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

[Allison Slater]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

Well there's also the situation where Arena 4 and 5 lot users, which is about 595 spots, are about to be pushed out to other lots to make way for Studio Park. If you count the 301 spaces at Ionia McConnell (which don't show up on the city's website yet as available) and the 66 available in the city's inventory, that seems like a deficit to me for the 2 years or so it will take to get the Studio Park ramp built. 

Exactly. The short-term is going to be incredibly rough on parking needs. And several of the projects that are finishing soon I've estimated have negative net parking supply also.  If it does get better, it's going to get quite a bit worse before it does.

[uncus]

But this is great bicycling weather we're having.  People don't need to drive a car downtown.  
 

I ride my bike downtown to work every day. But I know that’s not for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GRDadof3]

Be careful what you wish for. This building on Oakes (right next to the Woods Lounge) is on the PC agenda to be demolished for parking. It went on the market not long ago, for a hefty price, $790,000.  I've always liked that little building, thought it would make a great brewery/restaurant/etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9608987,-85.674295,3a,75y,2.42h,92.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swOoMrcBGl_PLoO3V-ehBbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[ctpgr34]

On 2/8/2018 at 6:40 PM, GRDadof3 said:

Be careful what you wish for. This building on Oakes (right next to the Woods Lounge) is on the PC agenda to be demolished for parking. It went on the market not long ago, for a hefty price, $790,000.  I've always liked that little building, thought it would make a great brewery/restaurant/etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9608987,-85.674295,3a,75y,2.42h,92.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swOoMrcBGl_PLoO3V-ehBbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

For this-https://mibiz.com/item/25563-sources-lighthouse-insurance-plans-to-move-nearly-150-employees-to-downtown-gr

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, ctpgr34 said:

For this-https://mibiz.com/item/25563-sources-lighthouse-insurance-plans-to-move-nearly-150-employees-to-downtown-gr

I saw that today. Interesting that they want to build underground parking as well. That's pretty ambitious. 

[joeDowntown]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

I saw that today. Interesting that they want to build underground parking as well. That's pretty ambitious. 

Underground parking? Did you hear that from another source? I didn’t read anything about underground parking in the article. Just wondering if you had other details? 

Joe

[GVSUChris]

9 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Underground parking? Did you hear that from another source? I didn’t read anything about underground parking in the article. Just wondering if you had other details? 

Joe

You might want to reread it then because it (the article) does say that they want to construct surface and underground parking.

[GRDadof3]

10 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Underground parking? Did you hear that from another source? I didn’t read anything about underground parking in the article. Just wondering if you had other details? 

Joe

Yep, in the article. Sounds like they're doing the underground now to make it possible to do development down the road without fear of giving up spaces? 

[GR_Urbanist]

I can't be the only one that thinks these people are complete liars.

Underground parking? You mean this outfit has the cash to do this while no one else managed to have this idea for all the years Ellis has been demolishing buildings on this block for surface spaces? And this building can't be remotely big enough for an underground structure to fit while turning the top into even more spaces. Besides, if underground parking is known to be really expensive, then why don't these guys just save money and build a ramp there? It is certainly better than creating this absurd addition to an existing, and even more absurdly  huge, surface lot where development should have long ago taken place. 

And the whole eyeing it for future development line is so laughable. This mess will be there for 25 years, like the existing used car lot next door has been. No one would spend the money they have on this elaborate idea, to then rip it up in 3 years. Like I said, it will be there for the next 2 decades! And for what? To ensure some suburbanites have a parking lot outside their front door like they do now? So they can rush out at 5 and abandon DT, clogging the streets even more, as they head back to the land of strip malls and drive-thrus.

And it isn't like the spaces will be free for the public either. The people from the burbs will still have to pay to park, so there will be still no end to their whining on that.

And the sad thing is that the city will just approve it with no question!

IDK, it just feels like this is just a scam for Ellis to get the last part of this block to yet again expand this stupid lot.

[GRDadof3]

4 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

I can't be the only one that thinks these people are complete liars.

Underground parking? You mean this outfit has the cash to do this while no one else managed to have this idea for all the years Ellis has been demolishing buildings on this block for surface spaces? And this building can't be remotely big enough for an underground structure to fit while turning the top into even more spaces. Besides, if underground parking is known to be really expensive, then why don't these guys just save money and build a ramp there? It is certainly better than creating this absurd addition to an existing, and even more absurdly  huge, surface lot where development should have long ago taken place. 

And the whole eyeing it for future development line is so laughable. This mess will be there for 25 years, like the existing used car lot next door has been. No one would spend the money they have on this elaborate idea, to then rip it up in 3 years. Like I said, it will be there for the next 2 decades! And for what? To ensure some suburbanites have a parking lot outside their front door like they do now? So they can rush out at 5 and abandon DT, clogging the streets even more, as they head back to the land of strip malls and drive-thrus.

And it isn't like the spaces will be free for the public either. The people from the burbs will still have to pay to park, so there will be still no end to their whining on that.

And the sad thing is that the city will just approve it with no question!

IDK, it just feels like this is just a scam for Ellis to get the last part of this block to yet again expand this stupid lot.

It does sort of smell like a bait n switch to get the current building demolished. I wonder if they will present plans for the underground parking? Which you would actually have to tear up that entire site to build underground parking, and then add surface parking back on top. Like building an inverted parking ramp. 

[Dj Augustine]

The cost of constructing  underground parking is typically about 4 times as much as the cost of building structured parking.   

[joeDowntown]

12 hours ago, GVSUChris said:

You might want to reread it then because it (the article) does say that they want to construct surface and underground parking.

[realizes he might need bifocals]. Pathetic, I read it two times.

It does sound a little bit like a bait and switch to me. I thought we established long ago that underground parking was extremely cost prohibitive especially at that scale. 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

11 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

[realizes he might need bifocals]. Pathetic, I read it two times.

It does sound a little bit like a bait and switch to me. I thought we established long ago that underground parking was extremely cost prohibitive especially at that scale. 

Joe

I started using readers a few years ago, especially with how much time I spend on the computer. It's like a whole new world man!  

[joeDowntown]

10 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I started using readers a few years ago, especially with how much time I spend on the computer. It's like a whole new world man!  

It’s pathetic that we’ve been on Urban Planet so long that we joined as young men, and continue as old curmudgeons.  

Joe

[GRDadof3]

10 minutes ago, joeDowntown said:

It’s pathetic that we’ve been on Urban Planet so long that we joined as young men, and continue as old curmudgeons.  

Joe

I know, we should have virtual rocking chairs and yell at kids walking on our lawns. 

Oh wait, I already do that! 

[x99]

18 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

[realizes he might need bifocals]. Pathetic, I read it two times.

It does sound a little bit like a bait and switch to me. I thought we established long ago that underground parking was extremely cost prohibitive especially at that scale. 

Joe

It is expensive, but if all they have to do is dig a hole and use spancrete, versus a whole ramp, it probably is not that bad compared to the ROI Ellis would get on the parking.  The monthly passes in this location are just gravy on top of the Arena goldmine.

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, x99 said:

It is expensive, but if all they have to do is dig a hole and use spancrete, versus a whole ramp, it probably is not that bad compared to the ROI Ellis would get on the parking.  The monthly passes in this location are just gravy on top of the Arena goldmine.

Then there's the venting. I remember that being a big expensive issue when they were digging to China to build the parking ramp under the Michigan Street development. 

[x99]

13 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Then there's the venting. I remember that being a big expensive issue when they were digging to China to build the parking ramp under the Michigan Street development. 

Venting schmenting!  Really quick and rough back-of-napkin math puts about a $100,000 value on each parking space, before expenses (which should be nominal due to the attachment to the existing lot with gate, security, maintenance, and upkeep in place).  That's guesstimating $17 a day for night parkers 20 days a week on top of $150ish monthly parker income per space, and a somewhat high 6% return.  I might be high my income guess, but I bet not too much...  Even if it costs $60k per space, it's peanuts.  However you figure it, the dirt is probably worth more as a parking lot than a building, particularly given the wonderful location facing a highway abutment.   All things considered, this the rare instance where I don't consider surface parking a particularly bad use.  The existing lot is waitlisted to infinity and beyond--years, last I heard.  You've got to put parking somewhere, and this is a pretty good place.  

Incidentally, I do think it ridiculous that anyone would pay nearly a million dollars for a small building and knock it over for a parking lot.  Don't like it?  Talk to the City of Grand Rapids about it.  Their policies encourage this.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Limiting the parking supply and running up the prices while subsidizing buses people don't/won't/can't use creates a perverse set of incentives and is a really stupid way to operate an urban core.  It is actually anti-density.  If you consider parking  a public good (like transit), and build ramps and subsidize them or run them for no profit, it suddenly makes land more valuable as space for buildings and facilitates bringing in more buildings to use the buildings.  But I digress.)

[GRDadof3]

16 hours ago, x99 said:

Venting schmenting!  Really quick and rough back-of-napkin math puts about a $100,000 value on each parking space, before expenses (which should be nominal due to the attachment to the existing lot with gate, security, maintenance, and upkeep in place).  That's guesstimating $17 a day for night parkers 20 days a week on top of $150ish monthly parker income per space, and a somewhat high 6% return.  I might be high my income guess, but I bet not too much...  Even if it costs $60k per space, it's peanuts.  However you figure it, the dirt is probably worth more as a parking lot than a building, particularly given the wonderful location facing a highway abutment.   All things considered, this the rare instance where I don't consider surface parking a particularly bad use.  The existing lot is waitlisted to infinity and beyond--years, last I heard.  You've got to put parking somewhere, and this is a pretty good place.  

Incidentally, I do think it ridiculous that anyone would pay nearly a million dollars for a small building and knock it over for a parking lot.  Don't like it?  Talk to the City of Grand Rapids about it.  Their policies encourage this.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Limiting the parking supply and running up the prices while subsidizing buses people don't/won't/can't use creates a perverse set of incentives and is a really stupid way to operate an urban core.  It is actually anti-density.  If you consider parking  a public good (like transit), and build ramps and subsidize them or run them for no profit, it suddenly makes land more valuable as space for buildings and facilitates bringing in more buildings to use the buildings.  But I digress.)

Those are some interesting numbers. Is Lighthouse Insurance partnering with Ellis on this? I can't remember how this was going to be structured, but the demolition request is Lighthouse who I believe is buying the building on Oakes and requesting the tear-down. 

[mpchicago]

It appears that the county has purchased 601-617 Ottawa NW, the Grand Rapids Forging & Steel Co building.  The plan is to demolish and use for County employee parking.    A similar situation to what is taking place on Wealthy for Founders, and on Oakes for that new company that wants to move into 56 Grandville.  I'm guessing probably more of this to come.

[WMrapids]

Couldn’t find the old topic but...

*cringe*

 

[thebeerqueer]

I think it's pretty funny, especially the ending "... and now back to Salon."

[GRDadof3]

27 minutes ago, thebeerqueer said:

I think it's pretty funny, especially the ending "... and now back to Salon."

I kind of heard a sad trombone in my head at the end. 

I dunno, I find it peculiar that Third Coast Development put this video out on April Fool's Day and posted it on the Salon page.  In every bit of humor is an element of "truth" from the comedian's standpoint. It's an obvious attempt to poke fun at the people who are saying that there is a parking problem. And TCRE is trying to build and has built projects with little to no provided parking on-site, pushing that responsibility/headache onto the surrounding neighbors.  Plus the owners of TCRE all drive big cars and live in suburban-ish enclaves....   Not that there is anything wrong with that, many city of GR enthusiasts do.  They've also built massive park-n-ride lots for Spectrum employees all up and down Michigan Street and Plymouth. 

But to make a bold political statement like this video is trying to do seems counter-productive in this whole debate. No one wants the parks paved over for parking, or really any more land paved over for surface parking if at all possible. But it's one of the reasons I left the Salon, a whole lot of criticizing people who don't agree with the group-think. 

End rant.

[GR_Urbanist]

Dont tell Mlive. Some of them will actually think this was a good idea.

 

And then they will complain that it isnt free parking.

[GRLaker]

37 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I kind of heard a sad trombone in my head at the end. 

I dunno, I find it peculiar that Third Coast Development put this video out on April Fool's Day and posted it on the Salon page.  In every bit of humor is an element of "truth" from the comedian's standpoint. It's an obvious attempt to poke fun at the people who are saying that there is a parking problem. And TCRE is trying to build and has built projects with little to no provided parking on-site, pushing that responsibility/headache onto the surrounding neighbors.  Plus the owners of TCRE all drive big cars and live in suburban-ish enclaves....   Not that there is anything wrong with that, many city of GR enthusiasts do.  They've also built massive park-n-ride lots for Spectrum employees all up and down Michigan Street and Plymouth. 

But to make a bold political statement like this video is trying to do seems counter-productive in this whole debate. No one wants the parks paved over for parking, or really any more land paved over for surface parking if at all possible. But it's one of the reasons I left the Salon, a whole lot of criticizing people who don't agree with the group-think. 

End rant.

What is Salon?