3 ms·

Its all nice and good to point out the problem that parking causes in terms of the development or destruction of any downtown, however unless the lack of parkin

by azm 17y ago

Its all nice and good to point out the problem that parking causes in terms of the development or destruction of any downtown, however unless the lack of parking is compensated for by having an excellent public transit system (like Portland) simply removing parking or not starting to address the issue is a recipe for disaster. Take Los Angeles for example, there are way too many parking structures and lots all over downtown. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to get into downtown unless you are withing 5 miles of it. And you don't really want to live in that area. Even the SF Bay area for that matter, yes there is BART and Muni, but unless you live in the city (for the most part) BART is quite useless if your area of interest is more than a mile outside the sliver that BART services (ignoring all the other problems BART has), and Muni is a joke during rush hour, not to mention the combination of BART + Muni + anything else that you use gets to be pretty pricey. Unless the issues of public transit are addressed properly, nothing will fix the parking problem or the congestion problem or the gas usage problem or the pollution problem to mention a few.

rdtsc 17y ago
> unless the lack of parking is compensated for by having an excellent public transit system. That is the key. If public transit system was destroyed or never developed a city would have to either build parking facilities or build a public transit system. It all comes down to these questions: - "How do we expect people to get downtown?" - "How do we expect people to get around downtown?" The approach a city takes will mostly answer these questions. If nobody lives downtown and they have to commute from distant suburbs, it could make sense in the short term to start building parking spaces. The city is eventually transformed into an "office city". Everything closes down at 5. It is hard to even move around the city, so office workers would just go to lunch some place nearby their office, then quickly get in their cars and escape to the suburbs. That is not a city that I would like to live near or go to. But that is what a lot of American cities have become. If many people live downtown or near downtown area, then it makes sense to invest in a public transit system. This also helps people move around the city. It opens an opportunity for evening, and weekend businesses, for entertainment and tourism. This is also a chicken and egg problem. A city could decide to encourage building residential areas downtown to attract different segments of populations there. But that is a long term solution. It takes many years to revitalize a downtown neighborhood, especially if it is a high crime area, has a lot of abandoned buildings, and most of all, a bad reputation.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  > "That is not a city that I would like to live near or go to." Then for your own sake don't come to Seattle. You just described this city's downtown to the letter.
  - coryrc 17y ago
    Sure, that describes downtown, but we have Capitol Hill and Fremont etc to make up for it.

by azm 17y ago

rdtsc 17y ago

> unless the lack of parking is compensated for by having an excellent public transit system. That is the key. If public transit system was destroyed or never developed a city would have to either build parking facilities or build a public transit system. It all comes down to these questions: - "How do we expect people to get downtown?" - "How do we expect people to get around downtown?" The approach a city takes will mostly answer these questions. If nobody lives downtown and they have to commute from distant suburbs, it could make sense in the short term to start building parking spaces. The city is eventually transformed into an "office city". Everything closes down at 5. It is hard to even move around the city, so office workers would just go to lunch some place nearby their office, then quickly get in their cars and escape to the suburbs. That is not a city that I would like to live near or go to. But that is what a lot of American cities have become. If many people live downtown or near downtown area, then it makes sense to invest in a public transit system. This also helps people move around the city. It opens an opportunity for evening, and weekend businesses, for entertainment and tourism. This is also a chicken and egg problem. A city could decide to encourage building residential areas downtown to attract different segments of populations there. But that is a long term solution. It takes many years to revitalize a downtown neighborhood, especially if it is a high crime area, has a lot of abandoned buildings, and most of all, a bad reputation.

potatolicious 17y ago
> "That is not a city that I would like to live near or go to." Then for your own sake don't come to Seattle. You just described this city's downtown to the letter.
- coryrc 17y ago
  Sure, that describes downtown, but we have Capitol Hill and Fremont etc to make up for it.