hrm just noticed I forgot to post my comment in response to Walker the other day.
Well Walker obviously I still don't agree with your solution on the parking issue, although I know we both agree on what the end product should look like.
FWIW here's where and why I differ.
Walker wrote >>
I don't think all rates would necessarily raise in concert, and perhaps some sort of staggered fee/tax system would be warranted, since land closer to Broad & High is more valuable for high-density development than say... Mound & Washington.
Well I all I can say the times is that the times I've seen fees raised on lot owners in the past, in concert raising is what has happened almost immediately afterward. Maybe some of the lots will wait to see what the others do, but usually it happens across the board in a couple months and by similar degree. I also don't see how staggering the rates will do anything either than just changing individual lot/area rates.
It doesn't make those expensive lots anymore attractive to build on, just less attractive to park on and makes the adjacent buildings harder to get to.
I'm just not seeing (and I'm going to say similar things a lot :) )how making existing buildings harder to get to, creates more demand for new buildings in those areas. I would think it reduce demand for new build. You aren't going to want to pay higher rent now that you have walk farther to work or pay more to park.
Generally speaking improving access (new rail lines, more parking, more transit stops, new interchanges, new turn lanes) is what increases demand for property. Restricting access rarely does.
Walker wrote >>
That being said, I think there's more elasticity with private off-street parking than you're giving credit to... when one of our employees chooses to drive, he parks two blocks away in the lot that's $5 per day rather than the one across the street that's $15 per day. If that $5 lot jumped to $15, I doubt he'd quit his job (I'd hope not)... he'd just start parking four blocks away instead of two in the "new" $5 lot.
In the case of your employee he may care more about his job than his parking situation, but what % of downtown workers do you think feel the same way? 80%? 55%? 92%?
I'm going to guess your employee is probably fairly physically fit, there are however quite a few downtown workers who are not or who are elderly. There are also quite a few gov't offices downtown that service people from every walk of life and wellbeing.
You would not believe the amount of complaints I heard from City Center parkers about the mall being torn down since it gave them shelter to walk to work in the winter. That sort of thing matters to some of the downtown office worker community.
Obviously there are some who would rather park outside of downtown and COTA or hoof it in. But there's also a number of people who just frankly aren't willing to put up with the hassle. Everyone has breaking point dollar wise and distance wise to what they are willing to do commute wise.
In any event I think it's safe to say it's not 100% whatever % you or I think it is. And that's what matters. There will be some net loss of people if you make parking tougher/expensive and that makes attracting their replacements a little harder for building occupants, thus reducing the buildings' relative attractiveness. And reduced demand for existing buildings probably won't help create new ones.
Walker wrote >>
But the truth of the matter is... we'll never move the needle until we start making it harder for people to drive in, park, and drive out and replace those coveted surface lots with something worthwhile.
I don't think that it is quite that way. You're right that it is very hard to get density as long as you have to service cars, There's no easy way around that, it's a huge problem. No question they take up a lot of room. But I think you are wrong if you are assserting that if you just restrict access to cars without providing replacement means of access simultaneously that density will somehow reappear.
Making parking hard without doing anything else to compensate for that just makes getting to downtown harder. That's all it does. It doesn't make more people want to walk or COTA there. It might make some who currently go there want to switch means of transit, but it isn't going to encourage many people who don't already go to downtown to do that. They probably are already coming downtown if they want to. And it will also discourage some people who come downtown now from coming at all.
As far as the mass transit goes, you are completely right that the way the gov't funding paradigm is set up is that is "need based" based on density/congestion. Which is a tough nut for a very low density city like Columbus to crack.
I don't claim to know how we can address that.
Walker wrote >>
We'll never build mass transit until there is a need for it, and continuing to enable parking lot owners to sit on their cash cows will only put that need further and further into the future.
the whole lot as a cash cow thing is a total misnomer imo. There are some guys who just like to cash checks for sure than take out a construction loan, but most property owners would rather have leased buildings as they are potentially a whole lot more lucrative than a lot will ever be. I know of a couple lots that have been listed for development for over ten years, there are just no takers. It just so happens it's really really difficult to successfully lease out a building in downtown if you don't have some sort of available parking within a block or two. As long as the car is the main way Columbus people are willing to go downtown you have to have some way to service those cars to get people to come. The lots are there to service the buildings.
People can rip on lots all they want. There's no question they aren't exciting or pretty to look at, I get that. But until there is a better way to get downtown they are an unfortunate necessity. They are the symptom not the problem.
Walker wrote >>
I agree to an extent, but I'd argue that there is already demand for new buildings... the problem is that the demand for parking lot ownership is greater.
this is what I'm getting at (or trying to anyway). The two demands are a function of each other not in pure direct competition with each other. Building demand that is there is difficult to service because there is insufficient parking options (or really transit access) for potential new build.
Nearly every downtown developer would likely love it if they didn't have to include parking in their projects. It would make assembling the necessary land so much easier for them for new projects and would allow them to deliver finished ones at much lower costs.
You can most easily address that in one of two ways,
1) give people an alternate way to get to the buildings that they are willing to use
2) Build a lot more garages in areas where parking is in short supply relative to the demand.
You make lots more expensive alone without doing any of the former and all you will end up with is less demand for the current buildings I suspect.
Alright enough of my broken recordness. That's my opinion FWIW based off what I know downtown and its' goers.
Walker wrote >>
Hope the most recent exceptions aren't giving way to more in the future.
I fear you are right. Chances are the places you mention are setting precedent.
Well hopefully somebody figures out the answer about how to address pakring. I do think it's a major step forward, that most of downtown seems to get that housing is important to our future now. We'll need a similiar consensus on access if downtown is to make the next big leap forward.