Pasadena’s Soul Is in Its People—Not in Its Parking Spots

GUEST OPINION

Aerial view of 600 N. Rosemead Blvd. (Photo – FSY Architects

The furious debate over recent affordable housing developments needs to be refocused around what makes our city special.

By Michael Canavan

When I think about Pasadena, I think about the Rose Parade, our world‑renowned architecture, and the scientific institutions that push exploration inward to the cell and the atom and outward to the moon and Mars. I think about Octavia Butler reading all day in Central Library while her mother worked, and the quiet heroism of Pasadena Transit operators who drove into the blaze to evacuate senior living facilities during the Eaton fire.

What I don’t think about is parking and traffic management. Yet judging by the reaction to recent 100% affordable housing developments, from op‑ed pages to chaotic public planning hearings, you’d think they define Pasadena’s identity.

In a way, they do. Pasadena’s progress toward its state‑mandated affordable housing goals has been dismal: just 0.9% of its obligation for very‑low‑income homes and 2.8% for low‑income homes. This chronic shortfall threatens not only our economic future but also our conscience as a city that claims to welcome people regardless of wealth or background.

Collectively, the three affordable developments at the center of the controversy—two on East Colorado Boulevard and one at 600 North Rosemead—would add more than 400 affordable homes. That’s more than the city typically builds in three years. These numbers may seem abstract, but what they represent are people who either will find stable housing in Pasadena or face displacement or homelessness.

All three projects rely on a provision in state law—an intentional one, not a loophole—that allows them to build less parking than normally required. The logic is straightforward: parking is expensive, and affordable developers cannot absorb those costs without sacrificing homes. A UCLA study this year estimated the cost of a single underground parking space in Los Angeles at $64,000, a significant share of the total cost of a multifamily unit.

At 600 North Rosemead, the 55 parking spaces may seem insufficient for 133 homes. But residents of affordable housing are less likely to own cars; 34% of low‑income Californians don’t own a car. Any parking permits issued to residents who do have cars are restricted to within 500 feet of the building—barely the length of the block—so spillover parking won’t reach nearby neighborhoods. And research shows that building more parking actually induces more car ownership, worsening the very congestion neighbors hope to avoid. Parking availability is a legitimate quality‑of‑life concern, but it is not an existential one. It can be managed through policy and enforcement.

In recent weeks, we’ve heard plenty of support for affordable housing, just not here, not this much, and not with this little parking. Opponents of projects like 600 North Rosemead may have reasonable concerns, but those concerns shouldn’t keep a family from living in an affordable home. Our city, after all, is more than just a place to park. It’s a place to live.

Michael Canavan is a writer, parent, and renter in Pasadena. He’s an organizer for the volunteer pro-housing advocacy group Abundant Housing Pasadena, a local chapter of Abundant Housing LA. 

The Opinion section reflects the opinions of the responsible contributor(s)/writer(s) only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of ColoradoBoulevard.net. ColoradoBoulevard.net does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ColoradoBoulevard.net accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (with no obligation) to delete comments and postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.