September 27, 2007
City Considering Subsidized Parking Program
Brewster McCracken is pushing city council to create a program to build more parking garages downtown. There are already a lot of parking garages downtown, and every new development includes several floors of parking, but it is often not profitable to open these garages to the public. Similarly, it doesn't make economic sense for developers to build public parking garages. According to the Statesman, McCracken estimates that the proposed Seaholm garage would cost $3.78 million to build and would generate a $3.3 million profit over 30 years. How much would $3.78 million in the bank generate over 30 years? When parking is in high enough demand that it makes financial sense for other buildings to open their garages to the public, they probably will.
We love to see the city interested in promoting progress downtown, but subsidizing parking promotes a car friendly downtown, not a pedestrian friendly downtown. More parking garages downtown means it is easier for people to drive downtown, which means there will be more cars downtown, which means it will be less pleasant to walk downtown. More parking garages downtown means there is less reason to take public transit downtown. More parking garages downtown means less space for other buildings downtown - less retail, less offices, less apartments, which means all of them will be more expensive, which means less people will be able to afford to shop downtown, work downtown and live downtown. More parking garages downtown means more blank concrete walls facing the street, more driveways crossing the sidewalks and more SUVs driven by suburbanites used to driving on pedestrian-free streets. More parking garages downtown means less pedestrians downtown.
Image from Matt Wright on Flickr.
|
When can we expect to be done with Busted McCrackhead?
Maybe he has a secret mistress working for a parking garage constructor.
Shouldn't there be a way to do VMU parking like is the case with highrises? Why not do ground and 2nd floor retail or office space then build up or in a basement for parking?
While I understand your point about encouraging pedestrian traffic, that assumes that there's an efficient means of moving around town by public transport, and right now, there simply isn't one. Hopefully the trolley or MoPac light rail ideas will gain some traction, but what does one do in the decade it takes to implement these new ideas?
tomt, my answer is to let the market decide. Austin has extremely cheap downtown parking compared to similar cities - I can usually find free parking on a non-weekend night. If there are more cars or fewer public parking lots, prices will increase to where they "need" to be to allow building public parking garages or whatever. I'm with Shilli, using public money for this is answering a question not asked (by people other than the parking garage constructors).
tomt, there's no light rail coming. And commuter rail and streetcar won't do shit, because the first one doesn't come downtown and the second one is stuck in traffic.
Personally, I'm torn. Shilli's arguments are correct, but until we have the guts to completely remove parking requirements from the code for all parts of what we view as downtown (not just CBD zoning, which still requires some parking even there), we need some kind of fee-in-lieu program, and this is a good way to get there. Otherwise, even small buildings downtown face idiotic requirements that they provide car parking even when the building that was there before (and all the others) don't have to.
People need to realize that like traffic, parking problems don't really exist in Austin like some imagine. We have it good when you look at other major cities. The day is coming when it will cost $6 and hour to park downtown or $25 a day ($18 a day if you're in the garage before 8am)etc.
We already have that city-funded parking garage next to the C.C. Hilton. No matter how many garages the city builds downtown, it will never be enough.
I've never had problems parking downtown, even on weekends. (Hint: Try Lavaca near Wooldridge Park.) You just have to be willing to walk a little, but that's the problem. Suburbanites expect to park 30 feet from the door of whatever restaurant/club they're going to.
If there is already private parking downtown, but the garages do not open to the public at night because they don't believe it to be profitable, then how will the city make a profit by doing the same thing?
If the public garage expects to make $3.3 million over 30 years, how much property tax will the city forfeit during that time by placing a garage on prime downtown property? Didn't the city just try a late last-ditch effort to keep the federal court from going into the old Intel site so that it could earn property tax revenue on a private development instead?
VMU parking simply puts stores on the ground level and the parking in the interior of the building.
I have no clue what our obsession is with having parking garages front the street. Do the cars like the view?
This is definitely one place where all you "market efficiencies" people are wrong. Every single parking garage in Austin could be ringed with retail and make even more money. Yet the market hasn't done it. The problem is that the market is mainly run by stupid, uncreative people who wouldn't recognize an opportunity until it's slapped them in the face 14 times and run off with all of their best friends.
heyzeus,
Well, many of those buildings weren't built assuming they'd have parking open to the public - and some others were built before SUVs became such a big deal. Their layout may not feasibly support anything but contract parking, in other words. And some others may have liability concerns which make the small amount of profit not necessarily worth the hassle.
That being said, a public parking garage like this had better be on the ass-end of downtown, for the reasons you cite.
The real issue here, though, is the assumption that we ought to be providing really cheap parking for suburban visitors. Expensive parking for suburbanites is one of the few things that can get people on the bus - which helps us all out a lot more. We now finally have enough downtown mass where it'll begin feeding on itself, I think; but I'd still support a municipal garage as the beneficiary of an in-lieu parking program until we can convince city council that there ought be no minimum parking requirement on any downtown development.
I'm all for not having to pay $8 to park downtown and wouldn't mind seeing more creative design uses to conceal additional structured parking. But it seems public money is the only way the City has been able to bring thoughtful structured parking to downtown.
The Convention Center parking garage is a good example of what can be done to accommodate parking and create a pleasant pedestrian experience:
http://www.cambridgearchitectural.com/parking/austin-convention-center-parking-garage.aspx
And City Hall burried their parking and incorporated a waterfall feature and a skylight as an ammenity:
http://flickr.com/photos/pboyd04/190984404/
I realize they both charge to park but at least they attempt to maintain pedestrian accessability and offer retail space. And both were built using public money. And sadly, more parking options downtown are needed.
In my opinion it's not the amount of traffic on the streets that define the downtown pedestrian experience. Better sidewalks make it more enjoyable to walk downtown. The Great Streets Program (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greatstreets/) currently around the 2nd Street District, is required for all new downtown construction (I think) and will hopefully one day create a pedestrian corridor to connect throughout downtown.
Additional structured parking is an unfortunate necessity downtown due to our city being devoid of alternative downtown transit other than bike, ped or bus. Maybe there should be more thought into where the city allows the structures to be placed in order to control the traffic they create?
You realize we'll get this all figured out right about the time the flying cars hit the market.
Actually, there is plenty of parking downtown as many have mentioned. You many just have to walk more than 2 blocks to where you are going. Go out on any Saturday night and get 3-4 blocks north of 4th and 6th streets and you'll be amazed at the amount of FREE parking available to you.
More cars also means more drunk drivers, like the one who hit my friend outside of mohawk. On any given weekend, SUV's coming from West Campus fill those pay lots up despite the fact that there is a free bus that will wisk them away to the Blind Pig. Don't offer them more parking than they already have.
YEAH! Take the bus you pigs.
Wow.
One conclusory and unsupported opinion after another.
Good jorb! Austinist.
Wow.
I always love it when people (who conceal themselves as guests) only be hatin' instead of participatin'. A conclusory and unsupported opinion is still an opinion, more than you have to offer.
Good jorb! Guest
Tim, you are so right about market efficiency. How could I have been so blind. When the revolution comes, I will put you in charge of designing downtown buildings and juggling baby possums. Kidding aside, I will admit that the city did a good job with the 2nd street district development; that was a joint public/private deal, right? I would like to see more of this sort of thing. In the meantime, I'm with mdahmus - we need to get rid of the stupid parking requirements.
more motorcycle parking downtown would be great. As it is, you can't park them on sidewalks and if you park them parallel with cars, they get knocked over by cars. You can fit 3 motorcycles in the parking space required by one automobile.
Guest 15 - I'm not sure what you think is conclusory or unsupported. My post reflects a value judgment putting pedestrians over cars, but from a factual standpoint it strikes me as inarguable. Perhaps that is why you didn't argue it. I think this is entirely a question of whether we want more cars downtown or less. The only argument that I see for having more is that they allow car-dependent customers to access downtown businesses. This doesn't strike me as nearly compelling enough to justify the use of space and money and the diminished pedestrian experience. I think if we build a pedestrian-friendly downtown, people will find a way to get there. If downtown is full of parking garages and cars, people will stay away no matter how cheap parking is.
SHIIIIII-
once again, unless its a scooter shop, 50 dollar t-shirt store or $250k+ condo you don't think it deserves to be downtown. I'm no fan of mccracken, but this isn't a bad idea. It isn't going to encourage cars you dolt.
It means that cars won't have to be parked along the sidewalks, instead they can be put away in parking garages, making for a much more scenic downtown.
If you want to just make slots for compact cars to encourage more enviromentally friendly cars, great. But some of us don't like to take the bus, wouldn't be caught dead on a scooter and don't have the big bucks to live downtown.
One conclusory and unsupported opinion after another.
IMO, this has been a fairly enlightening thread (or blog post ???) with some well-stated points on both sides. For example, heyzeus's point: if the city builds a for-profit garage, will it generate enough revenue to offset the property taxes they'll forego?
Like I said before, there's plenty of free downtown parking for those willing to walk a few blocks.
So, then if one has to drive to downtown Austin, that person is not welcome.
That's really cool, in a "I don't have any idea about the economic realities, and just want a cool place to stroll around" kinda way.
Guest 20 - making it cheaper and easier to park isn't going to encourage cars? For it or against it, I think it is clear that the goal of the program is to make it easier to park downtown. It doesn't do anything but encourage cars.
Also, I like street parking and think it improves the pedestrian experience by putting a sturdy buffer between traffic and sidewalks. Ideally, I would like all the streets downtown to be laid out like second street - one lane each way, street parking on each side, trees next to the street parking, wide sidewalks, then retail storefronts (not parking garage entrances and blank concrete walls).
Finally, I don't think anything "deserves" to be downtown. I think right now we have a bunch of overpriced crap, and I think part of the reason is that so many blocks downtown are already parking garages, so there isn't nearly enough retail space. If anything, the city should be building retail space downtown and renting that out at below market rates to local businesses. That strikes me as a much better use of city funds than building parking garages.
Kenneth/Heyzeus - I don't think there is any chance a city built for-profit garage would generate anything close to the property taxes they'll forego. If they have to spend $3.78 million to generate a $3.3 million profit over 30 years they aren't even breaking even before taking property taxes into account. This is a straightforward subsidy, not an investment.
Guest 22 - how about the economic reality of paying the cost of your own parking and not forcing Austin taxpayers to pay it for you?
hey shilli you ever rode your bike down 2nd st?
No. Biking around Austin drivers scares me. I've ridden down 8th street, but only in the morning on the weekends when it was near empty. I think Austin is a tough place to be a pedestrian, but biking in Austin is even tougher. I think to make bike transit a reality in Austin, we need some kind of dedicated bike lanes physically separated from car lanes (preferably between the sidewalk and the parked cars in the scenario I laid out above - not a bike lane/car parking lane like on Shoal Creek).
Guest #24, I have ridden down 2nd street. It's not that big of a deal, I just take up the lane. I am assuming you are going to complain about getting doored. Yes, it is a danger, therefore I take the lane which is allowed by law (as far to the right as practicable, to me, means not in the door zone).
Everybody rides their bikes on the sidewalks downtown except the bike messengers. I almost got knocked down by some old lady yesterday because she didn't want to slow it down. I'm not saying it'd be any better if they rode in the street where they're much more likely to get hit, but if you want to ride on the sidewalks downtown, don't go so fast.
And yes, I know I am a pussy for almost getting run over by an old lady on a bike but I don't think she saw me as she rode up behind me.
No, guest #27, "everybody" doesn't ride their bikes on the sidewalks downtown. Only idiots who don't understand that it's actually LESS safe than riding in the traffic do that.
Shilli, you're safer riding your bike on a low-speed mixed-traffic street like 2nd than you are driving your car on a major arterial roadway like Lamar. Seriously. Get past it - it's quite safe, as long as you don't do any of the Big 3 Mistakes (riding wrong-way; riding on the sidewalk; riding at night without lights). Yes, if you drove your car on 2nd street, you'd be safer than riding your bike there, but relatively few of us would intentionally take the slow route every day (although I admit I do it when I drive through downtown on errands just to see the buildings going up and whatnot).
And, by the way, the one-way streets downtown are even safer for cycling (I'm not somebody that's swallowed the 2-way kool-aid, obviously - the increased necessity for quick left-turns, I think, makes it more dangerous for bikes and peds). Back when I could still bike, I LOVED riding downtown - it was a far nicer place to be than even the streets with bike lanes in central Austin.
I bike downtown and through central Austin at least twice a week, and I completely agree with what mdahmus said in his last two comments.
I agree that biking downtown is safer than biking on streets like Lamar, but I don't ride on Lamar either. I'm a wuss - I mainly bike around Tarrytown, where the streets are empty except for the odd soccer mom in an Expedition. Of course, there isn't anywhere to go up there - I just bike in a circle and go back home. There are enough drivers in Austin that intentionally harass bikers and enough simply bad drivers that biking in traffic here just doesn't seem worthwhile to me.
I'm not sure about the 1 way/2 way thing. I've seen pedestrians hit by people making a left turn off a one way street (I've only seen it happen once, but it scared the shit out of me), so it is not solely a two way problem - pedestrian has a walk sign, driver has a green light, both think they have the right to go, so if neither is looking for the other, they collide. I tend to think that two-way, one lane each way streets slow down traffic enough to make them safer for pedestrians than multiple lane one-way streets, but I could see left turns being more dangerous there, especially if pedestrian traffic is sparse and drivers aren't looking for pedestrians (as is generally the case in Austin). Hopefully as we get more pedestirans in downtown Austin, drivers will be more aware that they need to watch for them and not smash into them.
No, shilli, what I meant is that biking downtown is safer for you than driving your car would be on a road like Lamar. Seriously.
Speed of through traffic is largely irrelevant to pedestrian safety unless you're jaywalking. The bad scenario for 2-way traffic is like Lamar between 15th and the railroad - where a driver is looking for a gap in oncoming traffic to turn left, finds a small one, guns it, and UH-OH, pedestrian crossing the driveway/cross-street. Could lead to a ped OR car accident or both, and often does.
You don't get that kind of urgency to turn on a one-way street network.
Even though I am a total wuss, I ride my bike around downtown at least once a week. You just need to plan out your route before you leave, and try to take the smaller streets rather than Congress or 6th. It's easy and fun, and you don't have to worry about parking. If I can do it, anyone can.
With all these damn bikes downtown, isn't it time for a publicly funded bike parking garage?
I live off S 1st, how is it McCrackhed can be the principal mover behind VMU, and force owners and residents into conflict over parking, or the lack of it in the VMU regs, and at the same time even ask for more downtown parking, let alone subsidize it?
Surely if VMU is good for transport corridors and public transport, surely public transport is good for downtown too? Why should people have a right to park downtown, affordably or otherwise when they have to snarl up and pollute other peoples neighborhoods to get there ??
Um. It's not YOUR neighborhood just because you own land there. Neighborhoods belong to everybody.
But if we are divvying up neighborhoods, I call Clarksville.