
Parking Bombs: Destroying Downtowns for Cars - tcskeptic
http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2010/02/parking-bombs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+overheadwire+%28The+Overhead+Wire%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
======
Kadin
I agree with the article's overall thesis, but the example used -- Hartford,
CT -- wasn't convincing. Having lived in Hartford and knowing quite a bit
about the history there, I think the proliferation of parking was just another
symptom rather than the cause of the urban decline.

The downtown core had already fallen into decline when the Interstate got
punched through and when most of those parking lots got created; the
Interstate (I-84) was a very conscious form of "urban renewal."

The elephant in the room is the phenomenon usually called "white flight" --
there was a sort of positive feedback loop created by the introduction of the
automobile after WWII, where people who could afford cars discovered that they
could live outside the cities where there was more room, and as they did so
the urban core areas become less desirable places for people with means to
live. This fed on itself, until the urban core areas became economic and
racial ghettos, and the surburbanites started demanding big freeways so they
could get in and out to work more easily. Those freeways were constructed by
bulldozing the ghettos, sometimes with ill-concealed racism.

That pattern was a big part of what occurred in Hartford, which until very
recently was a place that people from the surrounding areas _just didn't go_
except to work, buy drugs, or catch the occasional Whalers game (and not
enough of the latter). That is starting to change, or so I've heard, but
slowly.

But it's not like the parking lots _caused_ the decline; the parking lots were
only created after things had already started to go downhill. They represented
a sort of coup de grace to cities, since they oftentimes involved bulldozing
beautiful buildings the likes of which will probably never be rebuilt, but
they were a predictable effect after the people with money and influence
departed for the suburbs.

~~~
ams6110
Parking is also one of the lowest-overhead ways to generate income from a
property. Low cost to get started, and very little in the way of operating
expenses and maintenance.

------
azm
Its all nice and good to point out the problem that parking causes in terms of
the development or destruction of any downtown, however unless the lack of
parking is compensated for by having an excellent public transit system (like
Portland) simply removing parking or not starting to address the issue is a
recipe for disaster.

Take Los Angeles for example, there are way too many parking structures and
lots all over downtown. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to get into
downtown unless you are withing 5 miles of it. And you don't really want to
live in that area. Even the SF Bay area for that matter, yes there is BART and
Muni, but unless you live in the city (for the most part) BART is quite
useless if your area of interest is more than a mile outside the sliver that
BART services (ignoring all the other problems BART has), and Muni is a joke
during rush hour, not to mention the combination of BART + Muni + anything
else that you use gets to be pretty pricey.

Unless the issues of public transit are addressed properly, nothing will fix
the parking problem or the congestion problem or the gas usage problem or the
pollution problem to mention a few.

~~~
rdtsc
> unless the lack of parking is compensated for by having an excellent public
> transit system.

That is the key. If public transit system was destroyed or never developed a
city would have to either build parking facilities or build a public transit
system. It all comes down to these questions:

    
    
       - "How do we expect people to get downtown?"
       - "How do we expect people to get around downtown?"
    

The approach a city takes will mostly answer these questions.

If nobody lives downtown and they have to commute from distant suburbs, it
could make sense in the short term to start building parking spaces. The city
is eventually transformed into an "office city". Everything closes down at 5.
It is hard to even move around the city, so office workers would just go to
lunch some place nearby their office, then quickly get in their cars and
escape to the suburbs. That is not a city that I would like to live near or go
to. But that is what a lot of American cities have become.

If many people live downtown or near downtown area, then it makes sense to
invest in a public transit system. This also helps people move around the
city. It opens an opportunity for evening, and weekend businesses, for
entertainment and tourism.

This is also a chicken and egg problem. A city could decide to encourage
building residential areas downtown to attract different segments of
populations there. But that is a long term solution. It takes many years to
revitalize a downtown neighborhood, especially if it is a high crime area, has
a lot of abandoned buildings, and most of all, a bad reputation.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"That is not a city that I would like to live near or go to."_

Then for your own sake don't come to Seattle. You just described this city's
downtown to the letter.

~~~
coryrc
Sure, that describes downtown, but we have Capitol Hill and Fremont etc to
make up for it.

------
jrockway
Well, what cities do now is make parking the first n stories of a building,
and then build the rest of the structure on top of that as normal. Over the
last 5 years, I have watched many of the parking lots in my neighborhood
become parking lots with condos on top (and retail stores below the parking).

This seems to be the best of all worlds -- the parking doesn't take anything
away, it just makes the buildings 5 stories taller. Why anyone would drive
their car in a major city, though, is beyond me.

Now if only the roads could be moved underground and replaced with parks (and
a bicycle path); that would be really nice.

~~~
AlecM
Some major cities still lack adequate public transportation, like Seattle and
Los Angeles. I live in the latter, about 10 miles from downtown due to cost
(about $600-$700 cheaper on rent) and I have to drive in because public
transportation would include taking light rail to subway to bus and tack on an
extra hour to my commute and cost literally hundreds a month. Far cheaper and
faster to drive, even with the abysmal LA traffic.

~~~
jrockway
I've been to Seattle and didn't see any problem with the public
transportation. Those buses with trolley poles are cool!

(The reality is that not every city has the population and demand to have a
Tokyo-like subway system. Sometimes, buses are enough.)

~~~
fortes
I lived in Seattle for 6 years, 2 of which were completely car free. It's
possible, but you're swimming upstream. I'm now in NYC, and it is far easier.

------
techiferous
Ideally, cities should be structured so that automobiles are used on special
occasions, not for day-to-day transportation. I have the good fortune of
living in Cambridge, MA where I can be car-free.

~~~
_delirium
It's tricky to do, though, and I think in the US, only NYC has really come
close. Even in Cambridge and Boston, most people still drive, partly because
the transit takes a really long time from many parts of the city. And in San
Francisco, an absolutely tiny city geographically (about 6 miles across), it's
not much faster to take Muni than to _walk at a brisk pace_ (Muni averages 8
mph).

~~~
techiferous
Yes, it is tricky to do. The way I pulled it off is that when I moved to
Boston, I ditched my car. That way, the places I started going to were all
T-accessible. If you already live in Boston you probably have places you go
that aren't served well by the T. It ended up working out fabulously for me,
and I wish other Americans eventually have the car-free opportunity that I do.

------
julius_geezer
The lots seem to me a symptom rather than a cause. Parking lots are a low-
intensity land use, and as a given downtown revives, the lots go down under
the new buildings or (at an intermediate stage) onto the first few floors.

------
Groxx
Did anyone else notice that employment % actually went _up_ quite a bit after
the parking lot boom? And the loss in population is consistent with less
living space.

    
    
      Before: 114,400 / 162,180 =  ~71%
      After: 106,900 / 121,580 = ~88%
    

Based on that alone, I'd say Hartford is almost a better example of the
opposite. Almost 30% unemployment is hugely damaging to a city, though it does
open it up for factories to come in. I didn't read through to any of the
linked articles for alternate explanations, though.

~~~
lief79
That seems to be ignoring commuters. Suburbanites often commute into the city,
raising employment numbers while reducing the number of employed locals.

For instance (from wikipedia):

Manhattan is the economic engine of New York City, with its 2.3 million
workers drawn from the entire New York metropolitan area accounting for almost
two-thirds of all jobs in New York City.[139] Manhattan's daytime population
swells to 2.87 million, with commuters adding a net 1.34 million people to the
population. This commuter influx of 1.46 million workers coming into Manhattan
was the largest of any other county or city in the country, and was more than
triple the 480,000 commuters who headed into second-ranked Washington,
D.C.[140][141]

Based on your method, Manhatten has ~200% employment rate. (Yes I noticed the
numbers there seem to conflict slightly, but it gets the point across.)

~~~
Groxx
Good point, hadn't considered that.

That said, wouldn't that generate a LOT of income tax for the city?

------
cubix
One way streets seem to have a similar effect. Even in an otherwise thriving
downtown core, one way streets often have a dead, sterile quality to them,
except for, and likely because of, the cars that rip through.

------
arethuza
The before and after aerial view of Hartford reminded me of Glasgow - which is
a rare example of a European city that has had a freeway/motorway driven
almost right through the center.

------
albertcardona
A much structured and detailed argument against parking lots is done by Jane
Jacobs in her book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." She shows
data, not just a hand-picked (bad) example.

~~~
masterj
An excellent book, and one that I've sadly yet to get all the way through.

The High Cost of Free Parking by Shoup goes into exhaustive detail on the
effects of parking, specifically how the idea that parking should always be
provided free of charge distorts the market for automobiles and city
development. It's long and pretty dry, but the first few chapters at least are
very enlightening.

