Parking begets development mantra alive & well in #TCMI
Parking, parking, parking…
Before Thanksgiving the Record Eagle editorialized, “TC must invest in parking“, perhaps forgetting the two large decks, numerous surface parking spots, and below market rates at the meters already represent a good chunk of investment.
According to the editorial, the Downtown Development Authority is looking to use the whole curve” running from Front St., along Pine St. to State St. on the downtown’s west side. The plan is to purchase the property turn it into surface parking, and trust the development will come, which, according to plans will lead to a parking deck and riches for everyone.
There may indeed be a need for a parking deck, if it is done well with an eye towards more than simply storing automobiles, but I have yet to see the need for expanded parking presented as a fact. I also haven’t seen any systematic vision to mitigate the increased car traffic such a product would produce.
More, like the Record Eagle editorial, parking problems and subsequent solutions are presented as a divine understanding: parking begets development.
In their words (RE):
The lack of reliable, long-term parking options has been a block to development in the area for years, but any deal must work for both the city and a developer. Clearly, if the city wants to boost its property tax base on the west side, it must be prepared to make a substantial investment in parking…
But not investing can’t be an option. The city needs new west-side development, and west-side development needs parking; further delays don’t make sense.
Clearly, the writers at the Record Eagle don’t walk their own neighborhood much. Have they visited Lot O behind the post office? It’s empty. On street parking on Pine and State sits empty. There is under utilized parking spaces across the city. Not to mention, what are we doing to create incentives and options to reach downtown by other means? It still costs more to ride BATA to downtown than it does to park for 2 hours. This is all part of the same conversation.
The problem isn’t parking, the problem is development models and financing schemes that require parking to be over-built and a political class that doesn’t push back on that point nearly enough. At this point, I’m still not seeing a public discussion that doesn’t dice-up city issues, avoiding the impacts beyond the direct footprint of a project.
As stated, a deck can make sense. They free up space for other developments, both private and public. They tighten up blocks which improve walkability. If priced correctly, they could provide funds to mitigate traffic impacts in the neighborhoods. But they work against communities if they are just being built to satisfy status-quo, subsidize perceived needs of private development, and increase motorized traffic. We need to be careful, as the old adage says:
“You don’t attract what you want; you attract what you are.”
If you think parking & weather are your main issues, you’re community needs help.”
~ Fred Kent, Northwest Michigan Placemaking Summit
NOTE: The author sits on the TC Planning Commission and has participated in the downtown Parking & Access Committee, the latter of which agreed that the City explore the option to buy land for a possible parking deck in a 4-1 vote back in October.
Reminder: Before commenting, please read the comments policy. If you feel you need to rant against the world while raising enumerable tangential issues to personally attack individuals or organizations, consider creating your own blog and tracking back to MyWHaT. If it is of value, you will attract readers. Or, send me a message with all the rants you wish; I’m a connoisseur of ranting. Otherwise, please contribute to a healthy, friendly discussion in the comments section below.