or contemporary

In practical terms, the city might well have to provide parking garages with public funds. In addition, it would be much more economically viable if developers were actually free to go in the direction this tax would push them, but the vast majority of the city of Columbus … in fact, pretty much everywhere save for the very core of Downtown … has regulations in place designed not to spur development, but to preserve the status quo.

Brewmaster wrote I know they do…I sent the mayor’s office an email last year with links to other cities that are doing the same thing.

If you want to learn more about it…google “land value taxation”.

Here’s an article that does a decent job of explaining both sides of the argument… http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000099.html

And here’s the Wiki link…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Nice. Thanks for the read. I was just about to ask you if this was something that other cities have done. :)

If you want to learn more about it…google “land value taxation”.

Here’s an article that does a decent job of explaining both sides of the argument… http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000099.html

And here’s the Wiki link…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Walking around this area, it’s odd just how much it feels cut off from the rest of the area, somehow, despite the fact that it’s so close to the convention center and the Arena District. (The same is even more true on the other side of Ross, along Neilston St.) Because of this, I actually kind of think light industrial would be viable in the area, possibly more so than commercial or residential. After all, there are certain things that communities do need, but need them to be a little bit cut off, too. This area might well be good for that kind of thing.

If the Convention Center area is going to get another hotel, it’s probably going to have to come in west of High.

Brewmaster wrote One thing that could change the landscape of parking lots is a change to the way we tax property. Our current system taxes based on the value of the “improvements”, or basically, what is sitting on the land. In other words, if you’ve got a 50 story skyscraper taking up one block, and a surface parking lot on the adjacent block, the skyscraper pays millions in taxes, while the surface lot pays pennies in comparison.

If we change this to a system that taxes based on the value of the land, surface parking lots would be totally unprofitable for owners to sit on. They’d have to develop parking garages, or sell the land to a developer to build on. To complete the example above, the skyscraper’s taxes will be reduced, while the surface lot’s taxes will increase by an equal amount (tax revenue neutral).

Surely the city knows this, so if that’s the case why would they be deterred from pursuing it?

If we change this to a system that taxes based on the value of the land, surface parking lots would be totally unprofitable for owners to sit on. They’d have to develop parking garages, or sell the land to a developer to build on. To complete the example above, the skyscraper’s taxes will be reduced, while the surface lot’s taxes will increase by an equal amount (tax revenue neutral).

For building a hotel on this site mentioned in this thread, I’d say a parking deck would not be a detractor for conventioneers and people staying at a hotel there. Really I do think downtown has too much parking already (which puzzles me when people complain about it being difficult to park downtown) so I’m all about building new structures with less parking in mind. I’d also like to see many of our streets narrowed or converted back to two-way streets as they’ve already started to do with State Street and as planned for Gay St. The slowing down on the traffic flow makes things more pedestrian friendly and more convenient to park once and walk than drive everywhere.

cab124 wrote Assume that we were to develop every single acre of surface parking lot in Downtown Columbus with all sorts of really cool, mixed-use developments, and then sprikle the whole thing with parking decks tucked into all of the nooks and crannies all over the city. Is is possible that plentiful parking might result in continued minimal pedestrian traffic and urban vibrancy???

I think the major factor to consider is what the parking decks are used for and how close amenities are to where people live or work or visit. A parking deck for a hotel or office is much different than an open public parking deck. And if someone lives in a downtown condo and has amenities within a reasonable walking distance I think they’d be more inclined to hit the street than drive just because of the abundance of parking decks.

If it’s more convenient to walk, then people will walk. But yeah, I think it’s a tough thing to balance properly. Good stuff to keep in mind. Thanks for sharing! 8)

The reason that they gave was that when cities have lots of places to park cars, whether they be surface lots or elaborate parking decks, people tend to want to use their cars to move around the city. Pededtrian traffic remains relatively low, street-level retail suffers, and overall urban vibrancy remains low.

Cities like San Francisco, on the other hand, have a much lower density of parking structures, and practically no surface lots, yet sidewalk traffic and urban vibrancy is very high. The article cited the example of a new arts center that was built in SF recently with absolutely no regard for parking of any kind. The result is a ton of activity on the street just outside. They contrasted this with a new center in Downtown LA that was surrounded with parking decks. The result is that there is no street activity outide this center because everyone comes out of the building and runs right to their car.

I think it is definitely something to think about as we consider how to best develop the acres and acres of open land in Downtown Columbus.

Assume that we were to develop every single acre of surface parking lot in Downtown Columbus with all sorts of really cool, mixed-use developments, and then sprikle the whole thing with parking decks tucked into all of the nooks and crannies all over the city. Is is possible that plentiful parking might result in continued minimal pedestrian traffic and urban vibrancy???

The bottom line is that this article seemed to suggest that the most vibrant cities are those that have very little parking. Obviously these cities also have excellent public transportation between the city and the outlying areas which Columbus doesn’t have, which raises additional challenges for us.

Even so, is it possible to have too many parking decks??

Walker wrote

dru wrote I think we’re referencing different flat lots, which is easy because there are so many. I’m thinking of the convention center lot that runs behind Lu Pon Xi over to the 3rd/4th street exit. At the back end it’s 6 rows deep, and although I lack a degree in architecture, engineering or anything even closely relevant, it seems deep enough for some sort of structure.

Oh… yeah, I was thinking of the wrong spot. If that case, I totally agree with you. A parking deck should go there if it could hold one. I was a little worried about you at first when I thought you were suggesting a parking deck next to Goodale Park! :lol:

no, but I’ve sometimes wondered if they could bury parking under the park? put the entrance down on the corner with the underused softball field where there are no tree root systems to disturb. probably too expensive to dig in under there, but it has always intrigued me.

dru wrote I think we’re referencing different flat lots, which is easy because there are so many. I’m thinking of the convention center lot that runs behind Lu Pon Xi over to the 3rd/4th street exit. At the back end it’s 6 rows deep, and although I lack a degree in architecture, engineering or anything even closely relevant, it seems deep enough for some sort of structure.

Oh… yeah, I was thinking of the wrong spot. If that case, I totally agree with you. A parking deck should go there if it could hold one. I was a little worried about you at first when I thought you were suggesting a parking deck next to Goodale Park! :lol:

Walker wrote

dru wrote it’s already been establsihed that if columbus wants to host the truly big conventions like the DNC or RNC, it needs one more large, 4-star hotel near the convention center. so toss in a hilton, sheraton, perhaps a moncaco or what have you with some restaurant space and parking attached.

I agree with dru and Brewmaster. I think another large high-end high-capacity hotel would be perfect in this spot. Plenty of room for parking, retail, restaurant, additional conference rooms, and everything else. It was the reason we missed out on the 2008 Republican National Convention Bid and no matter what your politics are, that would be a lot of money and attention dumped into the local economy for us. This was a pretty highly publicized event too, so when you consider that other larger conventions may be passing us by more privately I think it could beneficial for more than just what makes it into the papers.

dru wrote now what really irks me is the flat lot on Goodale that runs alongside 670. with all the issues surrounding parking for the Short North and the cap, why in the world is that a flat lot? That should have at least two extra levels on it.

Hrmmm… I don’t know if that parcel was large enough to build a garage on. It’s not really a “parking lot”, but just diagonal street parking because they had 5 extra feet and diagonal parking means more cars that can fit instead of standard parallel parking.

Or there could be problems with the proximity to the highway to support that heavy of a structure (yes the caps are heavy too, so I’m not 100% sure on that one) or even the Victorian Village commitees could have frowned upon a garage. I really don’t know if it was on the table or if it could even have been possible.

.

I think we’re referencing different flat lots, which is easy because there are so many. I’m thinking of the convention center lot that runs behind Lu Pon Xi over to the 3rd/4th street exit. At the back end it’s 6 rows deep, and although I lack a degree in architecture, engineering or anything even closely relevant, it seems deep enough for some sort of structure.