Recently, a parking space in Boston was purchased for $300,000. What does this sale say about our transportation future?

Courtesy wbz.com

Apparently no one told the buyer of a $300,000 parking space in Boston that there’s a recession going on. Yes, that’s right – a parking space recently sold in the upscale Back Bay neighborhood of Boston for more than the value of the average American home.

Paying exorbitant prices for a slice of personal pavement might be a growing trend in places like Boston, as the winning bidders for the uncovered, outdoor space beat the previous city record of $250,000 that was set just last year by another space in the same neighborhood. At the moment, Boston might even have New York beat for the most expensive parking space in the country, as a space in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood went for a mere $225,000 a couple years ago amidst some publicity.

The growing trend in the U.S. of “re-urbanization,” a reversal of post-war flight to the suburbs that now sees the middle class re-orientating towards city centers has been seen by many as necessary to reduce carbon footprints and create more sustainable communities. With density as a key mantra of the movement towards sustainable development, apartments and condos appealing to the middle class have been rising in central areas of cities everywhere from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine, offering alternatives to the long commutes and reliance on cars that often plague suburban living.

It’s clear that living in more compact spaces and owning only one car may be a price that more people, especially young professionals and empty nesters, are now willing to pay to be closer to work or local shops and businesses. The surging trend has manifested itself in the various urban renewal projects across the country in recent decades, as well as an increased popularity in the planning ideas of New Urbanism for suburban developments.

However, the $300,000 question becomes twofold for those interested in sustainable development – whether people are willing to dramatically reconsider the role of the automobile in their daily lives, and whether re-urbanization will be economically and socially inclusive.

In the United States, there are more registered vehicles than registered drivers, a ratio that is unsustainable by nearly any possible measurement. Many argue that fundamental changes in the way that we travel are necessary for true sustainable development, taking the form of a mixed transportation system that uses increased car sharing, public transportation and cycling.

If one subscribes to this view, then it becomes difficult to imagine all of the relocated suburbanites keeping all of their cars. So what happens to all the Priuses and Minis repopulating city streets? Even if each new urban household had just one car, parking spaces would still be at a premium, which inevitably leads to a bidding war – and a $300,000 parking space.

The New York Times recently profiled the car-free suburb of Vauban, Germany, where almost no auto traffic is allowed within the town limits. Residents who wish to own a car may park the vehicle at a garage at the edge of town – for a price of $40,000 a space. As a result, 70 percent of families do not own a single car. Instead, they walk or bicycle around town, and local train service takes them to the nearby city of Freiburg or beyond.

Another interesting fact to note is that 57 percent of those living in Vauban sold their cars just to live in the town, voluntarily detaching themselves from the automobile as a way of life. They saw the automobile as an unnecessary hindrance that did not help them achieve freedom, happiness or other characteristics often associated with the automobile in America.

Could Americans undergo such a radical transformation? The Times story mentions a similar experiment being planned in Hayward, California, a suburb in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Quarry Village development is looking to be a “car-reduced” community in the mold of Vauban, but the project has yet to raise the necessary money to break ground.

Another issue is that living in higher-density areas is, by design, also supposed to provide greater opportunities for people of different incomes to interact, but it’s been widely suggested that this simply doesn’t happen, mostly because there isn’t enough incentive to ensure that redesigned or new neighborhoods have residents of all economic backgrounds. A story last year in the Atlantic Monthly proffered that today’s reverse flight is not moving us towards a more perfect urban utopia. Instead, we may be simply trading places by creating well-heeled inner cities surrounded by suburban slums that pull their new inhabitants into a perpetual cycle of poverty as the costs of maintaining a free-standing home continue to rise dramatically.

How we choose to answer the $300,000 question may decide the final success or failure of the great urban experiment that we seem poised to leap into. How far we’re willing (or able) to leap may be the much more crucial point, however, as $300,000 can’t even begin to measure up to what’s ultimately at stake – and may we place our bets wisely.