Jump to content

Parking problem downtown - too much of it? Not enough?


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

No, perception is not reality, and yes, mLive commenters are wrong.  No matter how many new ramps get built, people will still complain about it.  Parking is like going to the dentist or the post office - everyone hates it, they'll tell you they hate it, but they still do it nonetheless.  The public at large (let alone mLive) will never be satisfied with how insanely cheap and abundant parking in GR really is.  Scarce parking is a good problem to have, and in GR it's not even scarce.

 

I agree with some of your points - I think new residential and commercial projects will need dedicated parking to get off the ground, as you said.  And I wouldn't say no to lower prices with "smarter, dynamic pricing." But never, ever take your cues from mLive commenters.  People just aren't reliable sources on some topics.

 

 

:dunno:  So people would rather not have a space at all than park on the roof?  Even after paying for it?  And apparently that's the city's problem?  I think the wheel here kept spinning after the hamster fell off.

 

And how does the posted table show the 40% figure is nonsense exactly?  (BTW it's 40% vacancy, not occupancy)

 

 

The report shows there are about 6136 monthly parking cards issued every year, and about 1098 of them currently are unfilled, about 20% vacancy. What the report doesn't show is how many parking spaces are available in total in the ramps. But we'll assume for this exercise that most of the ramps are predominantly set aside for monthly parkers with some (10%?) set aside for visitors. That's probably where the 40% vacancy comes from?

 

Some of the ramps are full or nearly full (Monroe Center has all the passes taken), but then other ramps are grossly underused (Ottawa and Fulton across from the arena is empty, and the government ramp has a lot of vacancy).

 

All of the DASH lots and the Area lots are completely full, which might be why the city is getting some backlash for selling the lot where Arena Place is going up. Those people who parked there are probably now going to have to jump up to a ramp rate, which is about triple the cost.

 

BUT, how does building a new ramp behind the arena address this issue? And if there are so many spaces available at Ottawa and Fulton, is another ramp warranted at this time, in essentially the same vicinity?

 

Reposting the report for those who missed it earlier.

 

post-2672-0-78978500-1412685164_thumb.pn

 

What they should do is draw a pictogram that illustrates each ramp or lot, and a "bubble" of walking distance. Winters are brutal here, so most people are not going to want to walk more than a block or so from their ramp spot to their office destination. The DASH system is the exception because you get to ride in a nice heated bus.

 

This is about it, for instance, for the Ottawa Fulton ramp (and probably why it's so unused, there are very few employers in that bubble). Then do this for every ramp downtown and you'll be able to determine where the greatest needs are (depending on what areas of downtown are seeing the largest influx of employers/workers) by where the biggest gaps are between the bubbles.

 

post-2672-0-29196100-1412685610_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The report shows there are about 6136 monthly parking cards issued every year, and about 1098 of them currently are unfilled, about 20% vacancy. What the report doesn't show is how many parking spaces are available in total in the ramps. But we'll assume for this exercise that most of the ramps are predominantly set aside for monthly parkers with some (10%?) set aside for visitors. That's probably where the 40% vacancy comes from?

 

 

 

According the mLive article, the consultant took into account 8615 public parking spaces, so that must include ramp visitor and on-street spaces, though it isn't detailed.  The article states that the 40% unoccupied figure is noted as "on average."  The "middle of the day" occupancy is about two-thirds, and on weekend nights parking is "mostly full."

 

So, yes it's vague, and the exact methodology isn't given, but my point was that this table neither really confirms nor refutes the consultant's figures, which was in response to the previous poster, who was under the impression that it somehow did.  IIRC you brought up the table just to give a sense of where the underutilized ramps are, not to contradict the consultant's findings.

Edited by RegalTDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, perception is not reality, and yes, mLive commenters are wrong. 

[...]

 So people would rather not have a space at all than park on the roof?  Even after paying for it?  And apparently that's the city's problem?  [...]And how does the posted table show the 40% figure is nonsense exactly?  (BTW it's 40% vacancy, not occupancy)

 

They aren't wrong--parking isn't free downtown, which does make it expensive.  Moreover, when most people come downtown for an event, it is in tight supply--particularly that magical free street parking.  Parking, in my mind, is no different than mass transit since it allows the masses to get to where they are going.  When comparable business offer it for "free" they have an edge.  Take TGI Friday--We never go to the downtown one a mile from our house.  Why would we?  The parking lot next door to it is outrageously expensive.  Instead, we drive 6 miles to Alpine.  Even with gas, it still costs us less and takes no longer.  Thank you highway.  Anecdotal?  Sure, but fairly accurate and representative, I suspect.  (Even worse, I have a ramp space downtown--just not in close enough proximity to Fridays).

 

As for that 40% figure--it's nonsense with respect to low-cost business day parking.  DASH and other low cost surface lots have no available spaces.  A business looking to move a lot of employees downtown is facing a $150/mo/employee cost.  Most won't pay that.  They will locate on the Beltline.  When BCBSM did it 10 years ago, I'll bet they gobbled up a lot of cheap surface parking.  That option is gone.  To do it today with 300 employees would incur a $500,000 annual parking surcharge, on top of the higher rents.  That's a big dent in profits unless there is some advantage to be gained from being downtown.

 

BUT, how does building a new ramp behind the arena address this issue? And if there are so many spaces available at Ottawa and Fulton, is another ramp warranted at this time, in essentially the same vicinity?

 

You're exactly right -- a new ramp alone does not address the underlying issue, which is cost of available parking.  The new ramp would have to cost the same as a surface lot or not much more.  Else, there's no point to it. 

 

I suppose I'm not really advocating more parking--I'm advocating more cheap parking.  It just confuses me that we will basically hand you $5 if you take the (heavily subsidized) bus into town, but charge you $5 to take a car.  Most people want to take a car, so a lot of times, they just don't come at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According the mLive article, the consultant took into account 8615 public parking spaces, so that must include ramp visitor and on-street spaces, though it isn't detailed.  The article states that the 40% unoccupied figure is noted as "on average."  The "middle of the day" occupancy is about two-thirds, and on weekend nights parking is "mostly full."

 

So, yes it's vague, and the exact methodology isn't given, but my point was that this table neither really confirms nor refutes the consultant's figures, which was in response to the previous poster, who was under the impression that it somehow did.  IIRC you brought up the table just to give a sense of where the underutilized ramps are, not to contradict the consultant's findings.

 

 

Correct, I'm agreeing with you in that sense. But I disagree with the consultant. I don't think you can use a broad brush of the entire parking system's occupancy rates and use that as a measuring stick as to whether a new parking facility is needed or not.

 

I don't think another ramp is needed at this time. Residential projects provide their own parking, basically. And if they don't, like 616's projects downtown, the number of units is so small that the existing ramps can easily absorb the tenants' parking needs. The only force putting pressure on downtown parking are employers, which as x99 said, are mostly small businesses with 20 or fewer employees.

 

I do agree that the top floor of a parking ramp is like getting shit on a stick. You pay ramp rates and then have to park outside on top of a ramp which is usually the windiest and coldest place in all of Kent County. Oh and bonus! You have to scrape your windows when you get out of work. Exactly what you want to do after a 9 hour day. :)

 

If you really want to play parking czar, here are the lot rates.

 

http://grcity.us/enterprise-services/Parking-Services/Documents/Parking%20Rates%20FY2015.pdf

 

I go back to my premise that they should look at not adding any more parking downtown, ramps or otherwise, and build shuttle bus lots further out. Most of Century Avenue along 131 could have a parking lot along it (like the Metra system has in Chicago). This would be for people who work downtown Grand Rapids each and every day and don't really need their car during the day. Charge them $20/month or so.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Metra/@42.0102228,-87.8325024,194m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xfe33cbf40c1f2047

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't wrong--parking isn't free downtown, which does make it expensive.  Moreover, when most people come downtown for an event, it is in tight supply--particularly that magical free street parking.  Parking, in my mind, is no different than mass transit since it allows the masses to get to where they are going.  When comparable business offer it for "free" they have an edge.  Take TGI Friday--We never go to the downtown one a mile from our house.  Why would we?  The parking lot next door to it is outrageously expensive.  Instead, we drive 6 miles to Alpine.  Even with gas, it still costs us less and takes no longer.  Thank you highway.  Anecdotal?  Sure, but fairly accurate and representative, I suspect.  (Even worse, I have a ramp space downtown--just not in close enough proximity to Fridays).

 

Yes, parking isn't free downtown.  It's also less convenient, whether you use a ramp or parallel park on the street, it's not like a parking lot in the suburbs.  But that's inherent, additional supply of spaces won't change that, and that's never going to register with people on mLive who complain about parking downtown.  You can't have a downtown with suburban levels of convenience in parking.  If you did, it's not downtown.  But it's readily apparent that downtown parking isn't overpriced, since you pointed out how profitable it is, and people still go to restaurants, including T.G.I. Fridays.  Seems like all those people who kept threatening to stop going downtown over parking still go.  Eastown and Cherry Hill are getting to be pretty tough areas to park in too, and those areas are still growing.

 

I think GR is already the cheapest and easiest place to park of any city I've been to, but that's just me personally; I admit I've never owned a business in downtown GR or anything.  I'll grant you that cheaper parking isn't a bad thing, and I think a dynamic pricing structure could be useful.  But what I don't understand is why ANYONE would drive all the way to Alpine just to go to Fridays??  :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, parking isn't free downtown.  It's also less convenient, whether you use a ramp or parallel park on the street, it's not like a parking lot in the suburbs.  But that's inherent, additional supply of spaces won't change that, and that's never going to register with people on mLive who complain about parking downtown.  You can't have a downtown with suburban levels of convenience in parking.  If you did, it's not downtown.  But it's readily apparent that downtown parking isn't overpriced, since you pointed out how profitable it is, and people still go to restaurants, including T.G.I. Fridays.  Seems like all those people who kept threatening to stop going downtown over parking still go.  Eastown and Cherry Hill are getting to be pretty tough areas to park in too, and those areas are still growing.

 

I think GR is already the cheapest and easiest place to park of any city I've been to, but that's just me personally; I admit I've never owned a business in downtown GR or anything.  I'll grant you that cheaper parking isn't a bad thing, and I think a dynamic pricing structure could be useful.  But what I don't understand is why ANYONE would drive all the way to Alpine just to go to Fridays??  :P

 

The only time I'd ever go to Alpine to eat would be to go to Amore. LOVE that place. Or maybe Perrin Brewing Co.. What a hike though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Significant' price increase eyed for Grand Rapids city parking south of Van Andel Arena

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/significant_price_increase_eye.html

 

"The city’s parking system is paying Desman $168,000 to analyze parking as part of a broader GR Forward downtown planning process."

 

No word as to how that $168,000 will be spread amongst the various city-owned parking spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Significant' price increase eyed for Grand Rapids city parking south of Van Andel Arena

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/significant_price_increase_eye.html

 

"The city’s parking system is paying Desman $168,000 to analyze parking as part of a broader GR Forward downtown planning process."

 

No word as to how that $168,000 will be spread amongst the various city-owned parking spaces.

 

 

Engineering the fee structure to distribute the resources equally?  A fine way to defeat those capitalist pigs, eh comrade?

 

 

"Are you going to tell your 20-something female employee that she now has to walk three blocks back and forth to her car in the winter time in the dark? I don’t know what the solution is..."  

 

The solution is more skywalks!

 

"Enforcing meter fees later into the night and on weekends could free up on-street spaces and encourage motorists to park in city ramps or lots instead,"  

 

In other words, screw people here AAAND screw people there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Saw that this morning, too.  I'm not sure whether this is good news or bad news, to be honest.   Not that I like to see anyone leave, but a strong wake up call was needed, and it was just made.  300 jobs gone, and a clincher from BeeneGarter:  “It’s been difficult for a while. There’s been a shortage for a while. If it gets too difficult, we would be forced to leave.” 

 

The message here? The key to an economically vibrant city is not buses, transit, or light rail.  The thoroughly disgusting, unhipsterified, ungreenified truth is that Grand Rapids' continued success hinges on cheap, copious parking.  Not rapids, not bikes and bike lanes, not light rail, and not buses.  Parking.  Now excuse me while I go find my rose-tinted glasses back.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This was bound to happen. This must be why the city is contemplating building another ramp (which isn't the solution).

 

I can't believe Ellis gets $110/month for parking on that surface lot. The city needs to price drop him into reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe Ellis gets $110/month for parking on that surface lot. The city needs to price drop him into reality. 

 

Yeah, but he sits on the parking commission and thinks City rates are too low already.  Who on the commission would want to anger their good ol' buddy Mike?  And like he cares--that lot was wait listed months out.  This will take a dent, but with the new construction, he's banking on it not mattering over the long haul since that building is not coming online with nearly enough parking.

 

Looking back into the archives, Advantage moved in August of 2007.  At the time, "the City of Grand Rapids and Ellis Parking worked with the company to reduce parking expenses..."  I suspect this time around, the parking duopoly didn't negotiate, and Advantage left the room.  Oops.  Back in 2007, "the young people [at Advantage] felt that downtown Grand Rapids was the spot to be" but apparently by the time lease renewal was coming around, the "cool city" nonsense, the buses, the rapids, and all the bike lanes in the world didn't matter.  I suspect they are not unique, but merely the first to be very vocal about parking.  Most don't want to admit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on.... really?  "Mike Ellis, a city parking commissioner who owns a private parking company"

 

How is this not a conflict of interest?  I mean, just the appearance of a potential for conflict of interest should preclude something like this.  

 

 

I have never really heard happy things about Mike Ellis, and I've heard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw that this morning, too.  I'm not sure whether this is good news or bad news, to be honest.   Not that I like to see anyone leave, but a strong wake up call was needed, and it was just made.  300 jobs gone, and a clincher from BeeneGarter:  “It’s been difficult for a while. There’s been a shortage for a while. If it gets too difficult, we would be forced to leave.” 

 

The message here? The key to an economically vibrant city is not buses, transit, or light rail.  The thoroughly disgusting, unhipsterified, ungreenified truth is that Grand Rapids' continued success hinges on cheap, copious parking.  Not rapids, not bikes and bike lanes, not light rail, and not buses.  Parking.  Now excuse me while I go find my rose-tinted glasses back.

 

 

It's an undeniable truth that I learned while in Seattle. There is massive amounts of parking there despite having trams, light rail, huge buses, inter-city rail, sea ferries, Amtrak, Zip Cars, and tons of people on bikes. The size of some of their parking garages would give some people in GR heart attacks.

 

There must be places to park. You cant pull that out of DT and then think that people are going to ride bikes or take buses as if you have those car users over a barrel.

 

They will just leave like these guys. DT isnt such a prestigious address or else Meijer, Amway, WWW, and many of other local companies would be down there with their HQs.

 

Surface lots are a waste of space, but new buildings are going to have to have some garage space above or below ground to make being down there viable right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never really heard happy things about Mike Ellis, and I've heard enough.

 

 

In MOST municipality proceedings, if someone on the voting board has a specific monetary interest in whatever is being voted on (ie a city commissioner is a partner in a development project), that board member would recuse him/herself from the proceedings. Mike Ellis should not be on the board, period, because he has a specific business interest in pretty much every parking decision. He should recuse himself permanently. He would be welcome to attend, protest, comment, petition, every other right that is afforded any business owner and/or citizen when it comes to meetings.

 

But there is absolutely no ethical reason why he should be allowed to sit on this parking commission.

 

 

It's an undeniable truth that I learned while in Seattle. There is massive amounts of parking there despite having trams, light rail, huge buses, inter-city rail, sea ferries, Amtrak, Zip Cars, and tons of people on bikes. The size of some of their parking garages would give some people in GR heart attacks.

 

There must be places to park. You cant pull that out of DT and then think that people are going to ride bikes or take buses as if you have those car users over a barrel.

 

They will just leave like these guys. DT isnt such a prestigious address or else Meijer, Amway, WWW, and many of other local companies would be down there with their HQs.

 

Surface lots are a waste of space, but new buildings are going to have to have some garage space above or below ground to make being down there viable right now.

 

Agreed. When this thread was started, it wasn't so much that parking for downtown workers and residents should be reduced. It was that a different strategy that what was being employed (a huge sea of surface parking lots right in the core) should be investigated. At least, from my viewpoint that was the argument. ;)

 

But I had a feeling that the jerking around of downtown business owners would start to have some fallout. I bet there are other downtown office users in the same boat. However, it is more justifiable to pay for parking for your employees if they have $1000/hour billable hours. $17.50 an hour call center workers on the other hand, not so much. Why didn't they look at charging the employees for parking? Or do a split? That's what companies are doing with rising healthcare costs, asking employees to pitch in more and more every year for premiums.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. When this thread was started, it wasn't so much that parking for downtown workers and residents should be reduced. It was that a different strategy that what was being employed (a huge sea of surface parking lots right in the core) should be investigated. At least, from my viewpoint that was the argument. ;)

 

Well, there's still no doubt that there is too much physical ground space devoted to parking.  The general urbanist strategy though, and so far the City's, has revolved around automobile hatred and promoting idea like BRT and light rail.  Sure it's "green" and makes great use of land, but it only works if people use it.  There is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen.  Facts indicate that a relatively small percentage of downtown workers use mass transit.  Instead of accepting that and figuring out how to deal with it, we have sought to change it and combat it at great cost, and profiteer from the cars as much as possible.  This is foolish, and now we are seeing the fruits.  Let's hope it is not a trend. 

 

Here's a headline we should all like to see:  NEW $40 A MONTH PARKING RAMP STRATEGY HELPS ATTRACT 5000 NEW JOBS!"   Assuming 8 spaces for 10 workers, or 4000 of these new cheap spaces, the "cost" (based on a lot of guesstimating) of the subsidy is under $3 million a year, about $500 to $600 a worker (giving the parking ramps a rough 20% profit margin).  And even that is too high, since we have "free" unused spaces to spare already!

 

What is the "cost" of profiteering from parking and demonizing cars to the extent it costs jobs? Based on a rather cursory review, a fairly conservative economic impact model would appear to value a finance or professional job at least at $100,000.00.  Even those crappy call center jobs are $40,000 propositions.  The taxes generate a minimum of $2000 up to about $10,000.  When we lose jobs because parking costs too much, it is pure insanity, and about the dumbest possible thing you can imagine from a fiscal perspective.  We are losing 300 jobs because Ellis and Parking Services want to make bank.  The cost (if the jobs just evaporated--I realize they are moving)?  About $12 to $20 million.

 

Better yet, what benefit would actually result if spending $3 million to subsidize ramp ramps worked to generate 5000 jobs?  Try about $400,000,000.00.  Of course, that grossly overstates it, since you're likely just moving a job 5-10 miles and not generating an entirely new job for the area, but the local impact to the City is still significant. 

 

Altering transit focus so that cars and parking are not the enemy needs to happen, or we are going to keep losing to the 'burbs.  Why do we keep insisting that people takes buses or bikes or trains when that isn't what they want?  A good ramp can hold plenty of ground floor uses (but zoning needs to require the space be built), and add a lot of useful height to a building.  Subsidizing ramps to facilitate vehicular transit also makes those nasty surface lots less valuable.  It's a perfect formula:  You attract businesses, add dollars to your local economy, and get rid of surface lots. 

 

Granted, this is all a lot of speculation and rough guessing.  Not my fault.  For some reason, it seems Grand Rapids has never commissioned a study on the economic impact of subsidizing parking ramps.  All they care about is how high they can jack up the rates without losing too many users. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead on. I think that perception will change over time, but it's reality. My concern: not putting parking ramps on every street corner and gobbling up valuable real estate. 

 

Joe

 

 

Saw that this morning, too.  I'm not sure whether this is good news or bad news, to be honest.   Not that I like to see anyone leave, but a strong wake up call was needed, and it was just made.  300 jobs gone, and a clincher from BeeneGarter:  “It’s been difficult for a while. There’s been a shortage for a while. If it gets too difficult, we would be forced to leave.” 

 

The message here? The key to an economically vibrant city is not buses, transit, or light rail.  The thoroughly disgusting, unhipsterified, ungreenified truth is that Grand Rapids' continued success hinges on cheap, copious parking.  Not rapids, not bikes and bike lanes, not light rail, and not buses.  Parking.  Now excuse me while I go find my rose-tinted glasses back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I really am having a hard time with the cognitive dissonance occurring on this topic. Downtown apartments have a waiting list a mile long. Rental vacancy rates are so low that landlords are basically repainting the unit and shoving in the next tenant. Other than the blip of 2005-2007, there are now more proposed projects than any point in my life. Office vacancy rates are trending in the right direction and developers are hungry to redevelop surface parking lots that have been just that since an architectural gem was demolished back in 1964.

 

Meanwhile, back on the Urban Planet, we have chicken little screaming that the loss of his surface parking lot space will cause the entire city to crumble, and government coffers should be immediately opened to fill the lands with abundant parking spaces. One company cries about the high cost of parking for their low-wage employees and suddenly the sky is falling and taxpayers should start subsidizing cheap downtown parking. Urbanism is messy and filled with tradeoffs. Downtown and the City leaders are on the right path, and I commend them for having the foresight to hire the proper professionals to assess the situation. I assure you that if Meijer, WWW, Cascade, Amway or Google wanted to move downtown, the red carpets would unfurl and the cash would flow. If Grand Rapids has graduated from the peewee league onto the junior varsity team, it is time to get real and recognize that parking is not free. Let the free market prevail, and let any whining firm build their own parking if they think the city's service is too expensive.

Edited by Jippy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I really am having a hard time with the cognitive dissonance occurring on this topic. Downtown apartments have a waiting list a mile long. Rental vacancy rates are so low that landlords are basically repainting the unit and shoving in the next tenant. Other than the blip of 2005-2007, there are now more proposed projects than any point in my life. Office vacancy rates are trending in the right direction and developers are hungry to redevelop surface parking lots that have been just that since an architectural gem was demolished back in 1964.

 

Meanwhile, back on the Urban Planet, we have chicken little screaming that the loss of his surface parking lot space will cause the entire city to crumble, and government coffers should be immediately opened to fill the lands with abundant parking spaces. One company cries about the high cost of parking for their low-wage employees and suddenly the sky is falling and taxpayers should start subsidizing cheap downtown parking. Urbanism is messy and filled with tradeoffs. Downtown and the City leaders are on the right path, and I commend them for having the foresight to hire the proper professionals to assess the situation. I assure you that if Meijer, WWW, Cascade, Amway or Google wanted to move downtown, the red carpets would unfurl and the cash would flow. If Grand Rapids has graduated from the peewee league onto the junior varsity team, it is time to get real and recognize that parking is not free. Let the free market prevail, and let any whining firm build their own parking if they think the city's service is too expensive.

 

Good thing you don't work for the city. I assume anyway.

 

The sentiment expressed by the Advantage Sales and Marketing firm is percolating just under the surface for a lot of companies who have to rely on city ramps for employee parking downtown. And office vacancy rates for the general office space (class A, B and C) which rely on city parking are all in the 14 - 18% range. A healthy vacancy rate should be in the mid single digits.

 

Most of the apartment projects being proposed are not in the core, and have their own parking included (not relying on city-owned lots). So you can't use the "claim" (suspicious claim at that) that there's a waiting list for apartments a mile long and apply it to this discussion. Has really nothing to do with it. 

 

That being said, I don't think the city should massively drop parking rates and heavily "subsidize" more parking facilities. I will be interested to see what the $185,000 parking study recommends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead on. I think that perception will change over time, but it's reality.

 

We've got a long way to go, though.  I just stumbled across this except on parking from Principles of Urban Retail Planning by Bob Gibbs.  Interesting stuff:  https://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/parking_chapter_8_-_principles_of_urban_retail_planning_and_development.pdf.  It's worth noting that the author is also a charter member of the Council for New Urbanism, so this isn't just some strip mall developer who has a love affair with parking lots. 

 

Gibbs indicates that you need 100,000 square feet of viable retail, restaurant, and office uses to be "big city" retail environment where people can spend more than an hour and be expected to use off-street ramp-style parking.  Key word here:  and.  Our downtown is basically a giant office park with a court house and a "food court" for the offices.  Plus a comic book shop.  This arguably puts us in the village class:  "... few small villages and towns have the critical mass of businesses necessary for a visitor to spend more than an hour shopping or dining."  If you're in that boat, "parking requirements are similar to those for convenience centers... parking in remote off-street lots or decks requires too much time and effort..."   Uh-oh.

 

So what if you have a deck that isn't remote?  Barring that we tend to have ramps and not decks with discreet levels (another "no no" according to Gibbs),  "Parking decks should be designed, constructed and managed to a higher level than office or residential garages... A dirty, poorly lit, and confusing deck is ... threatening... Parking decks... should have... ceiling heights of 8 to 12 feet ... and office quality finishes for elevators and stairwells..."  Oh, and "ticket booths should be manned..."  Well that ain't good.  I still get lost in my ramp after years of being there, it is frighteningly crappy, and there is always some hapless schmuck trying to figure out how the pay station works.

 

I wish I could agree with Jippy that there isn't a problem because apartments have waiting lists (which is true).  Keeping that residential going will require more retail supported by people other than the renters.  We structured downtown as an office park, and the shine of living in an office park does not last forever.  You need to bring in retail, period.  If Gibbs is right, we don't have a snowball's chance of ever rebuilding any sort of viable retail district without major changes to add more parking, lower prices, and facelift the ramps.  It seems counter-intuitive, but if he's right, we've been going about this all wrong.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got a long way to go, though.  I just stumbled across this except on parking from Principles of Urban Retail Planning by Bob Gibbs.  Interesting stuff:  https://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/parking_chapter_8_-_principles_of_urban_retail_planning_and_development.pdf.  It's worth noting that the author is also a charter member of the Council for New Urbanism, so this isn't just some strip mall developer who has a love affair with parking lots. 

 

Gibbs indicates that you need 100,000 square feet of viable retail, restaurant, and office uses to be "big city" retail environment where people can spend more than an hour and be expected to use off-street ramp-style parking.  Key word here:  and.  Our downtown is basically a giant office park with a court house and a "food court" for the offices.  Plus a comic book shop.  This arguably puts us in the village class:  "... few small villages and towns have the critical mass of businesses necessary for a visitor to spend more than an hour shopping or dining."  If you're in that boat, "parking requirements are similar to those for convenience centers... parking in remote off-street lots or decks requires too much time and effort..."   Uh-oh.

 

So what if you have a deck that isn't remote?  Barring that we tend to have ramps and not decks with discreet levels (another "no no" according to Gibbs),  "Parking decks should be designed, constructed and managed to a higher level than office or residential garages... A dirty, poorly lit, and confusing deck is ... threatening... Parking decks... should have... ceiling heights of 8 to 12 feet ... and office quality finishes for elevators and stairwells..."  Oh, and "ticket booths should be manned..."  Well that ain't good.  I still get lost in my ramp after years of being there, it is frighteningly crappy, and there is always some hapless schmuck trying to figure out how the pay station works.

 

I wish I could agree with Jippy that there isn't a problem because apartments have waiting lists (which is true).  Keeping that residential going will require more retail supported by people other than the renters.  We structured downtown as an office park, and the shine of living in an office park does not last forever.  You need to bring in retail, period.  If Gibbs is right, we don't have a snowball's chance of ever rebuilding any sort of viable retail district without major changes to add more parking, lower prices, and facelift the ramps.  It seems counter-intuitive, but if he's right, we've been going about this all wrong.

 

 

Actually, 3 of the latest ramps the city built turned out pretty nice: the Monroe Center ramp above Leo's, the Fulton Ottawa ramp between the Monroe Center ramp and the arena, and the Cherry and Commerce ramp. The ramp attached to Gallery is...meh. Green wall not executed properly.

 

I feel like this conversation has been had already though??...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, 3 of the latest ramps the city built turned out pretty nice: the Monroe Center ramp above Leo's, the Fulton Ottawa ramp between the Monroe Center ramp and the arena, and the Cherry and Commerce ramp.

 

Agreed with regard to Monroe, although not with respect to the Cherry Commerce ramp.  The stairwells smell bad and the layout is confusing.  Best ramp was probably Pearl/Ionia with the split public parking, but they ripped that out and redid it.  Still, a big part of Gibbs' point seems to be that without a critical mass of retail uses to keep people busy, people won't use your ramp anyhow. 

 

I feel like this conversation has been had already though??...

 

Could be, although  I don't remember much of a discussion about what parking is needed for effective retail.  Gibbs book only came out in 2012, so it's still pretty fresh.  Given that it carries the stamp of Council for New Urbanism, I think it warrants some thought, particularly in light of business users griping that they don't have enough parking.  Retail users have far more discretion than they do.  Reading between the lines, that suggests to me that if business users leave due to parking, you're stuck on retail.

Edited by x99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.