http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/parking-mandates-stymy-development-in-cincinnatis-urban-neighborhoods/

 

Downtown Cincinnati is home to five Fortune 500 companies, three professional sports teams, local businesses, and according to the 2010 U.S. Census, about 5,300 residents. But the area is also home to more than 35,000 off-street parking spaces.

 

These spaces once held historic buildings but have been demolished to provide automobile parking over the years. As downtown continues its resurgance, it would be prudent for city leaders to review its outdated parking policies.

 

In the middle part of the 20th century, many cities, including Cincinnati, developed zoning codes with regulations dictating how many parking spaces are required for different uses. The regulations often accounted for “peak demand,” which is the amount of parking planners believed would be needed at times where demand for parking would be the greatest. For example, accounting for Black Friday-type events where parking lots are only maxed out once or twice a year.

 

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

 

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

 

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

 

Ms. Qualls is educated and well versed in the benefits of walkability and the impact that minimum parking requirements have on communities - I don't think she developed this idea from reading Urban Cincy.

Ms. Qualls is educated and well versed in the benefits of walkability and the impact that minimum parking requirements have on communities - I don't think she developed this idea from reading Urban Cincy.

 

I agree. Obviously she doesn't get all of her ideas from UrbanCincy. I was more pointing out to the coincidence of the UrbanCincy article showing up a couple of weeks before this is announced. She has visited Nashville and other cities that do this, so she has seen it first hand plenty of times.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

this is just basic libertarianism

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

 

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

 

"Cities are recognizing that allowing the market to function will produce a better result,"

 

Well, that's a very good way to word it. You could axe a lot of the zoning code and allow the market to achieve better results, but I don't know how she can say that with a straight face and then advocate form based codes. What the city really needs to try is a code diet.

 

Can someone fill me in on why the city would ever require parking spaces to begin with?  I would think a developer might want parking spaces, but can't figure out why the city would require it.

Probably the work of some 1960s effort to help make downtown areas competitive with the suburbs with regard to auto dependency.

^It is a remnant of post-war auto-oriented zoning codes.  Almost all American cities added these requirements 50+ years ago.

Minimum parking requirements are leftover from the days when cities felt parking would help them compete with suburbs for business and that parking lots/garages were a valuable use of precious downtown real estate.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

this is just basic libertarianism

 

You know we won't be happy with just that. Where are the parking maximums?

 

You know we won't be happy with just that. Where are the parking maximums?

 

Most cities have parking maximums, Cincinnati does not.  I recently worked on a building in a small North Carolina town and they had requirements for maximum allowable parking. 

 

 

A form-based code is a code diet. It usually replaces land-use zoning codes that are not relevant anymore.

 

It replaces a 3500 calorie diet with a 3500 calorie diet that is a bit more appetizing.  We need a 2000 calorie diet.

Minimum parking requirements are leftover from the days when cities felt parking would help them compete with suburbs for business and that parking lots/garages were a valuable use of precious downtown real estate.

 

Minimum parking requirements were also intiated to clear parked cars off of city streets. As cities didn't have the resources to license cars, they instead regulated land use, which was more workable, but not necessarily a better solution.

 

 

Highways and parking are two sides of the same coin. Neither one works without the other. In the highway era, agressive highway construction by all levels of government mostly addressed the need for moving space, but not parking space. Think of it this way: I-75 is about 20 miles long within the borders of Hamilton County, with 3 lanes in both directions in most places. At 60 mph, I-75 will acommodate up to about  60,000 cars at one time. (Count the cars in aerial photos.) But those cars don't drive continuously; they have to stop somewhere. So where do they stop and park? I-75 has not a single parking place!

 

Cities often established on-street parking, surface parking, and even some parking garages. ODOT finally built some park & rides. But for the most part, governments at all levels did nothing to construct parking spaces. Instead, they enacted zoning ordinances that prohibited new construction unless it was accomodated by lots of parking. Surburban areas did fine, since there was open land for new construction, but established urban areas such as Over-the-Rhine were doomed to abandonment. Downtown has survived due to being surrounded by parking, somewhat like a suburban shopping mall, and due to the persistance of the old mass transit system, preserved in the form of buses.

 

I went to Main Street in Over-the-Rhine one busy night and found that all of the on-street parking was taken, and the parking spilled onto adjacent streets such as Walnut. Yet, there wasn't much action on Walnut, and even on Main Street half of the storefronts are underutilised. So, if all of Over-the-Rhine was developed to the density of present day Main Street, it is clear that there just isn't enough parking to redevelop all of Over-the-Rhine.

 

I know, I know, the streetcar is supposed to address all of that by reducing the need to drive. But unless Over-the-Rhine is filled with car-free people, there is still going to be a parking problem. That is, new residents can be expected to bring their cars. Where are they going to park them all?

 

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30907577/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So I'm not sure if WLWT was actually the FIRST news outlet to report this (they never are), but this is the first I've heard of it... Vice Mayor Qualls is promoting a plan that would eliminate parking requirements in DT/OTR.

 

Seems like some city officials read UrbanCincy?

 

I'm probably jumping into this late, but I know two things:

 

1) Cities with cutting edge transit-oriented development codes actually threw out their parking minimums and went with parking maximums. (Wrap your mind around THAT for a minute.)

 

2) Qualls is highly educated in Urban Planning, having gone and earned an Ivy League masters in the field after her stint as Mayor of Cincinnati. She knows what's going on at the cutting edge.

 

Which is kind of ironic, because by cutting edge, I really mean "common sense city-building policies that we threw out six decades ago."

 

 

The reason the Norwood case was such an issue is because it was illegal - the city of Norwood declared the area blighted so they could take the property and hand it over to a private party. The handing it over to a private party was the park the courts determined to be illegal.

 

I know this is totally pedantic, but that's not at all what it was.  The taking of property and handing it over to developers happens all the time and has been upheld as legit.  That's how public housing projects got built and how many "redevelopment" plans go forward.  After all, while states and cities do have their own transportation departments and crews to build roads and sewers and other such infrastructure, they aren't building contractors or developers.  They need to get someone else to actually build buildings and the rest of the development anyway.

 

The Norwood case was struck down by the Supreme Court because Norwood declared the neighborhood to be deteriorating.  Not deteriorated, not blighted, but deterioratING.  It was a case of semantics.  They also ruled that "economic development" by itself is not sufficient to justify a taking of property, and that was the only criteria being used for the project. 

 

Regarding the parking situation, I'm all for removing parking minimums, but I think imposing maximums is just another evil side of the same coin.  Enforcing arbitrary minimums or maximums both distort the market and create unexpected consequences.  I say just remove the regulation and see what happens rather than totally flip-flopping and likely incurring a lot of political fallout.  Parking maximums also sound a lot like "the damn socialists are waging a war on cars," whereas urbanists and libertarian types can both get behind the removal of parking regulations even if it's for different reasons. 

 

Parking maximums were never much of an encumbrance to developers who were doing structured parking. Those spaces were already so expensive that it was never a struggle to get them to do less. Likewise, it was never much of an encumbrance on small developers because their projects were already limited in land area and they liked to maximize their leasable or saleable square footage. The only major encumbrance it posed was to uses that were accustomed to big surface lots.

 

But, two things there. One, you usually only impose maximums within a certain radius of transit stations, and that's just good planning. Two, as a planner you are always trying to get those surface parking users to slim down on the massive day-after-Thanksgiving parking fields.

 

 

The reason the Norwood case was such an issue is because it was illegal - the city of Norwood declared the area blighted so they could take the property and hand it over to a private party. The handing it over to a private party was the park the courts determined to be illegal.

 

I know this is totally pedantic, but that's not at all what it was.  The taking of property and handing it over to developers happens all the time and has been upheld as legit.  That's how public housing projects got built and how many "redevelopment" plans go forward.  After all, while states and cities do have their own transportation departments and crews to build roads and sewers and other such infrastructure, they aren't building contractors or developers.  They need to get someone else to actually build buildings and the rest of the development anyway.

 

The Norwood case was struck down by the Supreme Court because Norwood declared the neighborhood to be deteriorating.  Not deteriorated, not blighted, but deterioratING.  It was a case of semantics.  They also ruled that "economic development" by itself is not sufficient to justify a taking of property, and that was the only criteria being used for the project. 

 

Regarding the parking situation, I'm all for removing parking minimums, but I think imposing maximums is just another evil side of the same coin.  Enforcing arbitrary minimums or maximums both distort the market and create unexpected consequences.  I say just remove the regulation and see what happens rather than totally flip-flopping and likely incurring a lot of political fallout.  Parking maximums also sound a lot like "the damn socialists are waging a war on cars," whereas urbanists and libertarian types can both get behind the removal of parking regulations even if it's for different reasons. 

 

Parking maximums were never much of an encumbrance to developers who were doing structured parking. Those spaces were already so expensive that it was never a struggle to get them to do less. Likewise, it was never much of an encumbrance on small developers because their projects were already limited in land area and they liked to maximize their leasable or saleable square footage. The only major encumbrance it posed was to uses that were accustomed to big surface lots.

 

But, two things there. One, you usually only impose maximums within a certain radius of transit stations, and that's just good planning. Two, as a planner you are always trying to get those surface parking users to slim down on the massive day-after-Thanksgiving parking fields.

 

 

 

But those day-after-Thanksgiving parking fields are prescribed by the currently coded minimums, so simply removing the minimum would fix that.  I can see using maximums to temper the lenders who have their heads so far up their asses that they can't understand and won't finance any project that doesn't have acres of parking, but to me it just seems dangerous to swing the pendulum completely to the opposite side when what we really want is equilibrium. 

 

A more sane property tax code that doesn't reward parking and useless open space with a lowered assessment on the total property would also help.  Our current tax code penalizes those who build large buildings or keep their building well-maintained because their taxes are assessed mostly on the improved value, i.e. the value of the building, so there's an incentive to let it deteriorate/depreciate or to demolish it for a parking lot that will have a lower tax burden.  This is getting way off topic, but suffice it to say these are all the kinds of issues that have hampered neighborhoods like downtown and OTR and need to be rectified for the streetcar to be able to provide the framework for redeveloping the area that it needs. 

 

Some of the big-box suburban developers are applying for variances to reduce the number of required parking spaces. So, it is clear that minimum parking requirements have gotton out of hand.

 

While this parking discussion is leaning off-topic, I'd just like to say another time that possible re-development of Over-the-Rhine is a very complicated issue, including all kinds of things like zoning, availability of infrastructure, traffic, taxes, schools, crime, subsidized housing, and garbage collection, to name a few. I don't think that construction of a streetcar is magically going to make all of the other issues go away. Sure, the streetcar would be a visible sign that something is happening, and may develop some interest in Over-the-Rhine, but urban proponents could take any one of those issues and work on it for years.

 

Portland and other cities that have streetcars appear to have their act together in more ways than just streetcar construction. Cincinnati seems to have a long way to go. If I was in charge of things, I might try to tackle a different issue first, but I can see why people are excited about the streetcar.

 

"Never build anything underground. You won't get credit for it."  - former Ohio governor James Rhodes.

>because by cutting edge, I really mean "common sense city-building policies that we threw out six decades ago."

 

The entire project of the young generation today is undoing the physical and cultural damage of the WWI and WWII generations.  200 years from now, the auto-dominated era in the United States will be looked back upon with bemusement.  "What's Good for GM is Good For America" and "Built Ford Tough" will arouse the same snickers as "Dr. Livingstone, I Presume". 

I can see using maximums to temper the lenders who have their heads so far up their asses that they can't understand and won't finance any project that doesn't have acres of parking

Bingo, bingo, bingo!!!!

 

A more sane property tax code that doesn't reward parking and useless open space with a lowered assessment on the total property would also help.  Our current tax code penalizes those who build large buildings or keep their building well-maintained because their taxes are assessed mostly on the improved value, i.e. the value of the building, so there's an incentive to let it deteriorate/depreciate or to demolish it for a parking lot that will have a lower tax burden.  This is getting way off topic, but suffice it to say these are all the kinds of issues that have hampered neighborhoods like downtown and OTR and need to be rectified for the streetcar to be able to provide the framework for redeveloping the area that it needs. 

 

Here you sound like Henry George. Or Don Shoup.

Does anyone have a recommendation for good reading material on codes for someone without a planning background?

 

Also, I will agree with jjakucyk re: parking maximums.  It's distorting the market on the other end and providing an opportunity for opposition from those who may otherwise be allies.  Particularly in an urban environment, the costs of supplying parking should be sufficient enough to achieve equilibrium with demand and prevent either the under or oversupply created by caps or floors.  Specific to lenders with their heads up their asses, I think the elimination of parking minimums may prove problematic, but will be less of an issue than you may otherwise think.  In the event that a developer makes a financially motivated decision to not provide parking, they're going to be able to support that decision in their proposal.  Reasonable lenders (yes, they exist) will base approval of a loan on the merits of that support.  So long as the developer can justify stabilization of the property without parking, it shouldn't be a problem.  That justification in a place like Over-the-Rhine is going to largely depend on things like the availability of other parking, the usage rates of parking spaces at other developments, the cost of units with parking compared to those without parking, and even the presence of the streetcar (back on topic).  This discussion, where parking minimums exist, is one in which developers and lenders simply haven't been engaging.

I love the Enquirer's link from the main page:

Qualls: Downtown, OTR developers shouldn’t provide parking

 

What a complete mischaracterization of Qualls's proposal! "Shouldn't have to provide parking" would be accurate.

I went to Main Street in Over-the-Rhine one busy night and found that all of the on-street parking was taken, and the parking spilled onto adjacent streets such as Walnut. Yet, there wasn't much action on Walnut, and even on Main Street half of the storefronts are underutilised. So, if all of Over-the-Rhine was developed to the density of present day Main Street, it is clear that there just isn't enough parking to redevelop all of Over-the-Rhine.

 

Really? And were all of the surface lots on Central Parkway full too? And both the Alms & Doepke and the Gateway garage?

 

Doing away with parking minimums is a boon to developers who don't want to put in parking and developers who do. I suppose a drawback is the potential for parking rates to go up, but my hope would be that encourages more to use public transit. Businesses already choose not to locate downtown because of the parking issue so I don't think this would make things much worse on that end. Furthermore the effect of the change won't be felt for a few years, and the streetcar will be in operation at that point.

A little national coverage:

 

Cincinnati May Scrap Parking Minimums Downtown

By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2012, at 11:24 AM ET

 

Cincinnati City Councilor Roxanne Qualls is leading the charge to abolish parking minimums for developers building homes in the downtown and Over-the-Rhine neighborhoods.

I'm particularly excited to learn of this development for personal reasons. Qualls was mayor of Cincinnati in the late-1990s and after leaving office did a stint at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as an Institute of Politics Fellow. While there, she led an undergraduate study group about urban planning that I participated in. So, in a meaningful way, my present obsession with parking regulations and anti-density rules all goes back to Qualls, and now she's taking the lead on an important reform initiative.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/04/18/cleveland_parking_minimums.html

 

Edit: Just noticed the url says "cleveland parking minimums". Fools!

I know, I know, the streetcar is supposed to address all of that by reducing the need to drive. But unless Over-the-Rhine is filled with car-free people, there is still going to be a parking problem. That is, new residents can be expected to bring their cars. Where are they going to park them all?

 

It seems like there would be more demand for parking garages, which could be erected in any number of places.  Speaking of which, there are at least three garages near these developments currently (along with several surface lots) that never seem to be full.  The free street spaces fill up pretty quickly, but there are certainly places to park.  Eliminating parking minimums will simply allow the construction of condos that are $25k-$50k cheaper, and owners will either choose not to have a car or to rent whatever number of garage spaces they need (0, 1, 2, etc).  Theoretically, that wouldn't even impact business parking, since those condo owners wouldn't be driving to businesses within their own neighborhood anyway.

Does anyone have a recommendation for good reading material on codes for someone without a planning background?

 

To get a feel for what is in the codes, just pick up your local zoning code and see what's in it. Lots of jurisdictions publish their codes online these days.

 

My favorite urban design book is not a zoning code at all, but the antithesis of a zoning code: "A Pattern Language," by Christopher Alexander.

I went to Main Street in Over-the-Rhine one busy night and found that all of the on-street parking was taken, and the parking spilled onto adjacent streets such as Walnut. Yet, there wasn't much action on Walnut, and even on Main Street half of the storefronts are underutilised. So, if all of Over-the-Rhine was developed to the density of present day Main Street, it is clear that there just isn't enough parking to redevelop all of Over-the-Rhine.

 

Really? And were all of the surface lots on Central Parkway full too? And both the Alms & Doepke and the Gateway garage?

 

 

Parking is not that simple. Many parking spaces go unused because they are too far, out of sight of the destination, are reserved, are costly, etc. What everyone wants is a parking space directly in front of the building they are visiting.

 

Personally, I have no problem finding a parking space anywhere near Downtown or Over-the-Rhine, because I am willing to walk. I'll walk 10 blocks, and I'll actually enjoy it. Not everyone is like me. Believe it or not, there are people who are not willing to walk as much as a block or two to go to Main Street. They will go someplace with more convenient parking instead.

They will go someplace with more convenient parking instead.

 

Like Mt. Adams?

 

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a problem on Final Fridays when Main Street is packed with people. There is a plethora of convenient parking within a few blocks of Main Street. More so even than Vine st. and definitely more so than Mt. Adams. People will go wherever there is a fun time (real or perceived) to be had.

Learn more about the parking regulations problem: http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a problem...

 

I hear things like this all the time:

"I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle."

"I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic."

"I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks."

"I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

 

 

people with bitch and complain and anything and everything...

I hear things like this all the time:

"I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle."

"I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic."

"I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks."

"I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

 

How is parking a hassle at reds games!?!?! How is it anymore of a hassle than at the most suburban ball parks where people sit in massive parking lots for 15-20 minutes after the game just to get onto a street and then sit in traffic (been there myself!)  There are about 50 lots/garages in short walking distance and the vast majority are $8-10. As opposed to 2-3 massive surface lots like some of the suburban ball parks, you can get into any number of garages and be out in no time.

 

And no one expects massive truck loading type businesses to be downtown.  No one. Ever. Period.  that is why there are neighborhoods like Camp Washington, Queensgate, etc.  I can't think of any business that has major truck loading that would be expected to be in a high rise or mid rise downtown.  Maybe a grocery store, but if they can load trucks (like once a week) in OTR on Vine, they can load trucks on the 5 lane wide streets downtown. 

 

You're making up a complaint along the lines of: I want to open an Ikea downtown but there's not enough room for a 400,000 square foot single floor building with several hundred outdoor parking spaces!  No one is saying that because common sense says that kind of development doesn't go downtown.

 

 

And regarding main street, Sycamore is rarely full, and there are lots on Sycamore & 12th that are rarely full.  That is one block from Main.  not 10-12 blocks.  1 block.  Also, as it becomes more difficult to park, more people will take cabs.  Mt Adams has tons of Cabs.  OTR, not so much.  That will start to change as more places open and parking becomes more restrictive.

 

Also-- We just opened a 450 space garage under wash park & are about to start construction on a 370 space garage on Vine.  I doubt those are the last two 3CDC will be building.

 

 

 

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a problem...

 

I hear things like this all the time:

"I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle."

"I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic."

"I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks."

"I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

 

Those same people have been using those excuses for decades.  You couldn't drag them downtown!! That's their loss.

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a problem...

 

I hear things like this all the time:

"I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle."

"I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic."

"I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks."

"I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

 

That is why clermont county, fairfield, and Mississippi for that matter, exist; so these low-value activities have low-value places to occur. It may sound cruel, but such people are a losing proposition for cincinnati and other cities. They consume more in services than they bring in through their taxes and in their demand for personal and business services. Cincinnati rejected them long before they rejected Cincinnati. Cincinnati is doing what it has to do;moving up-market to higher wage, higher value activities. Increasingly the top paying jobs in the region are in the city of Cincinnati. That is the future, not middle/lower middle class peoople who wholesale furniture or struggle to pay for parking once a year. It is a sad sign of the times that they don't have the money to contribute to cincinnati's economy even if they wanted to. These are excuses for why they can't afford to participate in cincinnati, not why they have chosen not to. No one wants to admit that things in their area aren't really available to them. They'd rather convince themselves that they never wanted them in the first place. I do something similar everytime I pass a jaguar dealership;" It's too expensive compared to other cars, the insurance is too much, I'll be too afraid of it getting damaged." I'm still honest with myself and admit that it would be very nice to have one. Removing parking minimums won't keep anyone away that the city of cincinnati would have wanted in the first place. When the middle classes abandons a place they shouldn't be surprised when that place abandons them by going over their heads to the top where the money and power are.

You couldn't drag them downtown!! That's their loss.

 

Stand on one of the sidewalks on an overpass over I-75 in the West End and count the cars that pass underneath. Pretend that each one of them has a person in it with $10, $20, or $100 of spending money.

Look at all of the trucks. Some are heavy trucks with a load of stuff on the way to Wal-mart. Besides the heavy trucks, there are hundreds of lighter trucks, vans, contractors, and tradesmen passing through. Imagine that each of those trucks are on the way to a destination to unload goods or provide some service.

 

Say want you want about the stupid suburbanites; they will be happy to spend their money elsewhere.

 

I don't have the answer, and I don't advocate any more big-box parking lots. But to say that there isn't a problem, or that it is the suburbanite's own fault that they don't come downtown, is ignoring the largest potential source of participants.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a problem...

 

I hear things like this all the time:

"I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle."

"I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic."

"I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks."

"I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

 

Matthew Hall is right. If people can't afford to park, then it's not economical to cater to them. Subsidizing more parking is not an answer to anything. If they can't afford to pay for a parking spot, then they can't provide enough economic benefit to justify subsidizing a parking spot for them (regardless of where the subsidy falls -- public hands, private hands, or a combination).

 

The best we can do is provide better transit, which makes it easier for people of all incomes to get around. No parking necessary, or for those coming from farther afield, they can park somewhere where space is not at such a premium and do a park-and-ride. If someone is not willing to do that, it does not make it any more economical to subsidize their parking -- that just feeds more economic unsustainability which is likely a habitual part of their lifestyle.

 

The demands of such people directly flout economic and environmental sustainability, as well as healthy lifestyle choices. Even spending money educating them about the convenience provided by the bus route that goes directly through their neighborhood to downtown would be a more productive use of funds.

No one in their right mind is saying that we DON'T want suburbanites in the urban core.  Of Course we do!  But we're saying that if someone, like the fictional people you described, is going to complain that "it's WAY too hard to ever go to a reds game because there are only 40 different parking options and they all have a nominal price of $7-$15 which is way too much money and ugh I have to walk 1.5 blocks!! sheesh!!!"....

 

Then that person should just stop coming down here.    The majority of people might go, ehh i wish i didn't have to pay, or I wish it was  a little cheaper to park, but whatever.  Those people we should be attracting even more.  Also, of course, we need to be attracting more people to live down here, not just visit, but that's besides the point. 

The answer depends on the question. But it certainly doesn't involve the pocket change of people passing through town. The answer is of course to move up-market. Follow the money, not the people. For better or for worse, that's it and that is what Cincinnati and other cities are  doing increasingly successfully. The answer isn't setting up a larger version of roadside stand to sell to people as they pass by. The answer is doing business with customers around the world. The answer isn't in the purchasing power of suburbanites around one medium sized city, it is in the purchasing power of an emerging middle class around the world. That is what P&G, GE, and others are doing. That is the answer. The answer to cincinnati's economic future isn't in Cincinnati's suburbs. It is in the market that Cincinnatians sell into. Quite frankly, many suburbanites cost more than they produce these days. Increasingly no one will want them unless they can figure out to produce what the world wants. And those who do, will increasingly value the economic opportunties available in cities. 1965 is long gone. Let it go, turn around, and face the future.

The idea that suburbanites cost more than they put into the system is a great discussion.  (everything I'm about to say begins in about 1965. In the first 10-15 years of a suburb its usually a net gain for the community. The next 10-15 years the gain begins to plateau, costs start to arise and the average suburbanite has been conditioned to feel that they shouldn't pay these costs.  By the end of this phase some of the first people to arrive to this new suburban development have already moved on to the next new development.  The next 10-15 years start a slight decline.  With no one funding services you start to see struggles arising.  Often these weak, anemic governments, purposefully designed to have little power, can't cope with revenue losses.  The next 10-15 end the attractiveness of that particular community. 

 

What I just described is what has happened with the "inner burbs" around greater Cincinnati (also known as the outerburbs of Hamilton County.  Places like Blue Ash & Sharonville posted their first population declines or barely grew by a few hundred residents in the 2010 census.  Of all the Hamilton County outer burbs, they happen to be in the best shape though, but many of the smaller communities around them are now greatly struggling.  Butler & Warren County communities are in the first or second phase of the cycle.  It's also likely, that as the economy changes dramatically and gas prices continue to rise the cycles will move more quickly.  Rather than 30 years from now, it could be 10 when people are leaving West Chester & Mason for some more extreme exurb.  In fact, it's already beginning.

 

 

At this point however, you're seeing the children of the burbs, now reaching their prime purchasing power ages, growing disillusioned with the constant outward movement this form of development requires and the extremely heavy reliance on automobiles these suburbanites design for.  You're seeing the beginning of a donut of growth.  Younger people filling and growing the dead center of the region, while their parents keep moving further out.  For now, the inner regional burbs are losing population while the urban core and exurbs are growing.  It will be interesting to see what's happening 15 years from now.

 

 

Back to topic... removing these requirements is good.  It doesn't mean less parking.  It means more efficiently designed parking.  Efficiency is sort of the whole key to this urban renewal.  It's a more efficient form of life in many ways. 

^The donut effect has been going on for a long time. The population of Over-the-Rhine peaked in 1890! The pioneers landed at Yeatman's Cove, and since then the population has been expanding outward. However, as the population expanded outward, new immigrants moved in, increasing density even while the population expanded geographically, When

Cincinnati ceased to become a destination for foreign immigrants, there was no one to fill the center, and the hole in the center of the donut started to develop.

 

What happend in the 1960's was an acceleration of the outward expansion trend, not only due to automobiles and highways but also due to the extension of utiities, especially water.

 

The expansion of the donut hole has been slowing in recent decades,but I don't think it's because people are growing tired of the suburbs. It's simply that we cannot afford to expand any longer. Meanwhile, the suburbs are getting denser, while the core is thinning out, both moving toward a simlar density.

The core may or may not be losing people, but that doesn't mean its losing in terms of the overall value of its economic activity. If fact, it's gaining economic activity. People and economic activity are less and less correlated everyday. As higher wage activities become more and more concentrated in downtown and midtown areas and income inequality only grows, less productive activities and people have to find cheaper ways to operate. This has traditionally meant the marginal suburban locations. This is all matters less and less everyday. This dynamic could go very far.

 

The current market capitalization of P&G alone is larger than the entire metro economy of cincinnati and its ultimately controlled by people who locate themselves in downtown cincinnati to decide what to do with it. The value of the incomes of cincinnati residents and the value of the income of workers in Cincinnati are two very different things and they increasingly don't move in tandem. Parking and prosperity did strongly correlate once when anyone who could afford a car had money to spend when they got where they were going and had to do business in person. This is less and less true each day. The suburbs haven't stopped expanding just because we can't support expansion, many are actually losing their economic rational bit by bit. In a world in which you can buy books, shoes, electronics, furniture, and even get an education on=line, as I have, parking and space have less and less value in day to day life. I know we should be wary of those who say "this time it's different', but every so often it really is. Until WWII American downtowns were concentrating economic activities more and more. Post-war suburbanization was a revolutionary reversal of pre-war trends. People have not always been expanding outwards. That is a post war phenomenon.

 

People used to think that the internet would mainly change the internal dynamics of businesses. It turns out that the greatest effects of the internet are on how whole economies operate. It ironically concentrates wealth in fewer people and places leaving more people and places out of the loop financially and physically. Building lots of parking in cities for people who don't have the money to spend or the skills to take advantage of professional opportunities in city center locations even if they did come is increasingly a losing proposition. People pay for what they value. If they don't value central locations its because they don't know what to do with it. Making parking cheaper just subsidizes people to use something they don't really know what to do with. We need the people who do know what to do with it and we are beginning to get them downtown. If you aren't savvy enough to figure out how to park your car,how savvy are you going to be professionally?

I agree that the internet makes space irrelevant in many ways -- for purchasing goods, notably. I think this is overlooked when the downfall of the shopping mall is discussed. Suburban retailers are poised to take the biggest hits, because no one will hesitate to replace big-box and chain stores with online alternatives.

 

But I think the internet will have a bear of a time trying to reproduce the economic effects of spatial business agglomeration which central business districts do so well. A Skype meeting is not a great substitute for a real-life one, especially when you consider the social, human aspects of doing business. For example, going out with colleagues after work, to dinner or a bar. The internet doesn't do well at replicating situations like that.

 

Having laws in place which arbitrarily increase the amount of parking available is anathema to agglomeration. It separates things and people, and makes those social interactions more difficult to orchestrate or happen upon. It undermines the economic edge that a center city has over suburban environments.

 

If things are downtown that people want to experience, they will find a way to do that. If they need more parking, and are willing to pay for it, the market will accommodate. The county just built an @ssload of subsidized parking spaces between the stadiums. Fountain Square has a big garage underneath it. If someone can't go to the square or to see the Reds or Bengals because of expensive or inaccessible parking, the barrier to attracting them is simply too high, too expensive, too detrimental to the form, function, and prosperity of downtown.

Don't forget there is a difference between parking requirements and subsidized parking. We want to encourage the free market when it comes to parking, but don't want a system where developers take advantage of existing subsidized parking, while making it harder for current or future employers to ensure spots for their employees. A true free market for parking does not currently exist, so changes in the law should take that into account.

All parking that users don't directly pay for is subsidized in some sense. It is space. Someone owns it and paid for it and pays taxes on it. It has value. If you can use it without paying, you are receiving something for nothing. The money to pay for a parking lot in front of a walmart has to come from somewhere. You are paying for it through the prices you pay to walmart. So if you shop at walmart but don't use its parking lot you are subsidizing those who do. Even on street parking costs money to build and maintain and has value. If you use it without paying, you are using something you didn't directly pay for. I agree completely that there is no more a market in free-market parking than in housing.

Yeah, when I say "subsidized", I don't mean "publicly subsidized" exclusively. Any time someone buys or rents a unit, or makes a purchase from a store, which has a parking spot which they don't use or wouldn't use if the cost were made explicit, that spot is being subsidized.

^ In the urban core or near-ring suburbs where it is possible to walk, one could say that parking is partly subsidized by non-drivers. Howeve, almost all of the customers who shop at the typical big-box store in the suburbs drive and hardly anyone walks. The cost of parking is just bundled with the rest of the goods, in the same way that they don't charge to use the bathroom.

 

What I find interesting is that while some cities and municipalities provide on-street parking and sometimes parking lots or garages, in the suburbs the parking is nearly 100% privately owned. Meanwhile, the highway network is nearly 100% publicly owned. Cities have an opportunity to improve on this, by making the motorway network and the parking work together. One of my favorite parking projects is the Court Street area; it seems to work so well.

 

When you think about it, the fact that the Interstate Highway System designers completely ignored the need for parking is ridiculous. An idea that didn't happen might have been parking at the interchanges, reducing the need for parking spread about urban areas.

Think about all the extra sewer, electric, gas, roads, etc. required because each building requires multiple times its floor area in parking.

 

(Also keep in mind this thread is specifically about Downtown and OTR.)

Early plans for Fort Washington way considered an elevated highway with parking underneath or the depressed design with garages above.  In either case, the need for parking the CBD would have been reduced, although its effect would not have had much effect north of 4th St. 

 

There were also early plans to place garaged directly beneath downtown streets, specifically 4th and 6th streets between, approximately, Central and Broadway.  Each would have had spaces for approximately 1,000 cars per deck, although I don't recall reading any plans for more than one deck.  Garages of this kind were never built because they cost as much as building subways.  I believe they do exist in a few places in Europe.   

For anyone who is up for a quick read, this is a great article about why city planners should be greatly inclined to zone and create policy that favors pedestrians and tourists.  Yes a certain level of automobile accessibility is necessary (especially taxis etc) but parking spaces are lost money for a local economy.

 

http://www.nbm.org/intelligentcities/topics/city/city-essay.html#full

Does anyone know when/if this will actually be approved?  The article says that the requirements would be lifted within 30 days of approval, but doesn't say anything about when the approval might happen.