Among other things, my vision for this project is strongly influenced by research I did into the cost of parking minimums and how that impacts housing costs, strangles historic downtown areas, etc. I also have firsthand experience with giving up a car while in a nice garden apartment while working a corporate job and my rent did not drop but everyone and their brother used my assigned parking space that I was paying for as part of my rent and, boy, did that make me mad.
Poor people who cannot drive because they are disabled or seniors or simply cannot afford a car help carry the cost burden of parking for other more well-heeled citizens and currently have no real means out of this trap. This project aims to explicitly separate the cost of parking from the cost of the residential unit.
This will give residents flexibility in their housing costs that people do not normally have and will help get the minimum cost of housing down below average market rates without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops to qualify for federal low-income housing grants and so forth. (I have read that if you get such a grant, be prepared to hire a person SOLELY to manage THE GRANT.)
The following figures are for illustration purposes ONLY. They aren't entirely pulled out of thin air, but this is not remotely a good-faith estimate of expected prices by any stretch of the imagination.
If the cheapest unit rents for $500/month, car parking rents for $150/month per car and bike parking on the premises rents for $20/month, then a couple could see their total costs range anywhere from $500/month for just the residential unit to $840 if they are also storing two cars and two bikes.
A middle class couple with one car and two bikes would be paying $690. Of course, larger units with fuller bathroom facilities would rent for more money, so rent could go a lot higher than that if you have a bigger unit, two parking spaces and two bike lockers.
This means that people can cut their housing costs by ditching a car or trading it in for a bike without moving, something you normally cannot do. It also means the poorest residents are not bearing the cost of parking spaces for the wealthier residents.
Ideally, this will be located in or near a downtown area with commercial services such that empty spaces can be rented out to people looking for parking for nearby shopping and restaurants. This means the garage is, to some degree, a separate business from the residential units and does not necessarily have to be covered by rent from the residents.
Ideally, the project should be located on or very near a transit line or transit center. (Note that El Borinquen is within walking distance of four subway lines.) If you can readily access public transit and are within walking distance of shopping and eateries, you can live reasonably comfortably without a car.
By separating the cost of car parking from the rent on the apartment, units can be priced such that those residents with one or two cars may well be paying something very similar to average (or a little above average) rents for, say, local studio apartments with assigned parking, but people without a car will de facto be paying something below average for rent on their unit.
Although I would like to find a mechanism to track how many households are low income and to try to make sure the building is not all middle class and upper class residents, this approach should mean that even someone with very low income can qualify without this being a project that must meet federal criteria and what not for keeping its tax breaks or whatever. If your rent is $500/month and you only have $1500/month in income, you are pretty poor -- aka low income -- but if you can genuinely cut out most of the cost of transportation yet still get the things you need, you aren't necessarily living with a lot of privation.
If you intend to rent two parking spaces, then your income would need to be appropriate for that higher overall cost. Presumably if "three times housing costs" is the standard for qualifying, then when you apply, we add up the total of apartment rent and parking rent and bike storage rent and check it against that.
One goal of handling it this way is to create a model that can be used as a basis for sorting out how to make cars genuinely optional/a choice. The US currently is very car-centric and things tend to be framed as either/or.
People who want more pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly, transit-oriented cities tend to literally take the stance of "fuck cars." We need to find a means to let people who want to drive keep their cars and also let other people stop paying for what cars require while being able to have a good quality of life without a car.
Poor people who cannot drive because they are disabled or seniors or simply cannot afford a car help carry the cost burden of parking for other more well-heeled citizens and currently have no real means out of this trap. This project aims to explicitly separate the cost of parking from the cost of the residential unit.
This will give residents flexibility in their housing costs that people do not normally have and will help get the minimum cost of housing down below average market rates without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops to qualify for federal low-income housing grants and so forth. (I have read that if you get such a grant, be prepared to hire a person SOLELY to manage THE GRANT.)
The following figures are for illustration purposes ONLY. They aren't entirely pulled out of thin air, but this is not remotely a good-faith estimate of expected prices by any stretch of the imagination.
If the cheapest unit rents for $500/month, car parking rents for $150/month per car and bike parking on the premises rents for $20/month, then a couple could see their total costs range anywhere from $500/month for just the residential unit to $840 if they are also storing two cars and two bikes.
A middle class couple with one car and two bikes would be paying $690. Of course, larger units with fuller bathroom facilities would rent for more money, so rent could go a lot higher than that if you have a bigger unit, two parking spaces and two bike lockers.
This means that people can cut their housing costs by ditching a car or trading it in for a bike without moving, something you normally cannot do. It also means the poorest residents are not bearing the cost of parking spaces for the wealthier residents.
Ideally, this will be located in or near a downtown area with commercial services such that empty spaces can be rented out to people looking for parking for nearby shopping and restaurants. This means the garage is, to some degree, a separate business from the residential units and does not necessarily have to be covered by rent from the residents.
Ideally, the project should be located on or very near a transit line or transit center. (Note that El Borinquen is within walking distance of four subway lines.) If you can readily access public transit and are within walking distance of shopping and eateries, you can live reasonably comfortably without a car.
By separating the cost of car parking from the rent on the apartment, units can be priced such that those residents with one or two cars may well be paying something very similar to average (or a little above average) rents for, say, local studio apartments with assigned parking, but people without a car will de facto be paying something below average for rent on their unit.
Although I would like to find a mechanism to track how many households are low income and to try to make sure the building is not all middle class and upper class residents, this approach should mean that even someone with very low income can qualify without this being a project that must meet federal criteria and what not for keeping its tax breaks or whatever. If your rent is $500/month and you only have $1500/month in income, you are pretty poor -- aka low income -- but if you can genuinely cut out most of the cost of transportation yet still get the things you need, you aren't necessarily living with a lot of privation.
If you intend to rent two parking spaces, then your income would need to be appropriate for that higher overall cost. Presumably if "three times housing costs" is the standard for qualifying, then when you apply, we add up the total of apartment rent and parking rent and bike storage rent and check it against that.
One goal of handling it this way is to create a model that can be used as a basis for sorting out how to make cars genuinely optional/a choice. The US currently is very car-centric and things tend to be framed as either/or.
People who want more pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly, transit-oriented cities tend to literally take the stance of "fuck cars." We need to find a means to let people who want to drive keep their cars and also let other people stop paying for what cars require while being able to have a good quality of life without a car.