For developers evaluating parking options on constrained sites, mechanical parking systems continue to provide a decisive advantage by recovering space that conventional ramp structures cannot, even as new tariffs affect both approaches. Since July 2026, imports from the European Union have been subject to a 15% all-inclusive tariff ceiling under the new EU-US trade framework, with steel and aluminum content also facing a separate 50% Section 232 duty. These measures add cost to imported components, but the fundamental economics of parking construction still favor mechanical systems.
Conventional cast-in-place or precast ramp structures rely heavily on structural steel and require significantly more built area for ramps, drive aisles, and circulation that mechanical systems eliminate. As a result, conventional parking already costs more per space before tariffs are considered. According to industry data, conventional structured parking runs at a national median of roughly $33,300 per space, a figure that reflects steel, concrete, and labor costs that have been rising independently of trade policy.
KLAUS Multiparking America, the U.S. subsidiary of German manufacturer KLAUS Multiparking, assembles its systems domestically from modular components manufactured in Germany, so its equipment is also exposed to tariffs. However, Christopher Tiessen, President and CEO of KLAUS Multiparking America, argues that this exposure does not alter the overall comparison. “If a developer’s instinct is to avoid our line item by defaulting to a conventional ramp structure instead, that’s the wrong read on the numbers,” Tiessen says. “They’re not avoiding tariff exposure by doing that; they’re buying tariff-exposed steel in far greater volume, on a structure that already costs several times more per space once you account for the additional floor area. The tariff doesn’t flip the comparison. It’s a relatively small variable sitting on top of a conclusion that was already pretty clear.”
Mechanical parking’s core advantage lies in its ability to convert space that would otherwise be consumed by ramps and oversized footprints into buildable or leasable area. Even with tariffs added to equipment costs, the calculation for developers still begins with how many units or how much additional program can fit on a constrained site. “That’s the number that moves a pro forma,” Tiessen notes. “A percentage on the equipment cost is real, but it’s one variable sitting inside a much bigger calculation, and it’s one we can help a developer plan for early rather than discover late.”
Tiessen emphasizes that planning early, rather than attempting to avoid tariffs altogether, is the practical takeaway for architects and developers. KLAUS’s approach is to quote tariff exposure as a transparent, itemized cost so developers can run comparisons with real numbers. “We’d rather a developer see exactly what’s driving a number than wonder about it,” Tiessen says. “Trade policy is going to keep evolving. Our job is to make sure that doesn’t change the answer to the question that actually matters: what gets the most usable space out of the site they have.” For readers, this underscores that mechanical parking remains a viable, cost-effective solution for maximizing site potential, even in a shifting trade environment.
