Bellingham, Washington, took a bold step Monday by eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide. This decision, aimed at addressing skyrocketing housing costs and a dire shortage of affordable options, has sparked a lot of debate. For a city grappling with housing pressures, this policy change is a way to reduce construction costs and rethink how land is used. It’s the kind of move that makes you wonder how other cities, like Chilliwack, might approach similar challenges—or whether they would at all.
Let’s break it down: what Bellingham did, why it matters, and how it compares to what we’re dealing with here in Chilliwack.
At the December 16th 2024 meeting, the Bellingham City Council voted 5-1 to eliminate minimum parking requirements for all new developments. That means developers no longer have to build a set number of parking spaces for new homes or businesses.
This move is part of Mayor Kim Lund’s ambitious housing agenda. Elected in 2023 on a pro-housing platform, Mayor Lund has made it her mission to tackle Bellingham’s housing crisis head-on. Eliminating parking mandates is just one tool in her toolkit. Lund has also pushed for policies to streamline permitting, encourage middle housing (like sixplexes and townhomes), and accelerate the city’s compliance with state-mandated housing reforms.
The city’s decision isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s part of a larger push by Washington State to increase housing density and meet ambitious housing targets set by state law. Mayor Lund has emphasized that while no single policy can solve the housing crisis, a combination of bold measures is necessary to make meaningful progress.
Bellingham’s housing crisis has been brewing for years. Housing costs have skyrocketed: median rents have risen by 37%, and home prices by 56% in just five years. Over half of the city’s renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. For many, finding an affordable place to live has become almost impossible.
Mayor Lund and her team believe that tackling these issues requires bold action. Removing parking mandates is one way to lower the cost of building new housing. Parking spaces aren’t free; they add tens of thousands of dollars to construction costs, which are inevitably passed down to tenants and buyers. By eliminating the requirement for parking, the city hopes to make it easier and cheaper for developers to build housing.
But the goals go beyond affordability. Lund’s administration sees this as a chance to rethink how land is used in Bellingham. Instead of prioritizing car storage, the city is focusing on creating walkable, transit-friendly neighbourhoods. This aligns with broader environmental goals by reducing car dependency and promoting sustainable urban growth. While no one claims this change will solve everything, it’s a step toward addressing the housing shortage and making Bellingham a more accessible place to live for people of all income levels.
Critics of Bellingham’s decision have raised several concerns about potential downsides. Some argue that the move doesn’t go far enough to address affordability. Without additional policies like inclusionary zoning or rent control, the benefits might not reach low-income residents. Developers could pocket the savings rather than passing them on to tenants.
There are also worries about on-street parking congestion. While the policy aims to reduce car dependency, many residents still rely on vehicles. Fewer parking spaces in new developments could lead to overcrowded streets. Another concern is how landlords might respond. Critics suggest that landlords could start charging separately for parking, effectively increasing costs for tenants without making housing more affordable.
These critiques highlight the complexity of addressing housing affordability through supply-side reforms alone. While eliminating parking mandates might make development easier, it’s only part of a much larger puzzle.
On the surface, Chilliwack and Bellingham might seem very different. They’re in separate countries, with distinct legal frameworks and governance structures. But both cities share key challenges. Each has a population around 100,000 and faces rising housing costs. Social issues like drug use and crime, combined with an influx of people fleeing higher prices in nearby metropolitan areas, are adding pressure to their housing markets.
Bellingham’s proximity to Seattle and Chilliwack’s to Vancouver put both cities in the path of cascading affordability crises. People leaving larger urban centres in search of affordable living are intensifying demand for housing. These shared pressures make it useful to compare how each city is responding.
Both cities are also at critical junctures in their growth. Decisions about land use, housing density, and community priorities will shape the character of these places for decades to come.
Chilliwack and Bellingham are tackling similar housing challenges in very different ways. In Chilliwack, parking requirements remain firmly in place and are used to regulate the pace and scale of new developments. These rules often cap density under the Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing policies recently passed by the Provincial government. While those policies aim to create more housing options, strict parking requirements limit what developers can do.
Bellingham, in contrast, is aggressively pushing for higher density and greater flexibility, viewing parking as secondary to the urgent need for more homes. Chilliwack’s approach reflects a preference for maintaining suburban character and managing growth within the constraints of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
This difference underscores how cities use policies to shape their futures. While Bellingham is removing barriers, Chilliwack is leveraging those same barriers to carefully manage growth.
Bellingham’s decision to eliminate parking mandates is bold but imperfect. Critics question whether developers will prioritize affordability or community impacts. There’s skepticism that reduced parking requirements will translate into lower housing costs.
Chilliwack’s strict parking policies, meanwhile, come at a cost. By throttling development density, the city risks stifling the transformative changes needed to address its housing supply and affordability crises. Instead of removing barriers, these policies may unintentionally reinforce them.
Both cities face a common critique: without significant improvements to public transit systems, the benefits of these housing policies may fall short. Transit infrastructure is essential to reducing car dependency and ensuring increased density doesn’t overwhelm existing neighbourhoods.
Bellingham’s approach is undeniably bold, removing long-standing barriers to encourage developers to build more freely. Chilliwack’s conservative strategy uses those same barriers to control growth. Both strategies have merits, but Chilliwack could benefit from a hybrid approach.
Targeted zoning changes within the urban core and areas supported by transit could enable selective densification without overburdening infrastructure. This measured approach balances progress where practical while avoiding sweeping changes in areas less suited to densification. As these cities continue on their respective paths, the outcomes of their policies will provide valuable lessons for addressing housing challenges in the years ahead.
