Reducing parking won't help Chicagoans in crowded neighborhoods - Chicago Sun-Times Letter to the Editor

By Brett Barnes, Edgewater - Sept 1, 2025

Most people, including those renting affordable units, still rely on cars to make a living, an Edgewater reader argues.

👉 Download pdf.

The recent Sun-Times story on reducing and eliminating parking for new housing near transit presents the change as an affordability win. But like the Chicago City Council’s recent vote, it overlooks a basic reality: Most people, including those renting affordable units, still rely on cars to make a living.

Nowhere is this more concerning than in Uptown and Edgewater, where City Hall is pushing a major Broadway upzoning that could replace much of the existing corridor with mid-rise buildings adding thousands of new units. To imagine these being built with no off-street parking borders on delusional.

These neighborhoods are already among the city’s densest. Car ownership rates remain high: 1.3 cars per owner-occupied household in Edgewater and 0.9 per rental household, with similar figures in Uptown. Transit is valuable, but it cannot fully replace cars for workers, families and seniors.

Even the experts quoted admitted parking cuts make the most sense in lower-density neighborhoods. Yet the law applies citywide, including communities already overwhelmed by parking shortages.

In Edgewater, parking became nearly impossible after a 100-unit building on Broadway opened with limited parking. Logan Square saw similar problems when a “model” affordable project of 100 units but only 20 spaces left the alderperson’s office besieged with complaints.

The Sun-Times story also leaned heavily on a 2016 “Stalled Out” report that claimed Chicago parking was overbuilt. That study is not only outdated but flawed, if not intentionally misleading. It examined just 41 buildings and concluded too much parking was being built without considering how many tenants simply shifted their cars onto crowded neighborhood streets rather than paying for garage spaces.

Supporters of eliminating parking argue it saves money and “could translate into more units and affordable rents.” But “could” is not “will.” Without binding requirements, those savings almost always become higher developer profits. This is trickle-down economics applied to housing: Cut costs for developers and hope benefits reach renters. History shows those benefits rarely arrive.

Meanwhile, the harm is immediate. Residents spend more time circling for spots, adding congestion, emissions and safety risks. Small businesses lose customers who cannot find nearby parking. Middleclass renters with cars will avoid buildings with no parking, undermining community stability.

Chicago needs more affordable housing, but reducing or eliminating parking requirements without requiring true affordability shifts the burden from developers to neighborhoods.

- Brett Barnes, Edgewater