Downtown Detroit doesn't make sense without mass transit

One of the Crain's Detroit bloggers, Daniel Duggan, wrote about Dan Gilbert's power play for parking in a downtown structure. He calculated that if Gilbert buys Chase tower and fills it maximum occupancy then the workforce would require roughly 2,000 parking spaces.

Quote:

---

Buildings, obviously, need tons of parking in Detroit.

Following the rule of thumb on office occupancy, you need 250 square feet per person. That means that Chase Tower's 500,000 square feet of space needs 2,000 spaces at full occupancy — these are very rough numbers though.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...OG08/110339974

---

Assuming that the calculation is about right, if Chase Tower needs 2,000 spaces then that means the building needs:

2,000 parking spaces x 160 square feet = 320,000 square feet for parking.

Chase Tower itself is 500,000 square feet, so that means the tower would need to have another structure that is nearly the size of Chase Tower just to accommodate parking. Extrapolate that to every building downtown and for each building you would have to build a dedicated parking structure of nearly the same size.

That then brings up productivity issues. How much of the potential productivity downtown is degraded by having to devote so much space to parking? By productivity I mean the amount of space that is generating revenue versus the space that just sits there. So for each square foot of space downtown, how much revenue could be generated if it was all devoted to workers? Now divide that in half because in Detroit you have to devote as much space to parking as you do for workers. The amount of space that needs to be dedicated to parking is degrading the potential productivity rates of downtown Detroit by almost half.

This is why downtown Detroit does not work. The lack of a transit system is why so many buildings downtown -- that would be highly sought real estate in other cities -- are effectively worthless.

Yup. It's not a parking problem downtown Detroit has. It's a transportation problem. As long as individual entrepreneurs and units of government try to solve the problem with parking garages, you'll never achieve the density the downtown deserves. But if we all work together and build mass transit ... you are restoring downtown Detroit's old circulatory system.

There is considerably more parking spots in Downtown now than when the NBD building was fully occupied.

Quicken has always been a supporter of transit in downtown. Maybe this guy does not have his facts straight or is injecting a bias?
http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/cullenqa17609.aspx

I have to agree DetroitPlanner... back when the Chase Tower was the NBD HQ, there were over 100,000 daytime workers downtown... we're at less than 3/4 of that now... so how can lack of parking be an issue? Were there any parking lots or structures removed from the CBD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

I have to agree DetroitPlanner... back when the Chase Tower was the NBD HQ, there were over 100,000 daytime workers downtown... we're at less than 3/4 of that now... so how can lack of parking be an issue? Were there any parking lots or structures removed from the CBD?

---

I have just been counting the number of structures added. One and Two Detroit are mentioned in the article, but add Compuware's above and below ground parking, the parking above the CVS bank, Hudson's, the parking where Grand Trunk used to be and there are several newer structures in the Campus Martius area. If you go a few blocks further out you will find even more new sructures. Add in the decrease of the worker population and you have more than enough parking for most days. However, if you notice evening rush hours you still have lots of people waiting to ride transit home. Not everyone uses those parking spots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

One of the Crain's Detroit bloggers, Daniel Duggan, wrote about Dan Gilbert's power play for parking in a downtown structure. He calculated that if Gilbert buys Chase tower and fills it maximum occupancy then the workforce would require roughly 2,000 parking spaces.



Assuming that the calculation is about right, if Chase Tower needs 2,000 spaces then that means the building needs:

2,000 parking spaces x 160 square feet = 320,000 square feet for parking.

---

That amount of parking amounts to an additional $40 million that would have be financed to make the project work. No small potatoes there. Since maintenance is [[barely) covered by daily/monthly parking fees, the capital costs of the parking structure need to be recouped in the form of rent. That's a whopping $200/SF additional charge [[about 10 years' rent in downtown Detroit) to the leaseable portion [[the office building)!!! That kind of money can easily make or break a project.

Folks in Chicago don't have to worry about that extra $40 million cost. I'm jus sayin.

Suburban office buildings have the same problem, plus in the suburbs zoning laws mandate a certain amount of parking space per square foot that the building has. They don't generally build structures [[sometimes that happens), but they have to buy land by the acre, which adds up, and then they have to pave it, put in storm sewers, and drainage mitigation ponds. It is not like there is zero cost for parking in the suburbs, and ALL of the cost for a building is carried by the developer. At least downtown the parking is spread over several parking operators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Folks in Chicago don't have to worry about that extra $40 million cost. I'm jus sayin.

---

You seriously believe Chicago doesn't have parking structures?

"You seriously believe Chicago doesn't have parking structures?"

Of course there's parking but in Chicago, a developer can build a new building or lease out an existing building without having to expect to provide parking for every worker. How about in Detroit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Folks in Chicago don't have to worry about that extra $40 million cost. I'm jus sayin.

---

That's not entirely true. Chicago has pretty car-centric zoning requirements. Pretty much all new buildings have extensive parking.

All new residential buildings downtown have to supply a minimum required one parking space per unit, but most developers provide even more. Look at those huge parking podiums at the base of new apartment buildings.

Similarly, new hotels have parking requirements.

Office buildings, though, generally have somewhat more limited parking.

I think NYC is pretty much the only major U.S. city that builds skyscrapers without parking. New parking spaces in Manhattan are actually banned. You need a special variance to build new parking spaces, and these variances are very tough to get.

IMO, downtown Detroit is too parking-oriented, but I really don't think it's a critical problem. The market [[Metro Detroit) requires convenient parking, and developers respond to this need. Consumers are willing to pay for the parking, and I doubt it costs that much to build above-ground parking spaces.

I will agree, though, that higher transit patronage would be great for downtown, and would lead to a much livelier, more consistent streetscape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

You seriously believe Chicago doesn't have parking structures?

---

Are developers required to have so many parking spots, to the extent they are in Detroit?

When you look at our super buildings, like the Renaissance Center and the Penobscot Block, you have to wonder if these places almost require being over or adjacent to major transit hubs, like say... Sears/Willis Tower or the World Trade Center/Freedom Tower is. By comparison, The Chicago Spire was to rely heavily on the automobile, and of course, was never finished.

Am I correct when I say that there have been no new high rises or renovations in Downtown Detroit, in the past twenty years that did not include the construction of large scale parking garages, or demolition of buildings to include some sort of additional surface lots?

We might have our answers in the various SEMCOG and urban planning community guidebooks. SEMCOG's in particular is very informative and interesting.

It appears that 2.3 parking spaces are the typical requirement for residential areas. Many parking requirements have been figured around peak time [[Black Friday, sport championships, popular worship days, etc.) or maximum capacity for a given use. If a mixed use property changes or is sold, it is an added expense on the owner/buyer to prove new requirements are being met. There are many frustrating suggestions in there.

I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Detroit followed Ann Arbor, Flint, and others in doing their own research, which apparently proved that the suggested requirements were overly inflated, even for peak times. However, SEMCOG does not go into much in the way of suggestions and solutions.

Can anyone seriously believe that more than about 20% or workers would use anything other than their own car? Or possibly ride with a co-worker or friend?

Mass transit doesn't work in Detroit. That's been proven time and time again. Detroiters like to have their cars close by.

The only way it might work would be to close off downtown to all private vehicles during the day. Limit it to commercial and transit vehicles only. Commuters would use some sort of secured Park & Ride lots situated around the city and suburbs. There would have to be enough transit vehicles to support a 15 minute schedule from 5AM to 8PM to allow for flexible work schedules. Those that legitimately need their vehicle during the day could apply for a special permit which would have to be supported by the employer and be subject to annual renewal.


But of course, none of that will ever happen.

Here is my thoughts on the mass transit thing.
It sounds like the argument of what came first the chicken or the egg. Do we need to ship people into Detroit or do we need to create things there first? Ship people in to do what once they're there? Build business and entertainment with no efficient way to get people there? See the idea?
Also we are trying to change generations of people that are used to commuting to work/play/shopping. [[and may enjoy the commute in their personal car)
Also the perception of Detroit is gonna take as long to heal as it did to be tarnished.
I hope in my lifetime [[hopefully 50 more yrs) I see it return to some semblance of a major city.
My dad always said he wouldn't but I may.

Quote:

---

I hope in my lifetime [[hopefully 50 more yrs) I see it return to some semblance of a major city.

---

While it can stabilize and become better than it is now, I don't see any possibility of it returning to what it was in the 40s and 50s. The dynamics just aren't there anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Can anyone seriously believe that more than about 20% or workers would use anything other than their own car? Or possibly ride with a co-worker or friend?

---

Yes. Quite a few of them demonstrated that by using the shuttle buses during the Super Bowl.

If you require all business to provide parking, then for two reasons you are creating an environment where people will drive everywhere all the time. Reason number 1: it will be convenient to drive; you can anticipate ease in finding a parking space. Reason number 2: So much parking disrupts the environment for pedestrians to the point that it is very unpleasant not to park nearby.

If you reduce the parking requirement, and allow a business to decide how much parking it wants to provide, then those businesses that anticipate serving only motorists who wish to park nearby will choose to pay the enormous sum of money required to provide such parking, and businesses that believe they can serve their business need without that parking will choose not to provide it.

This is one of those situations where government intervention goes beyond meddling all the way to harmful. Let private enterprise decide how much parking it needs to provide. You will find this begins to repair the urban, walkable environment in a central business district, and pretty quickly at that. Parking is a very low-end use of what ought to be valuable land. In particular, in a city like Detroit where people are used to driving everywhere, you will find that people who own property at the fringes of the CBD and midtown, property which is pretty well nigh useless right now, will be able to use their nearly-useless property for parking lots for people who prefer to park fairly close to their destination.

So this is a moment where, IMHO, the Libertarians triumph; get the government out of this issue and let business make its decisions.

is gilbert contributing to the M1 line?

yes and much more... THE CITY! He understands... putting money where his mouth is. His company and employees needs it..

Downtown is basically unnecessary in an environment where cars are needed. It essentially mirrors suburbs in that people will tend to drive more from location to location. What Detroit needs is a mass of people who live and/or work downtown who need to traverse the area regularly. Their need is the precursor for mass transit as it was demonstrated in shuttle ridership during the Super Bowl. Of course certain types of businesses should provide parking [[like grocery stores), but living patterns should dictate how projects are developed [[with/without parking).

I agree totally!

i totally agree with reducing or eliminating parking requirements downtown. having a downtown at all is kind of pointless when it often resembles a suburban office park in terms of parking.

So many around here have no sense of what a downtown is and the benefits that come with it; we're only maintaining the status quo and reinforcing that attitude if all business developments are a slave to parking. As someone pointed out, all the excess traffic makes it less desirable to be on foot and supporting other downtown business.

Look if a business wants to provide free parking for everyone they should be able to but forcing them to is likely a factor in keeping more businesses from coming downtown. Those spaces are expensive and many would be willing to consider other means of getting downtown if there was any reason to. Employers could offer a cash bonus in lieu of a parking space.

One program I really like is in ann arbor many downtown employers subsidize free bus fare to and from downtown [[through AATA which services most of AA and ypsi and is pretty well run) This cuts down on traffic, parking needs, congestion, aggravation, and money....its a win win except for those who run parking facilities.

I'd love to see a similar program downtown. SMART could probably use a few more park and rides to make it work. subsidizing a program like this would probably be more cost effective than building more parking structures.

If you could take advantage of a program like that and maybe even get a cash bonus for saving the company money I think you'd see some takers. I would gladly give up a parking space downtown in exchange for a DDOT pass.

{rencense}:So many around here have no sense of what a downtown is and the benefits that come with it; we're only maintaining the status quo and reinforcing that attitude if all business developments are a slave to parking


You hit on the dot!...GOOD POINT!!! Thats what I have been trying to get through some of these Detroityes'r!!! ITS ALL WRONG HERE, looking at me like Im crazy about bringing one or two big box DOWNTOWN. WHY NOT!!! RIGHT?. They rather go shopping at the mall with huge UGLY parking lots. Everything dont make sense, but I will bring clarity to you Metro Detroiters.