We could have free parking downtown just like Legacy Village.  All we need to do is completely surround downtown in inexpensive, low-maintenance surface lots the same way LV is designed.

The other side of this whole thing is management of the on-street parking supply.  There is a serious disconnect now between daytime pricing for well-located garages and on-street spaces.  I'm not sure if it makes sense yet for Cleveland, but other cities are experimenting with dynamic pricing that squeezes more revenue out of a public asset, but also pushes enough regular parkers into garages (our out of cars altogether) through higher prices so that there is more availability to people willing to pay a premium for the convenience of a curb-side spot.

 

Is it also time for some downtown meters to be enforced during the evening?  Are any of them active in the evening now? Might be useful for keeping more spaces open for diners/shoppers rather than restaurant employees or stadium visitors.

Almost 120,000 people work downtown. If we want free parking, we will need to accommodate them also because they will fill those spots.  Don't forget the 12,000 people living downtown.  As a downtown resident, I pay $120 a month to park my car - should that also be free?  Personally, if suburbanites want to stay in the suburbs, I am OK.  Even if we provided free parking, there would suddenly be another reason for them to not come downtown - "it feels unsafe", "there are too many people and I feel unsafe (riding RTA)", "the streets are empty and it feels unsafe", "there is nothing to do", etc.  I am tired of trying to make an urban environment based on a suburban mindset.

Straphanger, metered parking has always been free after 6:00pm and on weekends in Cleveland.

Almost 120,000 people work downtown. If we want free parking, we will need to accommodate them also because they will fill those spots.  Don't forget the 12,000 people living downtown.  As a downtown resident, I pay $120 a month to park my car - should that also be free?  Personally, if suburbanites want to stay in the suburbs, I am OK.  Even if we provided free parking, there would suddenly be another reason for them to not come downtown - "it feels unsafe", "there are too many people and I feel unsafe (riding RTA)", "the streets are empty and it feels unsafe", "there is nothing to do", etc.  I am tired of trying to make an urban environment based on a suburban mindset.

 

Okay lets be clear. My use of the term "free" really means "subsizided." Yes I would accomodate all commuters and residents.

 

We already subsidize cars to move, why not to park if it can benefit the city?

 

You may be happy keeping people out of the city. I'm not. Every morning I walk to Key Tower from the lakefront and more often than not there isn't another person within 100 yards of me. I want more people here, downtown, as soon as possible.

 

My parking suggestion isn't a permanent ideal. It's merely a temporary jump start to improving downtown and to devalue surface parking lots. It's predicated on an evolution in thinking; people who have suburban tendancies (the vast majority) can be won over. 

 

I am sure we want the same thing: a vibrant downtown. I'm just trying to think outside the box to see that happen within my lifetime. Then again, none of this forum talk has tremendous value. I just like hearing other peoples' ideas.

Surf - we subsidize the car culture around here enough.  If private businesses want to subsidize or provide the parking to their patrons they are free to do so and some do.

 

TMH - just to keep the facts straight and not disagreeing with you points...... I know for certain you don't have any competition for parking from about 2000 to 3000 of those 'residents' and I would guess up in the ballpark of about 1/3 of the rest.

Surf - we subsidize the car culture around here enough.  If private businesses want to subsidize or provide the parking to their patrons they are free to do so and some do.

 

Agree we subsidize car culture too much. We also subsidize crooked developers too much. But at this point it's a necessary thing to evoke change.

 

Right now the majority of private businesses don't have the resources to support parking. At least not yet because Cleveland is a retail ghost town right now.

 

Again, if someone is content with the status quo I can understand the reluctance to go this "free parking" route. I'm just at the point where I am just not content with the pace of change; or rather, I feel as if every gain we make here comes with a nearly equal loss.

 

Anyhow, that's something to discuss over an UO happy hour in the future. I don't want to go too far off topic with my heretical lack of faith in humanity. 

There is too much parking in Cleveland, particularly surface lots. What we should be doing is taxing parking lots more like they do in other cities (I believe some Pennsylvania cities tax undeveloped land more than developed land) so that we can make the development on parking lots more feasible than knocking down vacant buildings for new development.

 

If we ever want to transition as a healthy, vibrant city, we need to cast aside the dominant car culture. Cities are for people, not their automobiles. Automobiles have ruined the American city in many ways One of the biggest obstacles to overcoming the car is transit, Cleveland needs to reach a level of transit service that cars are not much more convenient then transit. That means more service, more frequent stops, and further reaching service.

 

I hope parking gets more expensive, that means the land is worth more. You can have your free parking, but the supply would need to be so great that Cleveland would be reduced to mega blocks surrounded by surface lots, not a place I want to visit or live in.

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.

 

Actually, you can. There are a limited number of free parking spaces along Euclid between Public Square and East 9th -- possibly even farther east. Sometimes if I'm just popping into the office for a minute, I park on Euclid between 668 and the City Club Building on either side of the street. There is a CVS there, too! ;-) You can park for up to an hour for free. But I think those may be the only free spaces downtown (perhaps there may be more farther east on Euclid).

 

Almost 120,000 people work downtown. ....Don't forget the 12,000 people living downtown.

 

I think both sets of numbers are too high. There was a serious drop in the number of downtown workers since 2007 and we've yet to crack the 10,000 residents mark, even with the 2,000 people in county jail included.

 

 

I really liked this Sound of Ideas discussion, but I was a surprised that a significant discussion was about parking.

 

FIRST - Free parking doesn't really exist anywhere. There is some kind of cost for both the property owner and the consumer. For the property owner, he/she may be required to provide a parking lot by the (suburban) city. Those spaces cost money to create and maintain, but also a create an opportunity cost in lost capacity space for their actual building and how many customers/clients they can serve. For the consumer, some of those costs from the property owner are passed on in whatever goods or services they purchase. But there is also a cost for the consumer (especially in suburban locations) where they are forced to drive from one location to the other as opposed to parking in a single locale to accomplish a variety of things within a walkable distance of each other.

 

SECOND - Downtown offers a variety of places to park at various prices, and many of those prices are extremely reasonable if not free. If you want to valet at a restaurant, park in a Gateway Garage during a special event, or park on Public Square parking lot, you will pay a premium. On the flip side for example, there are plenty of $1 all day parking lots in the Flats under the Detroit-Superior Bridge. As mentioned before, you CAN find free parking on the streets after 6PM and weekends. The key to finding reasonably priced parking downtown or free parking on the streets is to circle some blocks and look at your options. 

 

(I also happen to live on the West Bank of the Flats and have no trouble walking across the Center Street Bridge or Detroit-Superior Bridge to walk downtown in a matter of minutes. If you want an insider tip, park on the West Bank near the terminus of either of these bridges, and you can find free parking. There isn't even metered parking, so these spots are 100% free and walkable to downtown.)

 

The idea of paying for parking as a negativism to the downtown experience is really disappointing, but apparently unavoidable (to any metro area). I am first and foremost a proponent of creating a downtown not reliant on automobiles. Let downtown foster and cater to the residents, visitors (hotel guests) and public transit riders. However, if we must cater to automobiles, perhaps Downtown Cleveland Alliance could create a user friendly online searchable database and interactive map of parking structures downtown with prices and distances to where they need to go. This could also be developed into a downtown parking app of some kind for smartphones.

 

 

Just catching up some on UO...

 

Scanning this thread, one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb:  Surfohio, the libertarian, wants the government to tell private landowners that they are not allowed to charge for parking in their lots? ???

Just catching up some on UO...

 

Scanning this thread, one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb:  Surfohio, the libertarian, wants the government to tell private landowners that they are not allowed to charge for parking in their lots? ???

 

Hi Jeff. No no no, my idea was to subsidize parking with new publicly built garages, placed strategically to 1. work in concert with expanded RTA and 2. devalue current surface lots in the city center to allow for better use.

 

So you want the government to enter the marketplace, drive down profits for private business and, in the process, devalue the privately held land?  Turn in your RonPaul2012 sticker immediately!

Vulpster I believe you are absolutely right on both points you've mentioned.

 

But however many times I use RTA, cycle to work, or park my car in the flats or several blocks east of downtown, I also believe that the vast majority of people in NEO won't do that.

 

The fastest way to accomplish what I'd consider a vibrant city is to cater to the automobile. (actually, expanding RTA across the board would be preferable, but my inclination is that would be drastically more expensive right now and that current downtown population couldn't justify it).

 

With good planning this selling point of "free" parking garages could actually be done in a way to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

As more people become familiar and comfortable downtown it will become an even more attractive option for new businesses and new residents. Like Mike Holmgren would say, "it's a process."

 

I just think that that many forget there is still a huge wall that prevents people from considering downtown. Sure some are hopelessly anti-urban.  Yet I don't think we can transition without the support of suburban types; they are vital for our resurgence and I am certain that they can be won over.

 

p.s. like your app idea, and would love to hear more about Zimzolla's PA "tax the lot owners" approach.

 

 

 

So you want the government to enter the marketplace, drive down profits for private business and, in the process, devalue the privately held land?  Turn in your RonPaul2012 sticker immediately!

 

Never those stickers belong to me, and also to some of the stop signs in my hood!

 

p.s. you've said before that "we" are the government. So sure, lets enter the marketplace.

 

p.s.s. NO WAR WITH IRAN! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME! AUDIT THE FED! END THE DRUG WAR! lol

Aside from the parking issue brought up on this Sound of Ideas, I thought there were some other interesting notes in the discussion.

 

On the issue of development competition and cannibalizing, I'm not worried about this downtown the way I once was. I used to think that East Fourth Street or W.25th Street were going to hollow out the Warehouse District, but I don't see that happening now. I think the Flats East Bank and Lakefront Development will be successful.

 

I've lived in the Flats for about 1.5 years now, after living in Lakewood for three years. I'm downtown several days a week and I work a lot with visitors and various civic leaders. There seems to be a real momentum, and mainstream widespread acceptance of downtown optimism that didn't exist 5 years ago.

Subsidize renovation of commercial spaces on select downtown streets that need it for certain destination uses (restaurants, bars, etc). Everyone here acknowledges that even suburbanites are willing to pay for parking if there's a quality urban experience to be had. While I agree that having residents is important I'd argue it's more important to get the commercial presence there first to increase desirability to the extent that you can easily attract new residents, especially from out of state. If you win over urbanites from other big cities on the coast, then you'll get enough suburbanites to spend a decent amount of money there. If new apartment buildings popped up tomorrow with 5,000-10,000 more  downtown residents, would *any*one be more inclined to visit Cleveland and bite the bullet to pay for parking if they're really that hung up on it? I'm sure that's a "no". Now, if you were to fill in currently empty storefronts between the Warehouse District and Cleveland State to better connect 4th St to Playhouse Square and begin to multiply the number of destinations in a designated area (say, Euclid) you would certainly see more visitors, more money spent Downtown, and more people complaining about parking. Pushing for pro-small business incentives seems much more doable than free downtown parking and in any case how many places that rely on high turnover would want customers paying $5 or less and sitting around for hours?

 

While I agree there's a parking problem it's not for cars. Where are all of the on-street scooter/moped/motorcycle parking zones? Columbus has them. People use them, albeit it's no longer free ($50 for an annual parking pass). I'm sure there could be more bike racks; invest in bike racks, especially in front of destination businesses and they'll be used (even more so if there's cycling infrastructure to take to get there, but that's another thread). Invest in parking that encourages people to use means other than cars to get there and don't forget to provide plenty of that in other healthy business districts too.

If new apartment buildings popped up tomorrow with 5,000-10,000 more  downtown residents, would *any*one be more inclined to visit Cleveland and bite the bullet to pay for parking if they're really that hung up on it? I'm sure that's a "no". Now, if you were to fill in currently empty storefronts between the Warehouse District and Cleveland State to better connect 4th St to Playhouse Square and begin to multiply the number of destinations in a designated area (say, Euclid) you would certainly see more visitors, more money spent Downtown, and more people complaining about parking.

 

So you're saying provide the retail first and then the people will come downtown? And where has that happened?

The parking issue and transient population are two issues that were brought up by callers in this Sound of Ideas show, that are going to be inevitable realities of a densely populated and centralized urban district. Any major city in the world has these realities. I'm not going to suggest we need to just accept these realities and do absolutely nothing, but I'm not going to accept the argument that these issues are going to prevent us from creating a bigger and better downtown experience.

 

I hate to sound like a cold-hearted capitalist, but the fact of the matter is that parking prices help manage traffic and the overall parking situation. If you valet park, or park at a centralized/attached garage or lot to your destination, you may pay a premium. If you are willing to circle blocks and look on the outskirts of downtown, there are plenty of affordable and inexpensive options as low as $1 or completely free on the streets. Parking prices also help encourage more environmentally and economically friendly options such as car-pooling or public transit use.

Vulpster here's why I think the parking and transient issues resonated with me the most. To everyone in my office, those are defining issues on how they perceive downtown.

 

Now it would be one thing if I worked in Strongsville, but our office is....downtown!

 

Once again I find myself being the oddball where my (somewhat) positive views of the city are in direct contrast to 19 other people. It's just frustrating to me but it is what it is. For the sake of winning them over I'm putting myself in their shoes.

 

Agree that transients are everywhere. Heck, in some cities I would even say they add to the culture. The problem with where I work currently (The 9-12) it's not the total number but the high ratio of transients that's the issue. If this was a vibrant neighborhood that wasn't so "street dead" their presence wouldn't be such a perception issue.

 

Re: capitalist approach to parking, I sincerely wish we were in a place where development in CLE didn't require public subsidy, but for so many disappointing reasons we're just not there.

 

 

 

If new apartment buildings popped up tomorrow with 5,000-10,000 more  downtown residents, would *any*one be more inclined to visit Cleveland and bite the bullet to pay for parking if they're really that hung up on it? I'm sure that's a "no". Now, if you were to fill in currently empty storefronts between the Warehouse District and Cleveland State to better connect 4th St to Playhouse Square and begin to multiply the number of destinations in a designated area (say, Euclid) you would certainly see more visitors, more money spent Downtown, and more people complaining about parking.

 

So you're saying provide the retail first and then the people will come downtown? And where has that happened?

 

There are already 10,000 people there, so there's already a decent residential base. When people go out in Cleveland they don't seek out side streets with homes, they go to destinations on 4th St, in Ohio City and Gordon Square. Likewise, it's the main drag that gives people their first and last impression of a neighborhood and is where the vast majority of traffic travels, not residential side streets that no one sees. Go to any majority residential downtown streets in pretty much any city and just about everywhere they are dead zones. These are places where people want to live and are in proximity to good urban districts. Even in Chicago, you can see that tons of residents, in this case one of the Marina City towers, doesn't result in a bustling block; quite dead, wouldn't you say? I'd have to ask where is there a downtown that offers little to nothing that had people flocking to live there? You always have an existing downtown residential base (even in Columbus back around 2000 when it only had 3,000 residents), so it's really a moot point.

 

Columbus now only has around half of Cleveland's downtown population, yet some new quality destinations have popped up and people travel from around the city to go. Packed tables and bar stools and even lines out the door at places like Dirty Frank's don't consist primarily of downtown residents by any means and more places like these increase the livability of the area while also drawing more visitors even from *gasp* the suburbs! The allure can be enough that spaces and meters are filled. If new destinations didn't open up to liven up downtown everywhere, who would want to live downtown, let alone move there? Now, between ten new "Lola's" or a tall apartment tower in Downtown Cleveland, which would attract more visitors and (potential) residents?

I encourage you to do more than use Google Earth/Streetview to tour other cities. My most recent experience with Chicago Marine Towers was apparently a bit different than yours....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27102.0.html

 

The attractiveness of downtown Cleveland as a residential area is not in doubt. Many of the threads here will document the reasons without me having to recite them all. What is in doubt are the lending practices and economics for making the renovations of old/construction of new buildings viable. We do not have backlogs or waiting lists of retailers seeking to locate downtown as we do with residential.

 

Personal experiences and more research are often great ways to learn about cities.

I encourage you to do more than use Google Earth/Streetview to tour other cities. My most recent experience with Chicago Marine Towers was apparently a bit different than yours....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27102.0.html

 

The attractiveness of downtown Cleveland as a residential area is not in doubt. Many of the threads here will document the reasons without me having to recite them all. What is in doubt are the lending practices and economics for making the renovations of old/construction of new buildings viable. We do not have backlogs or waiting lists of retailers seeking to locate downtown as we do with residential.

 

Personal experiences and more research are often great ways to learn about cities.

 

I encourage you to do more than use Google Earth/Streetview to tour other cities. My most recent experience with Chicago Marine Towers was apparently a bit different than yours....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27102.0.html

 

The attractiveness of downtown Cleveland as a residential area is not in doubt. Many of the threads here will document the reasons without me having to recite them all. What is in doubt are the lending practices and economics for making the renovations of old/construction of new buildings viable. We do not have backlogs or waiting lists of retailers seeking to locate downtown as we do with residential.

 

Personal experiences and more research are often great ways to learn about cities.

 

After reading a certain posters threads/posts for a while now, you learn to block them out.

I encourage you to do more than use Google Earth/Streetview to tour other cities. My most recent experience with Chicago Marine Towers was apparently a bit different than yours....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27102.0.html

 

The attractiveness of downtown Cleveland as a residential area is not in doubt. Many of the threads here will document the reasons without me having to recite them all. What is in doubt are the lending practices and economics for making the renovations of old/construction of new buildings viable. We do not have backlogs or waiting lists of retailers seeking to locate downtown as we do with residential.

 

Personal experiences and more research are often great ways to learn about cities.

 

After reading a certain posters threads/posts for a while now, you learn to block them out.

 

Hey, Keith M...  Numerous posters in both Cleveland and Columbus are automatically giving you a bum rap, which I don't feel is fully deserved.  Consider cutting them all loose and focusing your urban expertise on Cincinnati, where it just might be appreciated.  (seriously)

I actually don't understand Keith M's point here.  The city has been subsidizing commercial development between the WHD and Cleveland state.  That's why we have East 4th St.  Most of the empty retail space between East 4th and CSU is in buildings that are awaiting financing for hotel or residential conversions.  I think the presumption that the city has all its eggs in the residential basket isn't quite right.

 

 

^My observation over the months is that this is Keith M.'s "issue" and he and brings up a version of it in multiple threads (often when it is only tangential to what is currently being discussed).  I have to agree with you Strap...somewhat confused by his point here given the facts.

I actually don't understand Keith M's point here.  The city has been subsidizing commercial development between the WHD and Cleveland state.  That's why we have East 4th St.  Most of the empty retail space between East 4th and CSU is in buildings that are awaiting financing for hotel or residential conversions.  I think the presumption that the city has all its eggs in the residential basket isn't quite right.

 

That's what I was thinking.  What buildings are being thought of besides the ones on Euclid between the Huntington Building and Statler, nothing else that I can think of. 

I encourage you to do more than use Google Earth/Streetview to tour other cities. My most recent experience with Chicago Marine Towers was apparently a bit different than yours....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27102.0.html

 

The attractiveness of downtown Cleveland as a residential area is not in doubt. Many of the threads here will document the reasons without me having to recite them all. What is in doubt are the lending practices and economics for making the renovations of old/construction of new buildings viable. We do not have backlogs or waiting lists of retailers seeking to locate downtown as we do with residential.

 

Personal experiences and more research are often great ways to learn about cities.

 

I just see a commercial building that's just outside of the towers, not on the first floor of the towers themselves. And that's what, one commercial space per Now as far as a lack of retailers jumping at the opportunity to fill in remaining spots I think that you aren't going to see interest until some improvements are made, at least for any run-down facades. This is again where the Short North lucked out: a property owner who owned several buildings fixed up the facades to attract businesses and it worked. Getting more downtown residents is great, but I was responding to the complaint that some people feel they aren't getting enough bang with their buck for an urban experience in Downtown in which case it wouldn't hurt to attract more destinations, although at the same time people complain about paying for parking in San Francisco, NYC, and Chicago, so it really rests on gauging how much of it is just people who will always complain no matter what and how many are patrons of downtown establishments who actually should be listened to.