I'd just like to say that this is going to be one of the coolest parks in the country.  Not many cities can touch this one.  Size doesn't matter either.  Just sheer uniqueness. 

Thanks for all the photo updates, Randy! I'm really excited about Washington Park

What makes me nervous about all those flowers is that so many people will invite themselves on to the ground, simply to pick some for themselves. I don't think they'll survive past their full blooms.

What makes me nervous about all those flowers is that so many people will invite themselves on to the ground, simply to pick some for themselves. I don't think they'll survive past their full blooms.

 

I don't think I've ever seen this be an issue at any of the other parks around the city...

Those pictures really highlight how ridiculous it is the way the SCPA interacts (or doesn't interact) with the park. On all other sides of the park, the orientation of the buildings make it feel like a grand space. Then there's the southern end.

Yeah... the SCPA building doesn't really interact with anything... its a terribly inward oriented building. Even the 'front door' on Central Pkwy poorly engages the street.

What makes me nervous about all those flowers is that so many people will invite themselves on to the ground, simply to pick some for themselves. I don't think they'll survive past their full blooms.

 

I don't think I've ever seen this be an issue at any of the other parks around the city...

 

There have been a lot of issues at Washington Park that aren't issues at any other parks around the city.  I'm confident this redevelopment, along with the renovations going on all around the park will take care of those past issues, though.  A few relocations wouldn't hurt, either.

A few recent photos of Washington Park from Music Hall:

 

 

 

This looks absolutely awesome. I live in Chicago now (finishing up my last year of professional school), but my girlfriend and I plan on moving to OTR this summer. The Washington Park project is one of the main draws. It looks absolutely beautiful.

^ welcome back!!! Always great to have people return after living else where. And your handle rocks!

 

 

Was at Music Hall Thursday and they've been told the garage opening has been delayed from March to May. They are unable to apply waterproofing due to all the rain.

^Plus something went wrong with the waterproofing.  They had a large section done and then they spent weeks tearing it back up again.

Rain has delayed every single project in the region.  They are lucky to only be delayed two months.  The warm winter has certainly helped.

 

Looks amazing.  My younger brother is trying to find a rental in OTR but isn't having much luck.  Everything reasonable is sold out!

Yesterday I was told "late April" for the garage opening by a top executive at 3CDC.

 

I was also told that many neighbors have complained about the reduction in street parking that will take place around the park. I will say, that in order to ensure residents feel that they don't need off street parking it's key to have a reasonable amount of on street parking so developers aren't constantly putting in surface lots.

Rain has delayed every single project in the region.  They are lucky to only be delayed two months.  The warm winter has certainly helped.

 

Looks amazing.  My younger brother is trying to find a rental in OTR but isn't having much luck.  Everything reasonable is sold out!

 

Mercer Commons will certainly meet some of that pent-up demand.  I think the original mix was probably too heavy on the condos and too light on the rentals, but that will correct itself.  (I say this as someone who owns in OTR...)

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

 

Right, I park on the street in OTR, I parked on the street in Clifton before that, and even parked on the street when I lived in New York City.  It'd take a lot to convince me to pay to park in a garage somewhere.

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

 

Right, I park on the street in OTR, I parked on the street in Clifton before that, and even parked on the street when I lived in New York City.  It'd take a lot to convince me to pay to park in a garage somewhere.

 

And that's what one calls a sense of entitlement.  Those parking spaces on the street aren't free to build and maintain after all.  Since they're not charged directly to those who use them (most of the time), it's yet another subsidy to automobile use.  Everyone pays for it, but only some benefit, and those benefits are entirely internalized, it doesn't really benefit society as a whole. 

^ except that they are removing the spaces just to make the park prettier by not allowing cars to park against it....

 

There are NO additional costs to the city to maintain non metered spots. No more than if it were simply a lane that got driven over.

 

The shortsightedness of people who say, everyone should just give up cars immediately in Cincinnati is absurd. I live 10 minutes from my work. Could TOTALLY take the bus, but I have to drive to offsite meetings all over town almost daily. The WP garage is going to be full at night faster than people realize (this year alone 100 units will be developed with parking in the garage for those who choose it, then add in symphony & visitors) If developers can't convince residents that they will have moderately convenient parking (within a block or two) you will see stunted growth.

 

I would WAY rather have parking against the park than someone replace a potential infill site with a surface lot.

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

 

Right, I park on the street in OTR, I parked on the street in Clifton before that, and even parked on the street when I lived in New York City.  It'd take a lot to convince me to pay to park in a garage somewhere.

 

And that's what one calls a sense of entitlement.  Those parking spaces on the street aren't free to build and maintain after all.  Since they're not charged directly to those who use them (most of the time), it's yet another subsidy to automobile use.  Everyone pays for it, but only some benefit, and those benefits are entirely internalized, it doesn't really benefit society as a whole.

 

Thank you.  An ideal OTR would have limited on-street parking that is priced similarly to the hourly garage rate, and two or three large public underground garages like the one under Washington Park.  It would combine maximum use of livable space with enough parking to allow the proper churn of activity and to accomodate events at venues like Music Hall.

 

It's incredible how entitled people feel to have a parking space they don't have to pay for.  I admit, I get annoyed when I get back home downtown after five and all the close spots are taken.  But a reduction of parking spots combined with the Streetcar will be a great thing for OTR.

 

^ except that they are removing the spaces just to make the park prettier by not allowing cars to park against it....

 

There are NO additional costs to the city to maintain non metered spots. No more than if it were simply a lane that got driven over.

 

The shortsightedness of people who say, everyone should just give up cars immediately in Cincinnati is absurd. I live 10 minutes from my work. Could TOTALLY take the bus, but I have to drive to offsite meetings all over town almost daily. The WP garage is going to be full at night faster than people realize (this year alone 100 units will be developed with parking in the garage for those who choose it, then add in symphony & visitors) If developers can't convince residents that they will have moderately convenient parking (within a block or two) you will see stunted growth.

 

I would WAY rather have parking against the park than someone replace a potential infill site with a surface lot.

 

But no one is making the argument that everyone should give up cars immediately in Cincinnati except the people who want to set that argument up as a straw man.  Seriously.  Find someone on this board who is advocating that.

 

jjakucyk is saying that using lanes for on-street parking means that you aren't using it for something else.  Everything that falls in that something else is the opportunity cost.  If the opportunity cost is greater than the amount the City is charging people to parking on street, than the parkers are getting a subsidy.  It's as simple as that.

 

On street parking seems to help encourage the natural of people and products a neighborhood needs to be thriving economically.  Same as the streetcar will.  And maybe the most effecient way to capture those costs isn't through the farebox or meter (e.g., getting them back through sales tax).  But those are issues about process.  There's no right to cheap on street parking.

I'm not sure the on-street parking around the perimeter of the park will be removed or not.  We were told it would be removed and replaced with loading zones all-around, but then at a meeting in November they said some parking spaces would remain.

What are the chances of a resident parking-sticker system being implemented in OTR?

What are the chances of a resident parking-sticker system being implemented in OTR?

 

If they do it, they better not allow sticker parking on Main or Vine or Walnut, only the side streets. The metered parking on-street during the day is for businesses and at night for restaurants and visitors.

"...using lanes for on-street parking means that you aren't using it for something else.  Everything that falls in that something else is the opportunity cost.  If the opportunity cost is greater than the amount the City is charging people to parking on street, than the parkers are getting a subsidy.  It's as simple as that."

 

What else can you use these spaces for?  These spaces have a value of $30-50,000 to the adjacent property.

 

The other consideration is that parked cars offer pedestrians on the sidewalk a feeling of safety from car moving fast in the traffic lanes.

 

Regardless, the spaces around Washington Park will remain (the sidewalks are not getting widened) we just don't know if the spaces will be metered or have signage restricting cars for loading only.

 

 

What are the chances of a resident parking-sticker system being implemented in OTR?

 

A pilot program is underway in Pendleton right now.

What are the chances of a resident parking-sticker system being implemented in OTR?

 

A pilot program is underway in Pendleton right now.

 

which seems like the wrong way to do it. It's something like only resident parking 7am-5pm over there.  why not just have 60 minute meters and you can park free with a sticker at the meters? If you have 240 minute meters i could imagine people coming back to feed it throughout the day, but with a 1-2 hour meter that would just get annoying.

EDIT: Erasing my initial post, because thomasbw already said it.  I missed his suggestion on the first read.  Sorry!

This "entitlement" argument is crap. These spaces are being turned into "loading"/no parking. Not some amazing use or extension of the Park. Not even metered parking. And as of last night there were plans to remove all parking surrounding the park.

 

Are loading/unloading zones THAT big of a necessity that they are worth removing 50 spaces of parking?  It would be 1 thing if they we're widening sidewalks, but that's not what this is.  Who even regulatly uses loading & unloading except for handicapped or elderly people? Are they expecting so many people to be loading & unloading that we need to surround the entire park with it?

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

 

Right, I park on the street in OTR, I parked on the street in Clifton before that, and even parked on the street when I lived in New York City.  It'd take a lot to convince me to pay to park in a garage somewhere.

 

And that's what one calls a sense of entitlement.  Those parking spaces on the street aren't free to build and maintain after all.  Since they're not charged directly to those who use them (most of the time), it's yet another subsidy to automobile use.  Everyone pays for it, but only some benefit, and those benefits are entirely internalized, it doesn't really benefit society as a whole. 

 

The maintenance for a 19 foot by 8 foot slice of pavement is easily covered via property taxes.  It's not an automobile subsidy, it's a benefit of paying property tax on a residential property.  There are meters along commercial properties for the purpose of charging the user, who likely isn't paying for maintenance via property tax.  In a residential setting, the user is paying via property tax. Plus, the space is already there and the built environment of the entire neighborhood is based upon it.  There are 4 lanes on most of the main streets explicitly for that purpose, and it's been the case for some 170 years.

 

Also, "benefits society as a whole?" The discussion is over street parking. Tone the rhetoric down a notch.

What are the chances of a resident parking-sticker system being implemented in OTR?

 

If they do it, they better not allow sticker parking on Main or Vine or Walnut, only the side streets. The metered parking on-street during the day is for businesses and at night for restaurants and visitors.

 

It makes sense to keep Main and Walnut as metered parking, but Walnut (like Elm) is basically all residential.  Currently, there are a few meters here and there, but they are inoperable.  The only business on Walnut north of 12th Street is a bar called Biff's that is only open on the occasional Friday night.

Not sure I buy the entitlement saga, either. We are talking about a right-of-way that has existed in its form for over a hundred years without modification.

 

In my opinion, removing rush-hour parking limitations and converting those for parking would be more beneficial to local businesses and residents. Great examples of rush hour limitations that hamper businesses can be found in Northside, Pleasant Ridge and in every neighborhood that removes valuable parking spaces from businesses. Not everyone wants to take the hassle to drive to an out of the way parking lot, pay to enter a garage, or be bothered to walk a longer distance when they could easily pull in front of a location for a quick 15 minute spot.

 

Loading zones are a load of crap. They installed "loading zones" in front of some prominent businesses in downtown at the request of the business owners. One owner stated that he did not want "undesirable" vehicles blocking up the view for his customers at his restaurant, and I'm pretty certain that based on that, his request was denied. And why would you need block long loading zones in front of a park? If the right-of-way already exists, and pavement is already there, there is little cost to continue maintaining it as valuable parking spaces for businesses, residents (who otherwise would not have a place to park) and for park go-ers.

And not everyone wants to pay to park in a garage.

 

Right, I park on the street in OTR, I parked on the street in Clifton before that, and even parked on the street when I lived in New York City.  It'd take a lot to convince me to pay to park in a garage somewhere.

 

And that's what one calls a sense of entitlement.  Those parking spaces on the street aren't free to build and maintain after all.  Since they're not charged directly to those who use them (most of the time), it's yet another subsidy to automobile use.  Everyone pays for it, but only some benefit, and those benefits are entirely internalized, it doesn't really benefit society as a whole. 

 

The maintenance for a 19 foot by 8 foot slice of pavement is easily covered via property taxes.  It's not an automobile subsidy, it's a benefit of paying property tax on a residential property.  There are meters along commercial properties for the purpose of charging the user, who likely isn't paying for maintenance via property tax.  In a residential setting, the user is paying via property tax. Plus, the space is already there and the built environment of the entire neighborhood is based upon it.  There are 4 lanes on most of the main streets explicitly for that purpose, and it's been the case for some 170 years.

 

Also, "benefits society as a whole?" The discussion is over street parking. Tone the rhetoric down a notch.

 

Except property taxes aren't just paying for the maintenance of that parking bay but for the whole street and other streets in the network too.  It is of course an automobile subsidy because there are real costs for that space that only benefit those using it to park their car.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be parking, but that it should be charged to those who use it.  Do we give away free electricity, telephone, water, gas, sewer, internet, food, or transit rides?  No we don't, and many of those things are much more a necessity of life than being able to drive and park your car somewhere convenient.  The streets were not originally built to park cars, they were mainly built as simple open spaces that people and wagons and bicycles were more than happy to use.  Besides, if in a residential area, why should a property owner have to pay to maintain street parking if they have off-street parking too?  They're required to build so much off-street parking by code anyway, then have higher taxes to maintain the street too.  Those are both forced subsidies to car use. 

 

The benefits to the property owner are only that there's an easement in front of their house to allow access for people, vehicles, utilities, garbage collection, emergency services, air, light, etc.  The costs to maintain the pavement and additional storm water runoff are born by everyone whether they're using or getting any benefit from it or not.  That's not only unfair, but expensive and unsustainable.  I don't want to judge the Washington Park situation without knowing the final plan (it seems to be in flux at the moment anyway).  Still, I can see the need for loading and unloading on Elm and 12th Streets for Music Hall and the SCPA.  I don't think it makes sense on 14th or Race however.  It could very well be a case of the parking garage operator trying to force the city's hand so they can monopolize the parking market around the park.  That's no good, but on the other hand why should the city provide free street parking that undercuts that of a private garage owner either? 

 

Parking is a scarce commodity especially in a neighborhood like this, so the logical response to that is to attach a price to it based on what the market will bear.  It may be that in some neighborhoods that price is $0, and in others it could be several dollars per hour.  People seem to forget that the point of parking meters is not to make money for the city, but to ensure that there's always a supply of open spaces for people who need them.  If the price is too low (or nonexistent) then people will abuse that system and hog the spaces because it's of no consequence to them.  The correct response for the city in this case would be to install meters around the park and charge a rate that ensures a few spaces are always left open.  This would most likely mean a higher hourly rate than the garage charges, but that's as it should be. 

 

Notice how passionate people get about "their" parking spaces? 

Still a horrible argument. People should pay for sidewalks too.  And water fountains.

 

Oh wait. We pay for them with taxes.  In fact, in local Government the argument it's always made that meters are not meant to be sources of revenue to pay for "costs" of street parking, but are instead supposed to increase turnover to support the businesses nearby.

 

Again, the reduction in parking here is not being used for some greater municipal purpose such as increasing the sidewalk et cetera. It's being used to create a massive loading zone, but really it's just a way to protect the beautiful park from ugly parked cars.

Still a horrible argument. People should pay for sidewalks too.  And water fountains.

 

Oh wait. We pay for them with taxes.

 

Right, but the whole argument is that while general taxes pay for the street as a thoroughfare, an individual parking his car on the thoroughfare is monopolizing a public good for private use.  Consequently, if that sort of activity is to be allowed, the benefit provided should have a logical price.

 

In fact, in local Government the argument it's always made that meters are not meant to be sources of revenue to pay for "costs" of street parking, but are instead supposed to increase turnover to support the businesses nearby.

 

Maybe this argument is always made because it's actually the reason it's been implemented.

 

Again, the reduction in parking here is not being used for some greater municipal purpose such as increasing the sidewalk et cetera. It's being used to create a massive loading zone, but really it's just a way to protect the beautiful park from ugly parked cars.

 

Once again, it seems as though you've just made up this whole position to argue against it.  Is there anyone connected with the Washington Park redevelopment who is actually saying this?  Also, isn't the streetcar supposed to run north and south on either end of the park?  If so, perhaps that's why there won't be any parking there.

^The streetcar will run in a traffic lane and will not require elimination of parking spaces.  After all, it is not requiring elimination of parking space south of Central Parkway.

 

I have heard a 3CDC person say the elimination was for aesthetic purposes.  I think it may be because there was a problem in the past of people parking and partying in their cars on the park perimeter..... doors open, stereo blasting, and crowd gathering drinking etc....

 

But these spaces are extremely valuable to people like myself who have a storefront in the vicinity.  Elimination is wrong, but since they didn't move the curb out, this wrong could be reversed with a simple change of the signage.

JSkinner is correct: The elimination is for aesthetic purposes.

 

Again - a person is Not monopolizing a "public good" when they park in a parking lane that has no plans to be turned into a driving lane, a larger curb, a park extension or anything else. It's being remove to make the park look nicer and will remain empty aside from "loading". With disregard to business owners & residents nearby.  Id even be fine with meters being added, but not with the removal of parking just to "protect" the park from unsightly cars. It will also likely increase speed on Race as people drive faster in wider lanes. As it will not be turned into a lane it will seem more like a wide curb lane, leading to faster driving.

 

JSkinner, I highly recommend you call Michael Moore director of DOTE & several councilmembers saying there should be more consideration into this decision.

And of course, to drive another 50-60 cars into the structure...

It seems to me they are not expanding the sidewalk or the park or anything because they want to try this out and see what the impact is on parking in general. It's not like there isn't a net gain of parking in the area with what they are doing.

 

Aesthetic benefits are real benefits and carry real value. Too many people here are dismissing that, many with the selfish desire to have what is essentially subsidized housing for their car. I understand the idea of paying for the "rent" through (property and sales) taxes, but this penalizes those who choose not to drive, as they must contribute to your car's rent as well. Frankly, I'd rather reward those who choose not to drive rather than penalize them. This goes doubly for people who can't afford a car.

 

I do agree there could be more value captured if the lanes were made into something new and not an empty "loading" area. I also recognize the legitimacy of issues like removing a buffer for pedestrians and contributing to faster overall vehicle speeds. My hope is this is a temporary trial, and after it is demonstrated that there is little or no negative impact, or that negative impact is offset, that the space will be claimed as an extension of the park, complete with landscaped buffers and trees to give pedestrians peace of mind and give pause to lead-footed motorists. (Making the streets two-way would also be a big help. Speed tables, brick paving, and other traffic calming techniques should likewise be considered. I know Main already has brick paving, so that's already a step in the right direction.)

 

Frankly, at the very least, I think you guys should be more open minded about this. After everything is completed, and you've seen the results of 3CDC's plans for the space, then you can form more legitimate complaints. With the way they are going about this, keeping the space as part of the street, there will be plenty of opportunity to do this. Unlike if they were planning to extend the sidewalk, in which there would be more of a "too late" time component to complaining after the fact.

I get the aesthetic argument for getting rid of the parking, but IMO it's much more aesthetically pleasing to see a street lined solid with parked cars.  It lets you know the area is popular and crowded.  On Final Friday, for instance, all the streets within blocks of Main are lined solid with cars, and it "looks" better than an average weeknight when the streets are empty.  A lively looking park looks much better than an empty one, no matter how attractive the park may be.

Please. I am all for the walkable urbanity but we do not live in some utopia where we can erase parking for a moderate aesthetic increase in a neighborhood were we are trying to PREVENT the tearing down of buildings for use as surface lots. Or prevent infill from being added because we need more surface lots.

 

I'm starting to think some of you have never been to Brooklyn Chicago, San Fran etc. these cities make HUGE use ON street parking to reduce the need for OFF street parking which urbanists should support.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=brooklyn&ll=40.659235,-73.976135&spn=0.001658,0.002376&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&safe=active&hnear=Brooklyn,+Kings,+New+York&gl=us&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.659235,-73.976135&panoid=kQ3vJL5CO_1_Kvbj1EfPfA&cbp=12,341.51,,0,12.19

it's much more aesthetically pleasing to see a street lined solid with parked cars.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2568.870.html#ixzz1lMBNqyPR

 

This is a strong argument that cannot be discounted. Also, the convenient on-street spaces will make the park friendlier to a casual user who justs wants to stop by and check it out, or maybe just chill there for half an hour or so. I only want to park in a garage if I am going to be somewhere for several hours, but I have no problem swiping my card for $2.00 to get an hour on the street.

 

Arguments have also been made that on street parking is important for the businesses and slows down traffic. After weighing both sides I think the pro-metered spaces argument wins.  Time to call city hall and voice my concerns.

^^ They are NOT reducing the amount of parking spaces, though. They are increasing the amount. And parking out-of-sight is better than parking in-sight. And, yes, I have been to all the cities you've mentioned.

 

^^^ While I see the value in a line of cars for creating a safety buffer, the idea that they add aesthetic value is ridiculous. But aesthetics are subjective, so I will...try to be tolerant of your opinion. I don't think a street full of cars feels lively, though. For that, you need a street/sidewalk full of people.

That's the part that's really confusing me about this argument.  There are adding a TON of parking to the park and there will still be parking on every street surrounding the park...just across the street.  There is absolutely no shortage of parking. 

 

I will add this though.  Last weekend I was in Atlanta where many of their streets don't have any buffer between the sidewalk and the first moving traffic lane.  I quickly discovered that the lane of cars buffering every street here has conditioned me to step into the street BEFORE looking to see if there's traffic.  I guess subconsciously I assume there no car will ever hit me in the curb lane because they're always parked.  It was quite an odd experience from a pedestrian point of view and I found myself nearly getting hit a dozen times.

That's the part that's really confusing me about this argument.  There are adding a TON of parking to the park and there will still be parking on every street surrounding the park...just across the street.  There is absolutely no shortage of parking. 

 

 

My question is why are we building $40,000 a space parking and eliminating existing parking?

That's the part that's really confusing me about this argument.  There are adding a TON of parking to the park and there will still be parking on every street surrounding the park...just across the street.  There is absolutely no shortage of parking. 

 

 

 

My question is why are we building $40,000 a space parking and eliminating existing parking?

 

Hahaha...that's a GOOD question.  It's a bit absurd...but it's already there so there's no going back now.  LOL.

That's the part that's really confusing me about this argument.  There are adding a TON of parking to the park and there will still be parking on every street surrounding the park...just across the street.  There is absolutely no shortage of parking. 

 

 

My question is why are we building $40,000 a space parking and eliminating existing parking?

 

Because the new spaces improve the environment by getting cars out of view and out of the way, while the old ones did not. Also, the new spaces pull in more money.

 

I'll say it again: you guys should reserve your judgment. See what the park is like without rows of cars uglying up the view. See how much of a shortage in parking there really is. Weigh out the pros and cons. Then decide how you feel about the "loading" lanes. It would be easier to convert them back into parking lanes from loading lanes than it will be to convert them into anything else once they are established parking lanes for the "new" park.

The point of revitalizing OTR is not trying to create some magical land where all cars are hidden from view because they are 'ugly'.  Even the most urban well developed cities in the US (with great transit systems) make use of on street parking whenever it is possible.  Try to find blocks and blocks in NYC that are "no parking" or "loading" simply to improve aesthetic. Neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Queens,  make use of street parking whenever they can.  Urban neighborhoods greatly benefit from on street parking to lessen developers desire/need to add off street surface lots next to every renovated building (which could be infill). 

 

And while adding ~450 spaces is great, the City has been, for several years, considering tearing down the CET Garage as its in horrible shape.  Also, I've been told by a friend that the Music Hall renovation may actually result in the removal of large portion of the lot between Memorial Hall & Music Hall.  Adding more restaurants & residents to OTR will increase parking needs WAY faster than people realize.  Why remove 60ish parking spots to make the view of the park from across the street "better". 

 

 

Something tells me we're going to have to agree to disagree- at the same time, if enough people speak out I'm confident that the City (who gets the final decision on parking) may not necessarily grant 3CDC's request. 

 

 

 

 

It's also a matter of making the park more inviting. I've driven past that portion of prospect park and there's nothing pulling you into the park, particularly with the density of trees there. By contrast, Washington Park is and will be much more open. Seeing what's in the park versus a wall of vehicles in the foreground will make the park much more inviting. Not to mention the horrific problem with double parking in that part of Brooklyn, which if that were to develop in OTR, we'd be talking about a completely different scenario.

>the Music Hall renovation may actually result in the removal of large portion of the lot between Memorial Hall & Music Hall.

 

Yeah, there's space there for a restaurant or something else to activate that area.

 

Also, I'd love for the Charles St. substation to be buried or moved and replaced with something to create a visual end to Central Parkway.  That substation is on the location of a former coal power plant that drew water from the canal. 

 

 

 

^ didn't know about the old coal plant. That would mean $$$$ for brownfield remediation. But in that location definitely worth the investment.