow’s hierarchy than the need for a place to put someone’s 10,000-pound rolling pile of steel.
This notion of eliminating parking minimums, of course, is causing angst for many. There are some legitimate concerns with the City’s plan to eliminate all parking minimums—especially as it pertains to areas such as the Bend Central District, where the proposed plan might only require Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant parking when and if a development puts in any parking at all. Groups including Bend Bikes, The Environmental Center, the Core Area Advisory Board and Central Oregon LandWatch have brought this concern to the City’s attention, and rightly so.
Where that parking scenario exists, the City should make a provision to at the very least require a certain number of ADA-compliant parking spaces on the streets. If this is an effort to make our cities more equitable, the needs of our neighbors with disabilities have to be factored into growth.
The arguments that are less compelling are the arguments against eliminating parking minimums that challenge the notion that this will negatively impact Bend’s “quality of life.” Here’s something to consider: One reason people currently think they need abundant parking at their disposal is that our cities have historically been designed in a fashion that makes us dependent on the automobile.
What would it feel like to be able, even in the wintertime, to be able to pop out the door and walk a block or two to the nearest store that provides basic sundries? How much better would our lives be if we were able, instead of heating up the car and loading up the kids to visit a favorite local haunt, we could instead simply stroll close by to a beloved restaurant? A lot of Americans don’t know this feeling, because their homes, constructed when single-family zoning and single-family neighborhoods far from services were the norm, have never lived in such a place. But they do exist.
For some people in Bend—such as those who live in Northwest Crossing or close to downtown—this is presently a reality. Ask someone where the most desirable neighborhoods in Bend are, and very likely many people will cite Northwest Crossing. That’s what mixed-use, walkable communities look and feel like.
If we can dream about what parking minimums might do—coupled with the will of a planning commission and City Council that support these efforts—we can imagine that one day, eliminating parking and single-family zoning (as has been done in Oregon in recent years) will translate into more walkable, bikeable communities where one does not have to drive everywhere they go to meet their basic needs. In this vision of our city, reserving less space for vast swaths of pavement for cars would mean more space for the restaurants, bars, shops AND dense housing that make neighborhoods charming and attractive. The new planned development off Stevens Road in east Bend aims to do this.
This is a cultural shift, to be sure. But what starts as a dream cooked up by policy wonks at the state and city level can actually translate into a higher quality of life that people talk about, but have yet to see in a real sense, thanks to the decades of zero-zoning or exclusive zoning or just downright adherence to the god that has been the automobile.
People in this area, a combo of rural, suburban and increasingly urban dwellers, are going to want and need to drive. We are not such idealists as to imagine that driving is going to go away completely. But what we are seeing right now, in our city and in so many cities in our state and nation, is a shift to a different way of thinking that could result in a different way of life. If the City gets it right, a better quality of life for far more people will be the ultimate reward.
As we write this, the Bend City Council seems poised to adopt the plan to eliminate parking minimums at its Dec. 7 meeting. The Council should address the concerns around ADA compliance, and then move forward with this new vision for Bend.
This article appears in Dec 7, 2022 – Dec 13, 2023.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Eliminate the parking and watch Bend businesses go out of business. You cite Northwest Crossing – there is no large grocery store in Northwest Crossing. Or are those residents supposed to subsist solely on the offerings of the tiny general store? And how well do you suppose I can carry four sheets of plywood while riding my bike? You (Bend council) doesn’t want Costco to have a large parking lot. It is Costco for God’s sake – people go there once a month to stock up so they need their cars. Please Bend, just stop. You want to solve a problem? Then stop building housing. This area does not need more people.
Oh, sundevils13, how you’ve missed the basics here. It’s not about eliminating parking. It’s about not requiring it. Someone developing a grocery store will still be able to build parking if they want to. And you may have missed that the Bend City Council just APPROVED the plan for Costco to go forward, with the over 800 parking spots they asked for. Plenty of space for people to use their cars to stock up on goods. And finally – on housing. Not building more housing is your solution? Good God, sir. Your ignorance of the basics of land use and planning requirements is stunning. Also, very lame. Cities generally don’t build housing, developers do, but cities are not allowed to “stop building housing” or to not allow more housing to be built. Period.
Not requiring parking to be built with new construction in areas that are already walkable, such as NWX and downtown, makes sense. But not requiring parking minimums in residential areas that aren’t yet walkable will have the inevitable effect of increasing on-street parking. If there is no off-street parking required for new residential construction, and people still do need cars in some form, our streets will become jammed with parked cars. Is that what the City Council wants? Better to ease minimum parking requirements for new residential construction by neighborhood. Demonstrate that it can work where the neighborhoods are walkable and people don’t need cars. Then you will create good examples that people will want to follow. Trying to force-fit the result of a walkable neighborhood everywhere is creating bad examples and undermining support for the real goal, which is to create new walkable neighborhoods.
You’ve got it exactly backwards, civilization/cities are built around roads, not automobiles. Think the Silk Road, Reed Market Road, Butler Market Road etc. that serve an invaluable purpose. You can decry camels, horses, wagons and cars but not roads.