Jump to content

More Parking... Ugh!


joeDowntown

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 2 years later...
  • 3 months later...

Half of the historical architecture in the city was wiped out in the 70's all ready in an effort to compete with the suburbs and downtown continued to decline. Instead of making more parking lots why doesn't the city build 2 or 3 nice parking structures around downtown in unused parking lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of the historical architecture in the city was wiped out in the 70's all ready in an effort to compete with the suburbs and downtown continued to decline. Instead of making more parking lots why doesn't the city build 2 or 3 nice parking structures around downtown in unused parking lots.

The city isn't the problem anymore. Most of the surface lots are privately owned. Unfortunately, no one's in a hurry to give up their primo lots, and why would they be? :alc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city isn't the problem anymore. Most of the surface lots are privately owned. Unfortunately, no one's in a hurry to give up their primo lots, and why would they be? :alc:

Yes I realize that- how did ellis get such a monopoly on parking? Even the old grata station on n division near lyon is now owned by ellis. It seems like they know someone at city hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many surface lots are there, really, in downtown? Most now seem to be south of the Arena or across the river. The one opposite the Courthouse (Lyon/Ionia) was a parking structure, but time took its toll. The other big, unsightly one is now filled by GRAM. If anything, at least for downtown, there seem to be plenty more parking structures than a generation ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of the historical architecture in the city was wiped out in the 70's all ready in an effort to compete with the suburbs and downtown continued to decline. Instead of making more parking lots why doesn't the city build 2 or 3 nice parking structures around downtown in unused parking lots.

As others have said, most of the city owned surface lots have been replaced by structures in the last 10 years: Fulton/Ottawa across from the arena, Louis and Ottawa above Leo's, Fulton and Division above UICA, 38 Commerce, Commerce and Cherry next to Cooley Law School.

The only surface lots added are predominantly DASH lots on the outskirts, most of which paved over vacant weedy lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I realize that- how did ellis get such a monopoly on parking? Even the old grata station on n division near lyon is now owned by ellis. It seems like they know someone at city hall.

Wasn't there an Ellis family member on the parking commission at one point? Is there still? How is that not a conflict of interest? Would an Ellis representative really be in favor of any kind of city provided free parking or a parking validation system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there an Ellis family member on the parking commission at one point? Is there still? How is that not a conflict of interest? Would an Ellis representative really be in favor of any kind of city provided free parking or a parking validation system?

Still is, as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I realize that- how did ellis get such a monopoly on parking? Even the old grata station on n division near lyon is now owned by ellis. It seems like they know someone at city hall.

Ellis is part of it. Remember how many surface lots the GR Press used to have? Just to support one building. Now MSU owns it all. People really like having their own lots, and would just as soon see everyone else lose theirs before their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city isn't the problem anymore. Most of the surface lots are privately owned. Unfortunately, no one's in a hurry to give up their primo lots, and why would they be? :alc:

Oh, but the City is the problem, and the reason parking lots are worth so much is spelled out quite well here, if you read between the lines a bit: (http://www.mlive.com...apids_park.html) Our dear leaders see cars as a social evil, and buses as a social good. Thus, the buses are heavily subsidized, while the parking lots turn a profit, both of which they get to operate as near monopolies as a result.

You want to get rid of surface lots and increase transit options? Shift the subsidy from the transit and throw it onto the parking. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it isn't. Most people (who can afford otherwise) do not ride the buses, and do not want to, but no one can offer realistic competition either since they are so heavily subsidized. Likewise, any surface lots are worth a lot because of the City/Ellis duopoly. (Interesting Questions: Does anyone really think they would permit a new "private" ramp that wasn't Ellis or attached to a specific building? Does anyone wonder why Ellis lets their lots sit empty instead of making them much cheaper than City ramps next to them?) Assuming the City/Ellis have long been turning big profits on their parking duopoly, it made economic sense to tear down a building or preserve parking lots because it is the only way to break into the parking monopoly. Subsidize the ramps (which are usually quite empty, FWIW) instead of buses, and suddenly parking lots lose their value ... just like any private transit option has zero value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but the City is the problem, and the reason parking lots are worth so much is spelled out quite well here, if you read between the lines a bit: (http://www.mlive.com...apids_park.html) Our dear leaders see cars as a social evil, and buses as a social good. Thus, the buses are heavily subsidized, while the parking lots turn a profit, both of which they get to operate as near monopolies as a result.

I'm very, very incredulous that this is what's actually driving the city's parking policy. Come on, we've had parking meters almost as long as we've had cars. The MLive article said it all; the city charges for parking because it's profitable, not because they're being moralistic. So Mayor Heartwell might make speeches about sustainability and cars - well, if he does, he's just bein' a hipster, and I can't see how that would affect what the parking commission does. If the city didn't make money, they'd shed their lots or change prices until they did.

But interesting post though!! Subsidized parking is a titillating idea. However, while I know you don't like the Rapid, I wouldn't support abolishing it (which is what you're proposing). I don't agree that a private fixed-route transit system could ever serve as large a share of the community as effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very, very incredulous that this is what's actually driving the city's parking policy. Come on, we've had parking meters almost as long as we've had cars. The MLive article said it all; the city charges for parking because it's profitable, not because they're being moralistic. So Mayor Heartwell might make speeches about sustainability and cars - well, if he does, he's just bein' a hipster, and I can't see how that would affect what the parking commission does. If the city didn't make money, they'd shed their lots or change prices until they did.

But interesting post though!! Subsidized parking is a titillating idea. However, while I know you don't like the Rapid, I wouldn't support abolishing it (which is what you're proposing). I don't agree that a private fixed-route transit system could ever serve as large a share of the community as effectively.

It's a relatively recent thing that the parking commission is looking at fees as "social engineering," being led by a few members.

What you don't hear about is "leakage," or how many people don't go downtown due to parking hassles and fees at meters. Kind of like the airport trumpeting profitability, when they were losing 25 - 30% of their customers to other markets. You don't hear many complaints about ramp pricing because that cost is generally only seen by the office manager at the downtown employers, not felt by the workers. Then again, downtown office space vacancy is lingering around 30% for some reason or another...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a relatively recent thing that the parking commission is looking at fees as "social engineering," being led by a few members.

What you don't hear about is "leakage," or how many people don't go downtown due to parking hassles and fees at meters. Kind of like the airport trumpeting profitability, when they were losing 25 - 30% of their customers to other markets. You don't hear many complaints about ramp pricing because that cost is generally only seen by the office manager at the downtown employers, not felt by the workers. Then again, downtown office space vacancy is lingering around 30% for some reason or another...

At the same time, you don't see anyone clambering to fill the Steelcase Pyramid, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to see is two free hours of parking. this would accommodate most shoppers and people grabbing a meal. if the city did this, it would devalue the Ellis lots as previously suggested and still prevent people from hogging spaces all day and night. birmingham, outside detroit does this and their downtown has been very successful (although a different demographic populates the surrounding area)

It would be a great way to stimulate people to go downtown because they could count on finding parking (free) long enough to run some errands or get some dinner. I don't think that it would cost much as they already do one free hour at the ramp next to the police station. one hour isn't enough for a meal and if the program was expanded to all the ramps, I think it would improve the awareness and utilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, you don't see anyone clambering to fill the Steelcase Pyramid, either.

No, but the vacancy rate for commercial space out there is only about 8 or 9%. That pyramid will be hard to fill for sure, though.

What I would like to see is two free hours of parking. this would accommodate most shoppers and people grabbing a meal. if the city did this, it would devalue the Ellis lots as previously suggested and still prevent people from hogging spaces all day and night. birmingham, outside detroit does this and their downtown has been very successful (although a different demographic populates the surrounding area)

It would be a great way to stimulate people to go downtown because they could count on finding parking (free) long enough to run some errands or get some dinner. I don't think that it would cost much as they already do one free hour at the ramp next to the police station. one hour isn't enough for a meal and if the program was expanded to all the ramps, I think it would improve the awareness and utilization.

I'm surprised how many people don't know about the Monroe Center ramp and one-hour free parking. I tell people where it is and many say "there's parking above Leo's?" lol. It's obviously not marketed/marked very well. Two hours free would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! See? No, it's a city owned ramp. One hour free. You enter via Ionia Avenue by Louis Benton.

Maybe if they strung some lights and put up some out-dated Santa Claus and reindeer figures in Sept., people would put it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.