Drawing upon Flyvbjerg's (1998) insight that planning is defined more by the political than the rational, we examine the experience of parking reform, as attempted by municipal officials, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The literature offers a broad consensus that minimum parking requirements represent a misguided and inefficient policy producing excess parking in the wrong places and reduced housing affordability. Yet minimum parking requirements remain a near-universal fixture in municipal regulations. We examine the stubborn disconnect between Vancouver’s parking standards and its strategic policies. Rather than reiterating normative debates, we consider how ideas and institutions could shape officials’ hesitation in reform. We reveal the compromise that ensues under planning's duality of designing credible, forward-looking strategy while managing the political constraints created by policy path dependence. We find that Vancouver’s laneway housing parking requirement represents a typology that could propagate across North America: a transitional parking requirement of political compromise, which, we suggest, has the potential to produce a workable reconciliation of theory and practice.

借鉴弗莱夫比约（Flyvbjerg，1998）的见解，规划更多地是由政治而非理性来定义的，我们考察了不列颠哥伦比亚省温哥华市政府官员尝试的停车改革经验。文献提供了广泛的共识，即最低停车要求代表了一种误导和低效的政策，在错误的地方产生了过多的停车位并降低了住房负担能力。然而，最低停车要求仍然是市政法规中普遍适用的规定。我们研究了温哥华停车标准与其战略政策之间的顽固脱节。与其重申规范性辩论，不如考虑思想和制度如何影响官员对改革的犹豫。我们揭示了计划在设计可信度，前瞻性策略，同时管理由政策路径依赖性造成的政治约束。我们发现温哥华的巷道住房停车要求代表了一种可能在整个北美传播的类型：政治妥协的过渡停车要求，我们建议，这有可能在理论和实践之间产生可行的和解。