The much-maligned mechanical parking systems seem to be facing eventual abandonment by the market.
Recently， the Tongheng Urban Planning and Design Institute of Tsinghua University， in collaboration with the Parking Equipment Committee of the China Heavy Machinery Industry Association and the Urban Parking Professional Committee of the China Association of Municipalities， released a white paper on the development of China’s parking industry in 2024.
The report indicates that the sales of mechanical parking systems in China and the number of newly added parking spaces annually have been on a downward trend for four consecutive years since 2020， dropping to less than half of their peak levels.
This means that over the past four to five years， the appeal of multi-story parking structures， which are prevalent in shopping malls and residential communities nationwide， has been rapidly diminishing for developers.
Observing the rapidly declining market， Jing Xiaobo， Executive Vice President of the China Heavy Machinery Industry Association， passionately called last year for the industry to increase research and development efforts， enhance product competitiveness， and seek opportunities in exports. Otherwise， the future prospects for the mechanical parking system industry are indeed quite concerning.
However， for some inexplicable reason， my first reaction upon seeing this news was a sense of relief: “Finally， this day has come.” If only people had become disillusioned with mechanical parking systems earlier， I wouldn’t have had to spend money on wheel rim repairs every year.
It’s not just me; on major social media platforms， car enthusiasts， regardless of their driving experience， tend to express strong disapproval whenever mechanical parking spaces are mentioned. Those who don’t dislike them are likely those who have never used them.
The widespread dissatisfaction can be directly attributed to the inherently impractical design of mechanical parking systems.
For friends who do not drive frequently， the term “mechanical parking” might not immediately conjure an image. However， most people have likely encountered them in underground parking lots of shopping malls and residential buildings. As shown in the photograph below， the most common type of mechanical parking is the “lift-and-traverse” system， typically featuring double-tiered， side-by-side metal platforms.
Utilizing chains and tracks， these systems effectively increase parking capacity， allowing five cars to fit where only three would normally park. The operation process， it must be said， is rather impressive to watch.
The core issue， however， is that these systems are genuinely not designed for ease of use by drivers.
On the exterior of a mechanical parking bay， drivers typically find a sign specifying the permissible vehicle dimensions. These usually state a maximum vehicle length of 5 meters， a width of 1.85 meters， and a weight not exceeding 2 tons. The most frustrating aspect for many is the restrictive 1.85-meter width limit.
To put this into perspective， a standard marked parking space typically measures around 2.5 meters in width. Mechanical parking spaces are not only significantly narrower but also require vehicles to enter perfectly straight. Any slight misjudgment can lead to costly wheel rim damage.
The reason for this is that the sides of a mechanical parking bay are not forgiving painted lines but rather unyielding steel beams. More critically， the 1.85-meter width is barely wider than many common passenger cars. Furthermore， with the increasing trend of wider new energy vehicles – some boasting “532” dimensions (5 meters length， 3 meters wheelbase， 2 meters width) as a selling point – most vehicles， apart from smaller gasoline cars， end up with very little clearance after parking in a mechanical bay.
In contrast to the relaxed process of parallel parking with adjustments in traditional bays， parking in mechanical spaces is a nerve-wracking experience for fear of damaging the wheel rims.
Despite these challenges， mechanical parking systems began appearing more frequently in our lives over the past decade， found in the underground levels of shopping malls， hospitals， residential buildings， and even open-air parking lots.
Many attribute the widespread adoption of mechanical parking to policy mandates， suggesting that every parking lot construction project had a required quota for mechanical parking spaces， fuelling their rapid rollout. However， this explanation is only partially correct.
Examining the regulations in various cities reveals that while policies do mandate the number of parking spaces required for new constructions， they do not specify a minimum proportion for mechanical parking systems. In fact， policies often signal a less favorable stance towards them. For instance， Hangzhou’s updated “Code for Setting Up Parking Lots (Garages) and Supporting Parking Indicators for Urban Construction Projects” (DBJ33/T 1021-2023)， effective March 1， 2024， requires new residential buildings to provide at least 0.7 to a maximum of 2.2 parking spaces per household， depending on the average area. New shopping malls must provide at least 0.4 parking spaces per 100 square meters of commercial area. Similar minimum requirements are set for other establishments like restaurants， offices， theaters， and hotels.
However， regarding mechanical parking， policies not only lack any mention of a minimum usage ratio but actively seem to disfavor them. For example， an implementing regulation in Hangzhou specifies that new residential buildings cannot utilize mechanical parking spaces. For shopping malls， their use is capped at 30%， and for other buildings， it is limited to 50%. This suggests that the issue lies not with the overarching policies themselves but rather with their implementation.
The strict requirements for supporting parking spaces meant that many developers， when planning construction projects， simply did not allocate enough physical space for traditional parking. To meet the stringent requirements for departmental approval without exceeding site area limitations， they resorted to mechanical parking systems to artificially increase the number of available spots.
While the intention to increase parking capacity is understandable – not every developer can afford to excavate multiple basement levels for parking – the problem lies in how the practice of using mechanical parking solely to meet compliance standards became widespread， leading to a distortion of its original purpose.
For instance， due to the inherent complexity in both parking a vehicle and operating the mechanical system， dedicated personnel are typically required to assist drivers， guiding them to ensure proper alignment and operating the machinery. However， currently， a significant number of shopping malls that have installed mechanical parking systems not only fail to provide such assistance due to maintenance cost concerns but also neglect repairs for damaged bays. This results in mechanical parking spaces that are effectively non-functional， essentially acting as difficult-to-navigate， static parking spots.
Moreover， the lack of maintenance and upkeep frequently leads to hardware failures in these systems， resulting in incidents where vehicles have fallen. The uniformity of these unfortunate events is quite striking.
In some cases， to circumvent these issues， certain opportunistic developers even devised a strategy to temporarily satisfy inspection requirements. According to an interview with Nanfang Weekend， Sun Xiaobo， President of the Hubei Parking Industry Association， noted that some developers would rent or merely erect the framework of mechanical parking equipment， agreeing on a price per parking space (around 3，000 to 5，000 yuan). Once the inspection was passed， the equipment would be removed.
These combined factors transformed mechanical parking， originally intended to alleviate parking congestion， into a mere compliance tool. Consequently， instead of resolving parking difficulties， it spawned a series of new problems.
It is no wonder that sales of mechanical parking systems have been sluggish in recent years. With users unwilling to patronize them， developers using them merely for façade adjustments， and their presence only leaving a poor impression on shoppers， it’s a clear indicator of their decline.
As a result， many parking lots that previously installed mechanical parking systems are now opting to dismantle the equipment and revert to standard marked parking spaces.
However， let us consider this: is the criticism truly directed at mechanical parking systems themselves?
I suspect not entirely.
Many cities feature impressive automated multi-story parking garages. Drivers simply pull into a spacious entrance， and the system automatically retrieves and stores the vehicle. People not only embrace these facilities but actively seek them out as attractions. This is because these mechanical parking systems are not built merely for the sake of construction; they genuinely solve the problem of insufficient parking spaces， making the parking experience demonstrably more convenient.
If future mechanical parking systems could offer the experience of seeing this when retrieving my car，
I would forever be a devoted fan.
