Tomorrow at 9AM on 90.3, Cleveland's NPR station, the topic of discussion will be the resurgance of downtown, new projects, why it's happening now and what can be done to keep the momentum going.

 

Sounds like a perfect show for some UO representation  :yap:

 

Every weekday at 9:00 AM (EST), The Sound of Ideas reports the news, explains the news, and sometimes makes news. The Cleveland Press Club awarded it “Best Radio Show” in Ohio and thousands daily find it to be an indispensable source of information about what’s most important to Northeast Ohioans.

 

http://www.ideastream.org/soi

www.wcpn.org/

Is it on Tuesday the 20th, or Monday the 19th?

sorry, my mistake. Tuesday, March 20th at 9AM est

this is going to be cool

There is nothing 'cool' about NPR, but it should be facsinating! 

Thanks!

 

Solid line up.

Great....the show just starts and my boss comes in for an impromptu meeting.

 

SHUT UP!

VIDEO :)

 

http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/45850

There is nothing 'cool' about NPR, but it should be facsinating! 

 

So what would you consider "cool" these days on the radio waves?

KISS 96.5, which plays only the hottest hits!

Hahahahaha!! NOW, that was funny!

Can someone summarize the report?

Always nice to hear people excited about downtown, but I don't think there was really anything new for the average UOer.  Some cheer-leading by the developers (nothing wrong with that) and a more sober perspective by Litt.  Cimperman recycling the incorrect factoid that the downtown population has never been larger.  Callers complaining about panhandlers and the lack of free parking.

^^Sure- a couple of Cleveland Downtown Developers+Steve Litt go on NPR and talk about stuff that we already know about here on UO.  A few callers call up and b*tch about parking.  Interviewer frustratingly overwords all his questions.  Show ends.

 

edit- btw, on today's show, they played a "last word" e-mail by someone named Chrissy, saying that if people want free parking they should realize that there isn't a vibrant Downtown in America that has it, and that what we need is a cultural change.  This is exactly what I was shouting at my poor clock radio every time a caller got to speak.  I don't know who this Chrissy is, but I think I want to marry her, sight unseen!

I switch the channel for 30s every time a caller gets on any radio show.  It's just not worth it no matter the subject.

I don't think the "parking" argument should be discounted. "Free parking downtown" would be a tremendous selling point and result in a net gain imho.

 

The city will subsidize the big developers to a large extent. I see free parking as nothing more than subsidizing consumers.

 

Done the right way it could also devalue the mighty swath surface lots, thus making the property more suited for development.

 

However I suspect nobody will ever have the political clout to take on the lot barons.

 

 

The panhandler problem has merit, but the free parking complaints are beyond ludicrous.  In what universe do lot and garage owners volunteer their land. Plus there's always street parking.

The panhandler problem has merit, but the free parking complaints are beyond ludicrous.  In what universe do lot and garage owners volunteer their land. Plus there's always street parking.

 

You are missing the point. Who said anything about lot owners volunteering land?

 

You and I know there's on street parking. The reality of the situation doesn't matter however, when the perception is that it's a pain in the ass or "expensive" to come downtown.

I have complained about the parking myself. I think the biggest obstacle here is not that the people who are complaining are unwilling to pay for downtown parking. These same people won't hesitate to go to Chicago to shop and pay to park accordingly, for example. It's generally understood that in big cities, you are going to have to pay to park in the downtown area. What's missing is the payoff for that price. If you pay to park downtown Chicago, you're going to have umpteen shopping, dining and other attractive retail options downtown - spas, salons, nice bars, what have you. I think in general that visitors to downtown here, particularly those from our own suburbs, are not seeing the payoff for this parking. Maybe too much of the value is hidden or considered "limited" to a couple of areas (E 4th/Warehouse). maybe it's not being marketed well enough. But it's also true that a lot of attractive retail options that would be in any other given urban downtown are missing here, and so people feel like they are paying for, well, nothing, or for what they can get elsewhere in the burbs for free. The problem of what's attractive and interesting downtown needs to be fixed before people will stop complaining about paying to park here.

 

I know on a personal level, I have been desperate for some time to find a job ANYWHERE that is not downtown as I am sick to death of paying through the nose for parking. And I can't even relax and enjoy staying for dinner because my daytime lot rate expires at 6pm! I had to move my car from my daytime lot to stay downtown a couple of weeks ago for an evening event at the library. Not only does the parking expire at 6, the lot is prone to car window smashes/break-ins, so I had to move it to a garage and pay an additional $12 on top of the $7 I already paid for the day.

 

And while I enjoy patronizing the downtown restaurants for lunch, I would save a TON of money if I worked somewhere else, as I would be much more likely to pack instead of going to chains, and I wouldn't have to shell out thousands in parking just for the "privelege" of working downtown. It is a problem that shouldn't be ignored. Making the parking free is never going to happen. Increasing the value of being downtown SHOULD happen.

I recall a panel discussion among nationally recognized urban consultants a few years ago that, if we want all the kinds of shopping, dining and cultural amenities downtown that one finds in Chicago or, more appropriate for comparison with Cleveland -- Seattle, Toronto, Portland, and Minneapolis -- then we need to have 10 percent of the mother's city population living downtown. For Cleveland, that's 40,000 people. Attracting them will attract more amenities which should attract more office employers. I believe this is where the subsidy should be directed.

There is definitely some subset of the population that thinks parking is too expensive now given what downtown has to offer, and hopefully they'll be swayed as downtown continues to add appeal.

 

But there is also a very significant population who thinks they are entitled to free parking anywhere.  These people exist in the NYC, Chicago, Boston areas too, and they never come downtown there, and those cities do just fine without them, and so will Cleveland.  Can't be all things to all people, and that's just fine.

I recall a panel discussion among nationally recognized urban consultants a few years ago that, if we want all the kinds of shopping, dining and cultural amenities downtown that one finds in Chicago or, more appropriate for comparison with Cleveland -- Seattle, Toronto, Portland, and Minneapolis -- then we need to have 10 percent of the mother's city population living downtown. For Cleveland, that's 40,000 people. Attracting them will attract more amenities which should attract more office employers. I believe this is where the subsidy should be directed.

 

This a chicken-egg thing that I don't think we have been winning. I know downtown population is growing, but IMO that's largely because of stuff like Warehouse and E 4th, which PRECEDED the influx.

I guess parking during the day is probably a pain, but I go downtown all the time and never pay for parking.  Even when there's a Cavs' game I never have a problem.  People seem to think that downtown stops north of Euclid, because there are always spaces available around the mall, East 9th St., etc.

I guess parking during the day is probably a pain, but I go downtown all the time and never pay for parking.  Even when there's a Cavs' game I never have a problem.  People seem to think that downtown stops north of Euclid, because there are always spaces available around the mall, East 9th St., etc.

 

I agree. If you know where to look, it's not hard to find a free spot. You'll probably have to walk 2+ blocks to get where you want to go, but it would be ridiculous to say that is too burdensome.

 

This a chicken-egg thing that I don't think we have been winning. I know downtown population is growing, but IMO that's largely because of stuff like Warehouse and E 4th, which PRECEDED the influx.

 

I'm not following you. I think the influx has slowed over the past decade. If anything, the influx was in the 1990s and a little bit into the 2000s. Since Pinnacle opened the mid-2000s, I don't recall any large-scale residential projects.

 

And from everything I've read, the universal downtown development playbook is to do just as the urban panelists suggested -- residential first. And if you have to subsidize it to get it, then you do it. The other stuff follows.

There is definitely some subset of the population that thinks parking is too expensive now given what downtown has to offer, and hopefully they'll be swayed as downtown continues to add appeal.

 

But there is also a very significant population who thinks they are entitled to free parking anywhere.  These people exist in the NYC, Chicago, Boston areas too, and they never come downtown there, and those cities do just fine without them, and so will Cleveland.  Can't be all things to all people, and that's just fine.

 

While I think you're dead-on about the cities you've mentioned, I don't think we're anywhere close to them to warrant a good comparison.

 

I don't think Cleveland is fine at all; or can afford to be in any way passive in confronting serious issues. I think more immediate and drastic measures need to be taken to fight our way back into prominence. For me, the current pace we are at is unacceptable.

 

This a chicken-egg thing that I don't think we have been winning. I know downtown population is growing, but IMO that's largely because of stuff like Warehouse and E 4th, which PRECEDED the influx.

 

And from everything I've read, the universal downtown development playbook is to do just as the urban panelists suggested -- residential first. And if you have to subsidize it to get it, then you do it. The other stuff follows.

 

Consider the possibility that free parking sparks more shoppers downtown, which leads to better, more vibrant retail. Better retail leads to livelier streets and sidewalks. The perception and value of nearby properties goes up in value. More taxes go to the city for services and schools. More people begin to consider downtown a viable option for residency.

 

I'm not at all suggesting free parking means we'll turn into Portland. But it's just one of those igniters that helps turn the tide toward CLE becoming the city we want it to be.

I guess parking during the day is probably a pain, but I go downtown all the time and never pay for parking.  Even when there's a Cavs' game I never have a problem.  People seem to think that downtown stops north of Euclid, because there are always spaces available around the mall, East 9th St., etc.

 

I agree. If you know where to look, it's not hard to find a free spot. You'll probably have to walk 2+ blocks to get where you want to go, but it would be ridiculous to say that is too burdensome.

 

Guys, if retailers assumed consumers used common sense they'd all be bankrupt. They are lemmings!

KJP, this is definitely something that you have done more research on than I have, so I will defer to you. And from what I understand of the bursting at the seams state of residential, perhaps that does come first. But we have seen numerous people come to this site and then balk at the additional cost of monthly parking with a downtown rental, especially when those rentals are more than in nearby areas and burbs. I think it's just going to equate to slower than perhaps necessary growth if the cost is so much higher to be in downtown vs. elsewhere if there is not enough "payoff" for it. At the current level of downtown, I don't think even if the whole city provided free parking that it would significantly increase traffic. To what? Tower City, which most women shoppers accurately perceive as a place where there isn't a whole lot they want to buy? To the restaurants on E 4th and Warehouse that they already patronize? To the library?

Here's an article worth reading. It is part of a series....

 

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/matt-taecker/14011/unrealized-potential-downtown-housing

 

Do persons who post here, asking for information about living in/near downtown, balk at paying for parking more than those who don't post here with questions? What I'm saying is that, those who are pretty urban savvy and seek out information for themselves may be less inclined to need parking, or know what to expect cost-wise if they do, than those who need to post questions here.

 

Summary -- the price of parking is what the market will bear. If downtown lot owners can make money at the current parking rates, then that is what they will charge. We can't sit here and say the parking rates are ridiculous and dissuades people from going downtown, then turn around and pay the rates ourselves -- in turn helping to sustain those rates.

 

I was just in Chicago last week and it also surprises me how little traffic there is downtown, and how few public parking facilities (surface lots or decks) there are. Why is that, yet Chicago has such a dense, diverse, vibrant, active, successful downtown? Compare that to how much of downtown Cleveland is devoted to surface lots and public parking decks. I'll give you a clue -- Chicago's success has nothing to do with parking.

There is definitely some subset of the population that thinks parking is too expensive now given what downtown has to offer, and hopefully they'll be swayed as downtown continues to add appeal.

 

But there is also a very significant population who thinks they are entitled to free parking anywhere.  These people exist in the NYC, Chicago, Boston areas too, and they never come downtown there, and those cities do just fine without them, and so will Cleveland.  Can't be all things to all people, and that's just fine.

 

While I think you're dead-on about the cities you've mentioned, I don't think we're anywhere close to them to warrant a good comparison.

 

I don't think Cleveland is fine at all; or can afford to be in any way passive in confronting serious issues. I think more immediate and drastic measures need to be taken to fight our way back into prominence. For me, the current pace we are at is unacceptable.

 

My bad for not being clear; I didn't mean to compare Cleveland to those other cities, just pointing out that you'll never make the "I'll never pay for parking" crowd happy no matter what, so we should be careful who we're trying to accommodate.

 

I'm theoretically open to the possibility that subsidizing parking could broaden our downtown's appeal to a deeper pool of suburbanites and that Cleveland could benefit from this more than other downtowns because our urban middle class is so thin.  I'm just skeptical that the money couldn't be better spent on more sustainable improvements, like project subsidies, which is more or less what KJP said.  And I also suspect that a large part of the parking problem isn't the price, it's the fact that there's any fee at all and that the parking is in garages.

 

The host of the radio show asked [kind of annoyingly] why should people pay to park downtown when they can park for free at Legacy Village.  The real answer is that if they like Cheesecake Factory and live in the eastern burbs and don't care much for people watching, they shouldn't.  That's fine.  I have no problem if downtown somehow evolves on its own to attract that person, but I just don't see it as a pressing priority if it means shifting subsidies away from other kinds of projects.

^Agree.

Here's an article worth reading. It is part of a series....

 

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/matt-taecker/14011/unrealized-potential-downtown-housing

 

Do persons who post here, asking for information about living in/near downtown, balk at paying for parking more than those who don't post here with questions? What I'm saying is that, those who are pretty urban savvy and seek out information for themselves may be less inclined to need parking, or know what to expect cost-wise if they do, than those who need to post questions here.

 

Summary -- the price of parking is what the market will bear. If downtown lot owners can make money at the current parking rates, then that is what they will charge. We can't sit here and say the parking rates are ridiculous and dissuades people from going downtown, then turn around and pay the rates ourselves -- in turn helping to sustain those rates.

 

I was just in Chicago last week and it also surprises me how little traffic there is downtown, and how few public parking facilities (surface lots or decks) there are. Why is that, yet Chicago has such a dense, diverse, vibrant, active, successful downtown? Compare that to how much of downtown Cleveland is devoted to surface lots and public parking decks. I'll give you a clue -- Chicago's success has nothing to do with parking.

 

That's a good article.

 

I think it's off base to make this a where to invest money: "free parking/consumers vs. residences" issue. My point is that free parking would be a cog in the process to jump start development across the board, including residential. Keep making downtown a better place to be, and it will continue being a better place to live.

 

I'm not sure I get your parking question though.

 

During the week (for work) I concede I have to pay 2.50 for parking. I personally know all of the free places to park on nights/weekends and generally don't mind walking. As a matter of principal I don't patronize the big surface lots ever.

 

 

 

My bad for not being clear; I didn't mean to compare Cleveland to those other cities, just pointing out that you'll never make the "I'll never pay for parking" crowd happy no matter what, so we should be careful who we're trying to accommodate.

 

I'm theoretically open to the possibility that subsidizing parking could broaden our downtown's appeal to a deeper pool of suburbanites and that Cleveland could benefit from this more than other downtowns because our urban middle class is so thin.  I'm just skeptical that the money couldn't be better spent on more sustainable improvements, like project subsidies, which is more or less what KJP said.  And I also suspect that a large part of the parking problem isn't the price, it's the fact that there's any fee at all and that the parking is in garages.

 

The host of the radio show asked [kind of annoyingly] why should people pay to park downtown when they can park for free at Legacy Village.  The real answer is that if they like Cheesecake Factory and live in the eastern burbs and don't care much for people watching, they shouldn't.  That's fine.  I have no problem if downtown somehow evolves on its own to attract that person, but I just don't see it as a pressing priority if it means shifting subsidies away from other kinds of projects.

 

Thanks for clarifying, they are good points.

 

Summary -- the price of parking is what the market will bear. If downtown lot owners can make money at the current parking rates, then that is what they will charge. We can't sit here and say the parking rates are ridiculous and dissuades people from going downtown, then turn around and pay the rates ourselves -- in turn helping to sustain those rates.

 

I would venture the vast majority of people complaining about currently paying for parking are folks like myself, who work downtown and feel they have no other choice but to drive and pay the parking fees. Consumably irritating announcements aside, my decision to quit riding the rapid came right about when I had a kid. If school calls and your kid is sick and has to be picked up, you have ONE HOUR to get there. There is no way I could reasonably do that if I were an RTA rider, with walktime to the train, daytime trains as infrequent as they are and the drive back from the station to the school unless I happened to arrive right when a train was coming. And if it were a real emergency, I sure as shit wouldn't want to be stuck on a rapid platform waiting for a train when I could be driving quickly to a hospital.

I would venture the vast majority of people complaining about currently paying for parking are folks like myself, who work downtown and feel they have no other choice but to drive and pay the parking fees. Consumably irritating announcements aside, my decision to quit riding the rapid came right about when I had a kid. If school calls and your kid is sick and has to be picked up, you have ONE HOUR to get there. There is no way I could reasonably do that if I were an RTA rider, with walktime to the train, daytime trains as infrequent as they are and the drive back from the station to the school unless I happened to arrive right when a train was coming. And if it were a real emergency, I sure as shit wouldn't want to be stuck on a rapid platform waiting for a train when I could be driving quickly to a hospital.

 

Isn't that what an au pair is for? :-P

I sure don't mind paying for parking downtown and think the $8 E. 4th St.  valet is a great service and relative bargain and have used it frequently. However, since I am an evil east side suburbanite, literally typing this from the Cheesecake Factory at Legacy Village (slighted above) what do I know or matter....???

All this discussion of "free parking" forgets that nothing is free.  Who is going to pay for these parking garages to be built.  It won't be cheap, folks! We're talking about well into the tens or probably hundreds of millions of dollars to make enough parking to move the market.  Do the retailers/restauranteurs pay that? The City?  The County?  The DCA?

 

It's much more realistic to up the value proposition, as rockandroller suggested at one point.  It is happening already.  But this is a slow process, and yes, people are going to complain.

LOL au pair.

^^If the proposal is literally to make all parking downtown free or super cheap to users, then sure, it's absurd, but otherwise I think you're overstating the barrier here.  Downtown restaurants and retailers have long subsidized the sticker price of parking through validation, and you could easily conceive of a public subsidy to convince more of them to do this.  Alternatively, it would probably have taken only a few hundred thousand per year to make up the [deeper] revenue shortfalls from substantial rate cuts for daytime operation of the gateway garages.  Already, the city prices on-street parking far below market value during daytime hours, effectively foregoing lots of $ every year.  I just don't think the availability of cheap or free parking is the real barrier though, so all that said, I agree that public money is better spent increasing the appeal of downtown through project subsidies.

I sure don't mind paying for parking downtown and think the $8 E. 4th St.  valet is a great service and relative bargain and have used it frequently. However, since I am an evil east side suburbanite, literally typing this from the Cheesecake Factory at Legacy Village (slighted above) what do I know or matter.... :?

 

 

NO...CHEESECAKE..FACTORY!!!!!!!!!

I'm not much of a fan either, but I honestly have no idea where you saw the slight, diwrthwein.  Do you think public money should have been spend to get you to eat lunch downtown today instead?

All this discussion of "free parking" forgets that nothing is free.  Who is going to pay for these parking garages to be built.  It won't be cheap, folks! We're talking about well into the tens or probably hundreds of millions of dollars to make enough parking to move the market.  Do the retailers/restauranteurs pay that? The City?  The County?  The DCA?

 

If we're talking "free" garages, what if there were say two or three strategically located in concert with RTA. They would certainly be a tremendous draw, especially if they were safe and well-designed...heck, make them the best parking garages in the world, with available services to have salt washed off of your car, armor all the dashboard, etc.

 

Now if you're a retailer, these garages now become prime real estate and you're going to want to benefit from the traffic. So design with that in mind and revenues from those leases can help offset the costs of the garage.

 

Then after a year of seeing only four or five lonely cars parked in the vast sea of surface lots the owners will sell or develop them, and we can have a big party.

Hmm...we have many well traveled members on this board.  Is anybody aware of any American city with any "significant" free parking in their central business district (either public or private).

Hmm...we have many well traveled members on this board.  Is anybody aware of any American city with any "significant" free parking in their central business district (either public or private).

 

Maybe not what you're looking for city-wise, but Akron has free parking.

 

p.s. we currently subsidize cars to move as we fund streets and highways. Why do we do that? I'm not sure why it's outlandish to suggest subsidizing cars to park also, especially when it could help struggling urban areas. Cities don't become vibrant overnight, and this kind of subsidy can be a temporary measure that phases out in the future as visitors/commuters become steered more toward public transit options.

^where exactly?  I use to always pay for parking when travelling to Akron and it actually was not cheap given the size of the city.

I will say I was surprised how much free parking I was able to find when I lived in Los Angeles, but the lone exception was the relatively small "proper" businses district where I worked. That being said, many of their "suburban" cities are a lot bigger and more populated than I would guess downtown Cleveland is, and it doesn't seem right that I could find a place to park for businesses in, say, downtown Santa Monica, Century City, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Burbank, Encino, and various parts of LA "city" proper but there is no free parking for most businesses in downtown cleveland. I mean, you can't even park for free to go to our library, let alone a quick stop at CVS or to Dredger's Union or a hair salon on W 6th, but I could park for free for 15 or 30 minutes at the downtown LA library.

Akron to offer free parking to pump up downtown

Cleveland can't make same deal

 

Posted: 02/28/2011

 

AKRON, Ohio -  A major city in northeast Ohio is about to begin a free parking offer in hopes of boosting downtown business.

 

Starting Tuesday, the first hour will be free for people using Akron's city-owned parking garages.

 

Mayor Don Plusquellic says in a statement that the program will encourage visitors to spend more time downtown and will support the growth of retail business there.

 

Officials in Akron's larger neighbor, Cleveland, say they're not able to give the same deal. A spokeswoman for Mayor Frank Jackson said that the city needs all the revenue from its parking garages to pay off bonds used to build those facilities.

 

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/akron_canton_news/akron-to-offer-free-parking-to-pump-up-downtown#ixzz1pmYS3YWL

 

Ah, free for the first hour does not equal "free parking", but might be more doable.  Of course, it doesn't do anything for someone who wants to spend more than an hour Downtown, but it would be great for CVS. 

 

Find out what it costs us to pay off those bonds, and there is the cost of us doing this.  I bet it isn't cheap, but might be doable.  I bet people would still b*tch mightily that it isn't right in front of where they want to go though.

Ah, free for the first hour does not equal "free parking", but might be more doable.  Of course, it doesn't do anything for someone who wants to spend more than an hour Downtown, but it would be great for CVS. 

 

Find out what it costs us to pay off those bonds, and there is the cost of us doing this.  I bet it isn't cheap, but might be doable.  I bet people would still b*tch mightily that it isn't right in front of where they want to go though.

 

No the Akron model doesn't match my vision for parking utopia.