Proposed Development at Fifteenth & Vine Lives Up to 3CDC’s Parking Promises

When 3CDC first began developing the 359-space Mercer Commons Garage in 2012, they defended their actions for building such an over-sized garage by saying they would share the spaces with other planned nearby developments.

Nearly three-and-a-half years have passed since that time, but it is now becoming clear that 3CDC has largely lived up to the promises they made at the time.

When first criticized by UrbanCincy, 3CDC noted that the spaces at the Mercer Commons Garage were meant not only for the $50 million Mercer Commons development, but also the office space at the Paint Building, Cintrifuse, and former Boss Cox building. In total, 3CDC’s former Vice President of Development, Adam Gelter, estimated that those projects alone would need 90 to 100 spaces.

In addition to that, 3CDC’s previous plans for the former Smitty’s site called for 30 to 40 residential units, which would also have their parking provided for at the Mercer Commons Garage. Since that time, those plans have evolved, and 3CDC is now proposing a 55,000-square-foot office and retail building, which, by law, would require 155 parking spaces – much more than would have been required under the previous residential scheme.

City officials say that a potential 77-space reduction may be permitted due to the existence of the nearby Mercer Commons Garage and Washington Park Garage, which have an availability of 141 and 14 spaces, respectively.

Should 3CDC pursue to utilize those two garages to their fullest extent, then it would be feasible for the non-profit development organization to avoid providing any parking at all in the $16 million project slated for the southwest corner of Fifteenth and Vine Streets.

In addition to being located to two nearby parking garages, this site is directly across the street from a Kroger grocery store, located a block away from the Cincinnati Streetcar’s first phase, and within blocks of several Red Bike stations.

With a Walk Score of 96 out of 100 points, the proposed unnamed development at Fifteenth and Vine Streets boasts one of the most walkable locations in the region.

If all goes according to plan, and 3CDC is granted their zoning variances by City Hall, then project officials say they hope to begin construction as soon as possible, with a project completion scheduled for mid-2017.

  • ED

    On the southernmost façade on Vine between the two existing buildings, you can see Italianate influence in the three rows of windows and the unarticulated cornice, but then the design falls off for the rest of the building into the same copy-paste contemporary style we’ve seen so much of from 3CDC.

    • Neil Clingerman

      Its also a style that’s trendy and pretty forward thinking for Cincinnati, but at the same time its a trend I’m not a big fan of. The windows in particular bug me on these buildings and I have a feeling in 30 years people will think oh that’s so 2010s.

    • ED

      Good point on the style aging, that’s why I think 3CDC should either go neotraditional or come up with some signature contemporary program like Columbus, IN, is famous for.

  • Brian Boland

    It’s time to ditch the project crippling parking requirements in the urban neighborhoods. Car storage should not be a burden that developers need to bear in areas that are pedestrian oriented.

  • Erich Griessmann

    This is fine because its mostly office oriented. But parking is a necessity especially for people who buy condo’s. This isn’t Manhattan and the district relies on outside visitation for viability. People need to quit acting like we live in some weird reality where the weather is always perfect/nobody wants to own a car/and we all ride bikes in the rain/snow. It’s ridiculous. You can’t expect people to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on homes and not have parking. Whoever thinks you can sell residential property in Cincinnati for exorbitant prices without parking needs to go to business school. I don’t see what the issue is. If the parking is underground or inner block why do you care? The district has a long way to go before you start getting all high and mighty. Keep Calm and set the hipsterism on mute.

    • Neil Clingerman

      I think now is the time to have the conversation. The weather isn’t exactly good in Chicago either and yet for some reason there are plenty of people who want to bike down Milwaukee even on subzero windchill days (I think they are crazy but they do exist). What’s the difference? The culture. Cincinnati needs to start developing a different culture and talking about it is a good place to start instead of just shooing away ideas because Cincinnati is not x or y or z.

      Using the words “Hipster High Horse” and you claim to live in Chicago eh? You must not use the blue line very much lol.

    • ED

      Yeah, you’ve got to be kidding me, Chicago’s commuter bike culture puts our to shame despite all that scary weather, lol. http://www.placemakers.com/2016/01/05/walkable-winter-cities/

    • Neil Clingerman

      The pic on this article is not an exaggeration of the kind of bicycling you’ll see on the NW side even in terrible weather, even during “Snowpocalypse” a few years ago people were still bicycling in spite of heavy snow and high winds:

      http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/January-2015/How-I-Came-to-Love-Winter-Bikingand-Tolerate-Chicago-Winters/

    • Jesse

      Couldn’t agree more. All we accomplish by saying Cincinnati is not Chicago or Boston or Portland is ensuring that we continue to lose out to those places.

      Yeah we need a reasonable amount of parking given our current situation. Nobody is saying we don’t. But where do we go from here? What kind of Cincinnati do we want our kids to have? Do we address this problem by improving walkability and transit or keep on building parking garages?

      It’s weird how people freak out at the mere mention of parking free development. We could at least test out the idea. And this is a very limited test given the proximity of those two huge garages.

    • Neil Clingerman

      You know what though, it isn’t a zero sum sort of deal, there is a sensible middle road alternative that would let the market decide how much parking the neighborhood could bear instead of relying on arbitrary minimums. As Cincinnati becomes more urbane, things would adjust appropriately. Perhaps this is a good route to take?

    • This may very well be true, but forcing developers to provide a minimum amount of parking, whether they need it or not, seems to run contrary to the idea of a free market economy. If the market demands one or two parking spaces per residential unit, then developers will surely build that in order to sell the properties. If not, why saddle the developers and home buyers with the added costs?

    • Bill

      In your opinion, do you think that if there were no minimum parking requirements that 3CDC and other developers wouldn’t do any parking structures at all? I think they would. Residential may be one thing, but in terms of offices I absolutely think it needs to be there.

    • ED

      I’ve worked with Neyer and they only care about min requirements if there’s a compliance issue. Min requirements are very inexact and tenants typically want a certain number within a distance of their store entrance- Kroger simply requires max parking within 300′ of the entrance as that’s the furthest people walk.

      It’s actually better planning to permit residential parking, since it’ll just be car storage in an urban environment, than to encourage parking for commuters which has spinoff effects on congestion and transit.

    • Erich Griessmann

      I don’t know about you Randy, but if I pay 250,000$ for a house I don’t want to walk a block from the car to the apt.

    • Neil Clingerman

      That’s peanuts and you know that. Even Chicago is cheap by international standards for large city in a first world country – and buildings at that price point often don’t have parking included up here too.

    • Erich Griessmann

      In Cincinnati a 250$K home is not peanuts. You can buy a 3000 sq ft condo in Florence for half that amount. I know that because our family just sold one. The problem here is that a very vocal minority are trying to convince developers at bowing down to what YOU THINK are acceptable inconveniences for home owners. You make these comments not knowing what the demands and/or needs are of future interested home owners. If the parking is put underground or inside the block or off an alley, I don’t see what concern it is of yours. I know that people like you are obsessed with walkability scores etc., but you need to realize that we don’t live in 1910 (no matter how bad you all wish we did) and just because you think its ok to build a home without parking doesn’t mean that other people feel that way. Your comments on another of my statements in regard to parking prove that you are uniformed about parking in the City of Chicago. You provided price points of 100$ or so and Neil I can tell you that you are out of your mind. Parking for free on ANY street in the city with the city sticker is 85$ per year. If it’s zoned its another 25$. THATS FREE. ANY NEIGHBORHOOD. GHETTO OR GOLD COAST. Parking in the garages is 20$ for the first 15 minutes and monthly parking everywhere is $200. Maybe you know a friend of a friend who has a landlord that lets them park on an abandoned gravel lot in Humboldt Park for the price you listed, but give me a break about the parking not being what I said. I have lived here since 1999. I think I know what the parking fees are.

    • Neil Clingerman

      You have very little understanding of why Chicago is so different than Cincinnati don’t you? I mean there is a reason why people are out and about in Chicago and not in Cincinnati why the city is lively and not dead – its due to these policies that you constantly complain about. Isn’t it a noble goal to make Cincinnati a little more like Chicago in that regard? Why have you even lived here for so long if you so hate that aspect of life here? (ps I’ve been here since 2007). If you want those kinds of conveniences have you considered living out in Schaumburg? Or at least Oak Park if you want a degree of a happy medium between the two…

      And I am informed about parking in Chicago (perhaps I wasn’t clear enough for you), I own a car here and I don’t have that entitlement complex that makes me demand having instantaneous access to my car. The $100/month for a reserved protected indoor parking spot was in addition to the baseline $85/year city sticker+$25/year for a zone (which works out to an additional $9.17/month – (85+25)/12 ). The choice for me was park a block away all the time indoors for $109.17/month or park outside with the risk of having to OMG walk 3 blocks for $9.17/month – it made more sense for me to to do the later than the former, as I’d save money and perhaps get a bit more exercise now and then. There are tradeoffs to city living and its unrealistic to assume that a city shouldn’t have tradeoffs. You don’t want tradeoffs like these, live in the suburbs.

      Also, I kind of prefer having a neighborhood with life and people walking around as well as transit to having instant access to my car which I don’t really need to use that much because frankly we have options up here. Frankly, downtown Cincinnati is compact enough that they can make that choice too, particularly as things develop the way they’ve developed in Chicago over the last 20 years or so. You probably hate Chicago because you aren’t doing it right and are using your car for everything! When you’re complaining about driving on Lawrence Ave due to its road diet I would be getting off at the Ravenswood Metra station relaxed instead of more stressed out like I would have been driving from a long day of work, then walking to the Marianos a block away to grab some food for the evening then walking a few blocks home – its actually rather pleasant and not horrible even if its cold. (I used to live in that part of town I know how it is before and after the road diet happened and I’d say its a dramatic improvement of what was a pretty desolate stretch of road particularly with the addition of said Marianos). There is plenty of parking spots that can be bought for less than $200/mo in hip neighborhoods you aren’t looking hard enough:
      https://chicago.craigslist.org/search/prk?query=wicker+park&min_price=100&max_price=200
      https://chicago.craigslist.org/search/prk?query=Lincoln+Park&min_price=100&max_price=200

      (Since you mentioned Lawerence Ave here are listings for ravenswood):
      https://chicago.craigslist.org/search/prk?query=Ravenswood&min_price=100&max_price=200
      https://chicago.craigslist.org/search/prk?query=lakeview&min_price=100&max_price=200

      Even then is it really that much to ask to actually pay for storing your car instead of having the government entitle you to that storage placing extra burden on the developers? What ever happened to letting the market decide how much parking is needed? (and yes I know even Chicago has parking requirements to follow though they aren’t as pro-car).

      Also never view Cincinnati on its own terms like its this special place where rules of reality never apply, always view it in the context as the world as a whole. Too many natives yourself included see it as existing in this bubble where normal rules don’t apply. Its a city in the United States of America and a particularly urban one more akin to east coast cities than Dayton or Indianapolis. Acknowledge what Cincinnati’s peers are in terms of built form, where it fits on the gentrification cycle versus other cities, the cost of living it has versus its quality of life and what it can learn from other places that have experimented a bit more and found success. A competitive city thinks globally, a declining one thinks provincially. Cincinnati all too often thinks small I and a lot of us here want it to think bigger.

    • Erich Griessmann

      A noble goal would be not emulating Chicago in any way. I have lived in Chicago for so long because I enjoy an urban lifestyle and I am here for work. I enjoy walking a great deal and I take the CTA 5 days a week to and from work and I am a huge supporter of the streetcar in Cincinnati, which I think is the beginning of something great. The only time that my car moves is on weekends for shopping because shock of shocks I don’t want to carry 9 bags of groceries on the bus. Many people who live along Lawrence Avenue have complained what a disaster the road diet is and I would think that they have the “privilege” to comment since its their neighborhood. All one has to do is pull up pictures from the 40’s through the 60’s in any city to know that the communities were very lively (even in over the rhine) without a road diet. That is something that is a modern lie that is pushed to somehow re-create something that never existed. The reduction of Liberty would be a great thing, but there isn’t a living soul in Chicago that I know of any age group or ethnicity that doesn’t think the bike lanes are absolutely ridiculous when they go unused the majority of the year while people sit in gridlock in the loop. Or the 90 million dollars the city spent (even though we are supposedly bankrupt) where they tore out an entire lane of traffic for raised level bus stops and then made another lane for bus only traffic. End result = traffic is now a parking lot on Madison and other streets that have this are as well. When Daley was mayor the streets were wide and clear and rarely if ever was there a problem. Now its a parking lot always. So no I wouldn’t wish that on Cincinnati ever. “What ever happened to letting the market decide how much parking is needed? ” Yes Neil, why don’t YOU try that? Nothing would make me happier than OTR becoming what it was 100 years ago and a population comes back to the core. But they lived with cars and had plenty of parking. There is no reason to suppress the market because you falsely believe that everyone wants to live a hipster lifestyle. Not everyone wants to ride a unicycle to Findlay Market, and I think the last thing anyone wants to hear is a bunch of transplants suddenly telling natives whose ancestors built the town and made it the beautiful place that it is that they are “entitled” to somehow invalidate their viewpoints. There is obviously a meeting somewhere in between that can make everyone happy, but creating bike lanes for a minority and making it harder for everyone to get around because you have a preconceived notion that that has to happen in order to create walkability and a lively neighborhood is untrue. It didn’t have those things 60 years ago and it was lively then. The last thing that Cincinnati needs is yet another group throwing up roadblocks making it hard to develop anything. Not until the last vacant lot and surface parking lot is gone should you have anything to complain about. If you want Cincinnati to be bigger you should embrace development and not try to save the Dennison. Where were you when they tore down Pogue’s, Mabley and Carew, The Albee, and I could go on and on. But no, you want to save the Dennison, and the Davis furniture building? If we were thinking globally, you would have developers building highrises on every surface parking lot south of Central Parkway and offering no property taxes for 15 years and the city would explode. But no. Lets tell the owners of the Dennison that its a pearl. There’s nothing better than watching a neighborhood come to life and then watching people who weren’t there 20 years ago suddenly telling everyone how things should be run and regulated. Thats what I call entitlement.

    • Neil Clingerman

      This isn’t about filling in parking lots. The risk of the Dennison becoming another parking lot. Lets fill in the parking lots and save what fabric already exists both can coexist.

      Also when a town has the same people living in it for generation upon generation ideas can get stale. The reason why Cincinnati lost so many great landmarks was due to an inbred mentality that developed which has for DECADES seriously undervalued the city. I’m a foreign alien that comes form the distant land of south of Dayton Ohio and went to a high school you’ve never heard of and I can tell you that there are cities like Boston MA which had saved landmarks like these as early as the 1970s! It seems like Cincinnati only now in the 2010s is just starting to grasp the concept of adaptive reuse. Frankly the people who spent generations building Cincinnati hit a wall, and are stuck in an unhealthy rut of negativity that blinds them from seeing the things that make their city potentially great. It wouldn’t hurt the city to have new ideas and fresh faces because frankly Cincinnati is unknown in the grand scheme of things and that is a giant crime but I guess who went to Elder or St. X is far more important than getting national recognition the way say Savvanah, Charleston or even say Boston do for their historic architecture.

      I for one am happy to invalidate the opinions of many a long time Cincinnatian (I might add people like Randy have deep roots and don’t have this mentality) because frankly until the last 10 years or so they’ve done a terrible job of running the city. I have familiarity with Cincinnati since I was a kid I didn’t grow up too far away and would visit quiet often, I was like 40 miles from downtown, but the mentality of the locals made me feel like I might as well have grown up on a different planet when I lived there in my college years. These locals were unable to save any of the landmarks like the Albelee, Pogues, Mabley etc so why would I entrust them to save anything else? They were unable to save whole neighborhoods around the Unversity of Cincinnati that you weren’t around to see go away but I did. Why would I care what the old way of thinking dictates as gold? Cincinnati needs a major attitude adjustment and frankly the last few years have been just the medicine it needs to become a better city. The Dennison should be saved because these other buildings were lost to prove that the city can fight for what it should be not wallow in what it was and what its lost!

      PS: I’m sure you never go to logan square, probably too scared of the hipsters heck even more “normal” people up here feel downright hipster compared to most Cincinnatians. Maybe its a generational difference I dunno…

    • Neil Clingerman

      Also, I’m seeing far more comments in support of the Lawrence Road Diet than against it and the DNAInfo article this is attached to mentions a “vocal minority opposed”: https://neighborhoodsquare.com/n/item/4gDf?utm_campaign=Lincoln+Square&utm_medium=integration_partner&utm_source=dnainfo&utm_content=pwetli%40dnainfo.com&prompt=bottom

      https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151211/lincoln-square/development-is-coming-lawrence-avenue-is-neighborhood-ready

      More comments (click on the comments section on the bottom as this was before DNAInfo changed their commenting system to Neighborhood Square). Only one negative voice:

      https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140820/lincoln-square/lawrence-avenue-streetscape-heading-into-homestretch-with-resurfacing/

      Only a handful of people complaining here with most comments welcoming the change: https://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/feb06-lawrence-ave-streetscape-update-4719580/

      I’m not suggesting Cincinnati adopt Chicago’s inherently corrupt political system, but I am suggesting a change in attitude towards how its a city and how to look at the assets it has the comment sections above really illustrate how different the attitude is. Chicago understands intrinsically how to be a city, it seems to be something that’s rather difficult for Cincinnati to get even though its obvious to most people I know at least up here.

    • Erich Griessmann

      Hmm. Well maybe you should read these Yelp reviews of the actual residents of the neighborhood instead of sites that push your viewpoint or agenda? http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-lawrence-ave-streetscape Here are some highlights:

      I live one block from that Phase I stretch of Lawrence, and I hate this idea. Detest is not a strong enough word. I remember reading about this a couple of years ago and burying my head under my pillow. Now the nightmares are coming true. And the Lawrence project is bad enough, but the Ashland proposal is even worse.

      and this one;

      I’m just west of there where it’s 2 lane, traffic is awful. Traffic seems to be generally ok when you’re east of Western because it’s 4 lanes.

      and this one;

      It can already take half-and-hour to get from Lincoln Square to the entrance ramp to the Kennedy, a distance of just under 3 miles, and one of the main routes for people on the north side to get to the airport. That could double under this proposal. What incompetent buffoons we have running this city.

      and this one;

      I don’t drive much and prefer public transit for the most part, but when I do I am pretty much always on that part of Lawrence or the impacted area of Ashland. In the long run, I fully predict having to move because of this if the speed cameras and other Rahm BS don’t drive me out first.

      These are horrible ideas and I absolutely despise that scarce funds are being spent on this idiocy. Alderman Pawar will not get my vote again for championing this lunacy on Lawrence. As for Ashland, if this city wasn’t so inept, fiscally unsound and corrupt perhaps they could build a subway that wouldn’t cost 3X what it should.

      and this one;

      Restructuring the street was a terrible idea. I live in the neighborhood and I find it extremely frustrating to do anything along Lawrence. When I bike, great, there’s a bike lane (like there had been for years!). Biking or driving, both take forever on Lawrence. No one wants to share a lane with a bus because it stops every block. Much more traffic is created.

      So Neil, there are HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of these reviews of the people who live there on many many sites.

      It’s amazing how the internet works. I too can pull up information to back up my side of the argument as well. But in this case, I rely on the residents, not the media agenda. I want the people of Cincinnati to make informed decisions as to what works in bigger cities and what doesn’t, and in order for them to make the correct choices for them, they should hear from the people who have had these plans implemented and see how they feel about them. Not a progressive editorial staff with an agenda. Several of the people in my office live along Lawrence and they despise what has been done. And they are in their twenties who don’t own cars. You can put the city back to the way it was 80 years ago and make it vibrant again without making it a headache for everyone. As you pointed out, let the market decide. If people ask for a personal parking space then let them have it, if they don’t let them have it too. But don’t paint it out like “everyone in Chicago and New York and San Francisco just love the road diets and the bike lanes”. Read something other than Trendyviewpointofthemoment.com and hear what people have to say.

    • Neil Clingerman

      Dnainfo.com is actually run by a guy who donates to Republican campaigns, I picked it explicitly because it wasn’t an activist site, but instead a hyperlocal news site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ricketts

      If I wanted trendyinfo.com I would have linked to Chicago Streetsblog or its predecessor Chicago Grid 😉

    • ED

      That’s the point of the article.

    • ED

      Like the other project you commented on, this isn’t going to be high-end condos where the builder would obviously provide parking like the project in Hyde Park at Observatory and Shaw.

      And please stop making this ridiculous Chicago/Manhattan argument that no one started.

    • thebillshark

      There’s plenty of condos in OTR already that don’t have attached parking. There’s nothing strange or groundbreaking about it.

    • Erich Griessmann

      Well Bill, let me know how they successful they are at resale and we’ll discuss.

    • thebillshark

      Well, a neighbor’s condo (with no attached parking) increased $70k in value in two years. What more did you want to discuss? I don’t think you understand the demand for or the dynamics of OTR living right now.

    • Erich Griessmann

      I’m sure it will go up in value. Have they tried to sell it? I want to know the ease of selling a home without parking in OTR from the first time owners who are enthused about not having parking to the general market. That I want to know.

    • thebillshark

      Yes, that’s what I meant. It was sold at a price 35% higher than what they paid for it.

  • Jonathan Hay

    Some people don’t want cars and they should not be forced to subsidize others who do.

    • Bill

      Some people don’t want to use public transit and should not be forced to subsidize it.
      Unfortunately lots of people subsidize lots of things they don’t use. That’s how things work in an economy. Building an office structure without any sort of parking, whether in the development or nearby, is insanity. It seems like it will be a rather large office building. What company could fill it that would have 100% of their employees in walking/biking distance? If you want a realistic shot of courting a business there needs to be parking available. That’s a fact.

    • The Mercer Commons Garage is about one block away, while the Washington Park Garage is about a block and a half away. These are very reasonable distances to expect people to walk. Heck, in most cases people walk that distance to get to their office from their parking spot in the lot outside their suburban office building.

    • ED

      Look at all those downtown office workers parking at the casino because it’s free.

    • Neil Clingerman

      Not only that but the streetcar is going to also allow people to park much farther than they did before.

    • JacobEPeters

      or to only park once when visiting for the day or weekend

    • ED

      Another flaw of minimum parking requirements, their inability to account for shared parking in suburban environments, let alone urban ones.

    • Bill

      Right. That’s the point of your article. Because they built the garages at Mercer and Washington Park they don’t need it here. I get that. My point is, you have to have that parking somewhere. It doesn’t have to be directly attached to the development, but it does have to exist somewhere in the vicinity like Mercer or Washington Park. I don’t think it’s realistic to think that a company or companies big enough to fill that space would be interested without any parking in the nearby areas for their employees. Not all of those employees will be living downtown. Some will be commuting.

    • ED

      There are many companies downtown that occupy much bigger buildings, like Scripps, that don’t provide onsite parking for every employee.

    • ED

      Right…it’s all optional. People can chose to own or not own a car, walk/bus/drive to work, live/work in this building or OTR…building less parking isn’t forcing anyone to do anything and it’s a straw man argument to say anything otherwise.

    • Bill

      And companies have a right to choose where or where not to locate their offices. To attrach a company or companies large enough to fill the space there needs to be parking in the area. Not directly attached, but it still needs to exist in the nearby proximity (Mercer and Washington Park like the article states). To think that there will be companies that locate there that don’t have commuters that need to park is absurd.

    • ED

      http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2016/01/exclusive-developer-renovating-huge-historic-otr.html

      Anyone familiar with OTR doesn’t need a tour guide to show them all the parking that’s available besides the obvious choices: Clay is unmetered, Elm is unmetered, north of Liberty (very close to this) is unmetered, 14th west of Elm is unmetered, the west end is wide open, and there’s a $2/day deck on the west side of Central Pkwy by Music Hall if you want a garage.

    • Jesse

      Sorry to wade into the weeds a little here. It is possible to have an environment where the burden of parking is on the worker not the company or the city. It’s simple. Find a way to get to work or find a new job. People can still drive if they feel like paying $250 a month (MUCH higher in some areas) to rent a space in a garage 5 blocks away. Or they can live on a transit line. Maybe their employer will even provide a transit pass.

      Now I know we are not ready for that here but I’m not willing to say we should be afraid to move in that direction. Challenging the assumption that a development will fail without a dedicated parking lot is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

      Thinking long term, companies will locate where they are accessible to a talented workforce. That can include accessibility by transit or on foot if that model has been shown to be successful. We need to demonstrate that people in Cincinnati can get around that way. That means choosing to subsidize sustainable transportation options at the local and state level.

      That is not easy but what is the alterntive? Continue battling with the suburbs over the relative merits of parking garages vs. oceans of surface parking? Eventually the fastest growing companies will take off for Seattle or Boston to take advantage of the transit options and walkable neighborhoods we failed to build.

    • We should only subsidize things which benefit the common good. We *should* subsidize biking, walking, transit. We should *not* subsidize smoking, fast food, and driving. Not everyone is in a place where they can easily choose not to drive, but those folks should pay for their costs, specifically, parking. Also, there’s nothing wrong with walking a block from the parking garage to your work. There’s no reason to have extensive parking at every single location, except laziness.

    • Jonathan Hay

      It does not make sense to me to force people to have a parking spot when they build a house and more than to force people to have air conditioning or a large master bedroom. If people want a more affordable house and to take public transportation, great it’s their choice. If they want to rent from a garage great.

  • thebillshark

    A few items:

    1. I thought that being near the streetcar route reduces the parking requirement by up to 50% as well. Was that a factor in this case?

    2. You have the Washington Park and Mercer Commons garage availability flip flopped. I believe Washington Park availability is running low due to spots reserved for SCPA, the proposed Strietmann building office project on 12th Street, etc.

    3. It looks like there ends up being a difference between the amount of spaces reserved in a garage for a development and the actual amount of monthly passes that end up getting purchased. Would be interesting to know how those unused spaces are handled.

    • You’re right. I do have the availability flip flopped. Thanks for the heads up.

      As for the parking reduction, that applies to residential units. Since this project is now fully office and retail, it no longer applies.