Parking problem downtown - too much of it? Not enough?

[organsnyder]

From the article:

The city built the 76-space lot at a cost of $1.8 million in 2010 in anticipation of an office and condominium project developer Jack Buchanan had proposed for the former Imperial Metal Products facility that abuts the parking lot from the south. The city bought the land from Buchanan at a cost of nearly $900,000, according to local media reports.

So they bought the parking property from the developer, who then decided not to build the development. It was probably all above-board, but it certainly has the smell of either cronyism or at least the city being taken advantage of.

Why couldn't the developer build the parking lot themselves?

[RegalTDP]

From the article:

So they bought the parking property from the developer, who then decided not to build the development. It was probably all above-board, but it certainly has the smell of either cronyism or at least the city being taken advantage of.

Why couldn't the developer build the parking lot themselves?

 

You're not the first to point that out:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/grand_rapids_builds_18_million.html

 

But it still bears mentioning out there was a time when demand for parking in that area was expected to increase, and it was a wise move for the city to get in front of the issue...

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/16996-801-ionia-renovation/?p=1017695

 

The actual deal was in 2009.  Remember, this is the same developer who brought us Hangar42.  Does anyone even return his calls anymore after that?

 

 

Unfortunately I think that one (epic) mistake by the city may have spoiled everyone's moods for city/developer partnerships for parking, which is unfortunate. They should sell it to Ellis and get it off the books. Ellis could do a shuttle service from there.

 

Well, Ellis could use more property. 

Edited April 16, 2014 by RegalTDP

[GRDadof3]

From the article:

So they bought the parking property from the developer, who then decided not to build the development. It was probably all above-board, but it certainly has the smell of either cronyism or at least the city being taken advantage of.

Why couldn't the developer build the parking lot themselves?

 

There are quite a few examples of the city building parking facilties to accommodate developments in GR: 38 Commerce, the Gallery, etc.. And the city did have a study done that showed Monroe North had a big need for parking, backed up by the Monroe North Business Association. The problem is is that that lot is too far North. No one wants to walk that far to city center, and it's not served by the DASH.

 

I think a couple of people at the city pushed it through though, despite a lot of doubt from City Commissioners. I bet there's articles still out there from when it was approved.

 

Uh, yeah.

 

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/09/developer_asks_city_to_build_p.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/grand_rapids_commissioners_put.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/fox17-unused-grand-rapids-lot-two-years-later-city-lot-remains-unused-at-ionia-and-mason-20120521,0,1639520.story

[Gorath]

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/09/developer_asks_city_to_build_p.html

Demand for a 350-space ramp may not exist in the North Monroe neighborhood today, but Ritsema said they have learned that development is attracted to new parking facilities.

 

Are we going to learn that development is not attracted to new parking facilities?  The 350 space ramp, which eventually became a 76 space surface lot, has attracted zero development. 

[Jippy]

Long-term, it will work out for the City. They are better positioned to shape redevelopment in the area with this parcel. Long-term, parking demand will grow, and/or they will be able to redevelop it into tax-generating property. 

 

Also, I would assume GR's parking is structured as an enterprise fund, so this bad deal has no impact on the city's general fund.

[GRDadof3]

Are we going to learn that development is not attracted to new parking facilities?  The 350 space ramp, which eventually became a 76 space surface lot, has attracted zero development. 

 

I think that might be the only example though. The Cherry and Commerce ramp allowed WMU/Cooley to expand. The Gallery ramp made it more feasible for the Kendall building to be redeveloped. People want covered parking nearby. Scraping windows in the winter is fine for college students, not for grown adults.

[jonathan.jam]

Saw this article on the front page of The Press today while at the coffee shop:

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/05/more_public_parking_in_downtow.html#incart_river

 

Apparently the city is possibly in need of new parking lots because existing lots might get developed....new parking lots that would be right along the river. *sigh* 

[GR_Urbanist]

 

 

“We were looking around for additional surface-lot parking and said ‘Hey, as a temporary use – no doubt it has a higher and better use long term – we would like to consider making that (Market site) public surface parking,’”

 

Like I've said for years, there is NO SUCH THING as a temporary parking lot in DT GR. The cost to demolish buildings, pave it over, and put up the perfunctory crappy landscaping "band aid" will ensure that it will be around for 20-25 years minimum.

 

There has never been an example of a parking lot, especially one made by the city, that had been developed into an actual building within 5 years of it being made. Some of the lots down there are fast approaching 60 years old!

 

And on the river? What a waste of space. Everything SW of Grandville and Fulton is just becoming a disaster of parking lots, thick roads and highways.

[RegalTDP]

 :

 

The city also would tear down a water system garage along the Grand River on Monroe between Leonard and Coldbrook streets for another parking lot, she said. [Mlive]

 

Yes, clearly the demand for parking in North Monroe is SWELTERING.  The lots at 6th Street and Canal Park are stacked with cars 24/7.  And we just had a news story about how North Ionia is raking in revenue beyond all measure.  It makes perfect sense to pave over one of the most attractive riverside parcels in the city to alleviate some of that pressure.

 

Apparently Toronto isn't the only place where they're smokin' crack in City Hall...

[wingbert]

If they could just route that eyesore of a river underground just think of all the surface parking that could go there.  Nobody wants to walk along the river or dine along the river or live along the river.  Let's just get rid of it.  We can also change the city name to Grand Asphalt.

[MJLO]

Seems Relevant - http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/parking_in_downtown_grand_rapi.html#incart_river

 

40%  vancancy in downtown parking spots.   How many of them are in the lots, like the one highlighted on Ionia that are far enough away that people don't think to park in them?

[joeDowntown]

It would be interesting to see where the vacancies exist. I would have to think most of it is in the outer lots. If it 40% across the board, they might want to re-think putting up another ramp.

 

Joe

[MJLO]

Well its 40% total so there's probably a couple lots not well used bringing the average down.   I would think a ramp by the arena would probably be a profit center for them because of location.

[GRDadof3]

It would be interesting to see where the vacancies exist. I would have to think most of it is in the outer lots. If it 40% across the board, they might want to re-think putting up another ramp.

 

Joe

 

 

Since you can't really rely on the local media to do a good job on this stuff anymore, here's a chart from January 2014 of exactly what the parking inventory is.

 

 

Sorry, that's montly parking permits, not actually occupancy rates. But monthly parkers are going to be the great majority of the daily users.

[x99]

Since you can't really rely on the local media to do a good job on this stuff anymore, here's a chart from January 2014 of exactly what the parking inventory is.

 

Sorry, that's montly parking permits, not actually occupancy rates. But monthly parkers are going to be the great majority of the daily users.

 

I don't know what universe the consultant is living in. The lower cost parking is jam packed full.  Who is going to move their business downtown at a cost of $150 per month per employee?  Staying downtown is a difficult decision, and financially expensive, with parking being the major component of the added expense.  There is nowhere left to park employees at a reasonable price near their jobs.  And somehow this is supposed to help growth?

 

Oh, wait.  The Silver Line will fix it all, so we're subsidizing transit to the tune of $5 plus a ride (ironically by taxing people who own cars...) to reduce the need for parking ramps, but let's be realistic:  Who in their right mind actually thinks they will convince a middle class Midwesterner in a mid-size city to take a bus to work?  Fat.  Stinking.  Chance.  And paying $10 for parking on top of dinner?  Yeah, right.  The only way that happens is if suburbanites all develop a spontaneous addiction to granola, mopeds and Birkenstocks. 

 

What downtown needs are more ramps, at lower prices with smarter, dynamic pricing.  And no, I am not kidding.  Can you imagine Rivertown Mall hiring this consultant to do a parking study and him telling them, "Well, yeah, all your parking anywhere within 500 feet of the mall is packed full, but Meijer has a huge half-empty lot.  Just rent half of their lot, put a gate up, charge $4 to park over there, and use the money to cover a shuttle bus to ferry people back and forth.  And while you're at it, attach a 700 unit apartment complex to the mall, and have all of them park over at Meijer too."  Yet, when the same concept is floated for downtown, no one seems to bat an eyelash...  Why we don't subsidize parking ramps instead of buses baffles me.

[Quercus]

 

The lower cost parking is jam packed full.

 

Did you go out and count lower cost parking utilization? I'm eager to hear what sort of occupancy rates you recorded.

 

Who is going to move their business downtown at a cost of $150 per month per employee?

Adtegrity, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Konica Minolta, TowerPinkster, Springthrough, Wege and Kellogg Foundations

...There are many more. I'm not sure about your $150 figure, and you have to remember a couple of things: not everyone's employees drive to work; higher parking rates can help your bottom line if your employees enjoy their workplace more; other costs--such as carbon emissions--can be avoided by locating downtown.

Additionally, higher parking rates would seem to indicate higher demand. Travel back to the year 1985 and you will quickly understand why there was ample, cheap parking in downtown Grand Rapids.

 

Who in their right mind actually thinks they will convince a middle class Midwesterner in a mid-size city to take a bus to work?  Fat.  Stinking.  Chance.

I think you'd be surprised. I've met folks from all walks of life on The Rapid. Many of them are middle class individuals who have a choice.

 

And paying $10 for parking on top of dinner?  Yeah, right.  The only way that happens is if suburbanites all develop a spontaneous addiction to granola, mopeds and Birkenstocks. 

 

If you're paying $10 to park downtown while you get dinner, you're doing so for the convenience of parking very close to the restaurant. Even with all of the redevelopment Grand Rapids has seen, I still find it ridiculously easy to find free parking around downtown.

If suburbanites are making a trip downtown it's because they see it as a destination and the cost of parking is budgeted in their trip. Driving a car costs around $0.55 / mile and a decent meal for two costs $60. If the cost of parking downtown is enough to prevent a suburbanite from making the trip, I'd wager the individual wasn't planning on tipping at the restaurant.

[Quercus]

 

What downtown needs are more ramps, at lower prices with smarter, dynamic pricing.

I disagree with you about the need for more ramps, but I do think the City needs smarter parking technology all around, not just in ramps. To me 40% occupancy is pretty low...how much lower would it need to be for you to feel GR is meeting parking demand?

 

Can you imagine Rivertown Mall hiring this consultant to do a parking study and him telling them..."within 500 feet of the mall is packed full, but Meijer has a huge half-empty lot.  Just rent half of their lot, put a gate up, charge $4 to park over there, and use the money to cover a shuttle bus to ferry people back and forth.  And while you're at it, attach a 700 unit apartment complex to the mall, and have all of them park over at Meijer too."

The sad thing is, minimum parking standards in the zoning laws mean Rivertown probably has enough parking space to absorb the additional automobiles in your example. Have you ever been to a place with gigantic parking lots? Like Cedar Point? What do they have running from the outer parking lots to the park entrance? Shuttles. Public transportation isn't much different. When you hit certain population densities you can't possibly continue building the infrastructure necessary to carry everyone in a car. Many communities have tried and failed. Grand Rapids was on that track for decades and it was hell.
 

Why we don't subsidize parking ramps instead of buses baffles me.

 

Last I checked, we subsidize both. I for one think it's ridiculous that we've paid for parking facilities that go 60% unused. We certainly shouldn't be throwing more cash into that vortex.

[GRDadof3]

There's nothing I love more than a six (edit: seven) long year debate about parking spaces.

[arcturus]

How many new apartments have/are going online downtown?  How will this affect the stats?  You've got more residents, more friends/relatives of residents visiting that will utilize parking closer to 24/7.  Then you have increased commercial traffic supporting the hospitals, schools, bars, restaurants, retail.  Will reverse commuting to work on bus take hold for those who enjoy the downtown lifestyle? (happening throughout the country).

 

Parking discussions is a subject that will forever continue in perpetuity, not because of whether it's needed or not, but simply a matter of degree.  

[MJLO]

Most residential developments have a built in component for parking.   If you're going to live in one of the places downtown you have to factor the price per space in.   

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here but this study only includes city owned ramps/lots correct?   Or is this taking into account all of the ellis ramps and lots, as well as other privately owned parking areas?

[GRDadof3]

Most residential developments have a built in component for parking.   If you're going to live in one of the places downtown you have to factor the price per space in.   

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here but this study only includes city owned ramps/lots correct?   Or is this taking into account all of the ellis ramps and lots, as well as other privately owned parking areas?

 

That report I posted is just city lots. The study that the parking consultant did, I'm not sure if he/she included privately owned ramps.

[Veloise]

...

Correct me if i'm wrong here but this study only includes city owned ramps/lots correct?   Or is this taking into account all of the ellis ramps and lots, as well as other privately owned parking areas?

On average, more than 40 percent of the city’s 8,615 public parking spots downtown are unoccupied, consultants say. During the middle of the work day, about two-thirds of downtown’s public parking spaces are full.

...

An initial analysis completed last month found that both on-street and off-street spaces are more than 40 percent empty – except on weekend nights when on-street spaces are mostly full.

 

While the article doesn't spell it out, on-street parking is not privately owned, implying that the study is of city-owned parking.

[x99]

Did you go out and count lower cost parking utilization? I'm eager to hear what sort of occupancy rates you recorded.

 

Didn't need to.  See the well-publicized table GRDad reposted.  DASH lots and most all surface lots are full.  There are no cards available.  What is left are ramp spaces, which are about $150 a pop.  Ever actually done a lease analysis to figure out the costs of parking your employees?  I have, and it isn't pretty.   BCBSM was the only major downtown move that I saw in that list, and it was 10 years ago.  If someone has 200 employees, and doesn't want to pay $150 a head a month, they're stuck. 

 

I think you'd be surprised. I've met folks from all walks of life on The Rapid. Many of them are middle class individuals who have a choice.

 

I find it hard to believe there are "many" people who earn a decent wage, have a car and a license, and choose to take the bus.   A car only costs $.55/mile if you have a brand new car, and include insurance and other sunk costs.  Assuming you already have the car, and it's lightly used, you pay for gas, modest mileage-based depreciation, and some maintenance.  It costs about $.10 to $.15 per mile for gas and quite frankly, that's about the only cost anyone who already has a car cares about.  Why would anyone not take the car if they already had it?  Because the promise of a sticky seat next to a stranger on a public diesel bus is so enticing?

 

I disagree with you about the need for more ramps, but I do think the City needs smarter parking technology all around, not just in ramps. To me 40% occupancy is pretty low...how much lower would it need to be for you to feel GR is meeting parking demand?

 

 When you hit certain population densities you can't possibly continue building the infrastructure necessary to carry everyone in a car. Many communities have tried and failed. Grand Rapids was on that track for decades and it was hell.

 

Last I checked, we subsidize both. I for one think it's ridiculous that we've paid for parking facilities that go 60% unused. We certainly shouldn't be throwing more cash into that vortex.

 

As the table posted shows, though, the 40% occupancy figure is nonsense.  Business day parking at city-owned ramps is effectively booked out except at the Fulton/Ionia and Government Center ramps.  Also bear in mind that the top level of any ramp is simply overflow.  Actually paying $150 a month to park and then having to park outside after driving up 6 or 7 stories is not tenable.  No one parks on top of the ramp.  Ever.  Well, except neurotic people who need to watch their car from their window.  They ought to just sell those as reserved monthly spots for $70 a month.  A dual gate system would work fine--swipe in at the bottom anytime from 8-5 and you must also swipe out at the top, or the ramp won't let you back out at the bottom.  I should patent that idea before the City reads my post and rips it off.  Pure genius, I tell you.

 

Ultimately, you might not be able to build enough infrastructure to park everyone.  But in order to achieve a critical mass of people, you're going to need lots of parking.  You can't realistically live a viable middle class or upper middle class lifestyle in a smallish midwestern city with no automobile.  Without parking, you may as well lock the door and turn out the lights.  For residential, you need parking.  For viable office, you need parking.  You run out of affordable parking, you're done expanding until you build more.  Where the tipping point is, I don't know, but we're not nearly close enough to get there with the parking we have now.

 

And no, we do not subsidize parking.  Are there lots that lose money/were mistakes?  Yes, but on the whole, parking runs a tidy profit.

 

Sorry if I sound like an mLive commenter, but they aren't all wrong.  The broader audience thinks that Grand Rapids doesn't have enough parking, and it costs too much, so they don't want to come downtown unless it is for a special event.  Perception, as they say, is reality.  The path to growing the city it is not telling people to take the bus. 

Edited October 6, 2014 by x99

[Jippy]

Frankly, I don't mind if people continue to hold their false perceptions of the difficulty of downtown parking. If they think downtown parking is too much to bother, then great! More seat at the bar for those that like true urbanism. If the seat is empty now, it won't be for much longer.

 

I have never found difficulty parking downtown, regardless of the time of day. Or the day of the week. Clearly more people are desiring to move downtown, so its not like policy makers are making decisions that are pushing folks out. And companies don't locate downtown to reduce their costs. They do it for the energy and the convenience of being in an area rich in amenities, talent, and human capital. By its very nature, inserting more parking into the activity center diminishes the very goals that companies decide to move downtown. Parking is certainly an important consideration, but it is certainly not the first consideration. 

 

And parking costs. It costs $15k to $20k per space for above ground parking. There is also a tremendous opportunity cost associated with ceding limited downtown land for the sole use of a non-operating vehicle, when it could have otherwise generated taxes, hosted businesses or residents, and created an energy for the neighborhood. 

 

Let the never ending battle rage on!!!!

Edited October 6, 2014 by Jippy

[RegalTDP]

 

Sorry if I sound like an mLive commenter, but they aren't all wrong.  The broader audience thinks that Grand Rapids doesn't have enough parking, and it costs too much, so they don't want to come downtown unless it is for a special event.  Perception, as they say, is reality.  The path to growing the city it is not telling people to take the bus. 

 

No, perception is not reality, and yes, mLive commenters are wrong.  No matter how many new ramps get built, people will still complain about it.  Parking is like going to the dentist or the post office - everyone hates it, they'll tell you they hate it, but they still do it nonetheless.  The public at large (let alone mLive) will never be satisfied with how insanely cheap and abundant parking in GR really is.  Scarce parking is a good problem to have, and in GR it's not even scarce.

 

I agree with some of your points - I think new residential and commercial projects will need dedicated parking to get off the ground, as you said.  And I wouldn't say no to lower prices with "smarter, dynamic pricing." But never, ever take your cues from mLive commenters.  People just aren't reliable sources on some topics.

 

As the posted table shows, the 40% occupancy figure is nonsense.  Also bear in mind that the top level of any ramp is simply overflow.  Actually paying $150 a month to park and then having to park outside after driving up 6 or 7 stories is not tenable.  No one parks on top of the ramp.  Ever.  Well, except neurotic people who need to watch their car from their window.  They ought to just sell those as reserved monthly spots for $70 a month.  A dual gate system would work fine--swipe in at the bottom anytime from 8-5 and you must also swipe out at the top, or the ramp won't let you back out at the bottom.  I should patent that idea before the City reads my post and rips it off.  Pure genius, I tell you.

 

  So people would rather not have a space at all than park on the roof?  Even after paying for it?  And apparently that's the city's problem?  I think the wheel here kept spinning after the hamster fell off.

 

And how does the posted table show the 40% figure is nonsense exactly?  (BTW it's 40% vacancy, not occupancy)

Edited October 7, 2014 by RegalTDP