Once ubiquitous, parking garages fall to the wrecking ball

**hybridy** · January-28-15, 10:59 AM

interesting take on the phenomenon that destroyed our dense downtown. though we still have a plethora of surface lots that could absorb more buildings prior to ripping down any outdated parking decks...

http://www.gmtoday.com/news/front/topstory12.asp

**nain rouge** · January-28-15, 11:06 AM

Detroit is at a tipping point. If we could maintain all of the existing historic buildings and augment it by filling the empty spots with new construction, you'd really have an ideal modern downtown. You'd be shocked by how boring the downtowns are in some of the country's hippest cities, where aggressive rebuilding was rampant. Too much modern construction seems to zap the life out of downtowns.

Detroit has a great opportunity to combine sparking remnants of the City Beautiful movement with the best of modern architecture and practices, the latter of which provides the auto-friendly spaces that are coveted by office workers and visiting suburbanites.

**nain rouge** · January-28-15, 11:15 AM

Just my own aside: I know a lot of people don't think Metro Detroit needs a strong urban core to prosper. After all, areas like Houston are doing fine. But I think in a cold, gritty, and older area, you have to play to your intrinsic strengths. In Metro Detroit's case, you have a vast area that was designed to be urban or semi-urban, and I don't see how neglecting those spaces will ultimately work in the region's favor.

I just don't think Detroit can beat Houston in the modern economy by pursuing sprawl. For one, we have a vast urban legacy to deal with, which Houston doesn't. Secondly, people that love exurbs tend to prefer the warmer climes of the Sun Belt. Sorry, but it's true. They're not moving their in droves just because the union isn't as strong down there. Why is Pulte in Atlanta? Why is Comerica in Dallas?

So yes, let's see some parking garages receive the wrecking ball...

**Lowell** · January-28-15, 12:53 PM

Detroit is at a tipping point. If we could maintain all of the existing historic buildings and augment it by filling the empty spots with new construction, you'd really have an ideal modern downtown.

And maybe all that parking space is now an advantage?

One of the biggest knocks on why Downtown Detroit died was said to be lack of parking. Ultimately it was blamed for the demise of the movie palaces and then retail. Down came history and up sprung acres of parking space. Of course the fact that the electric street railway system had been destroyed was completely overlooked in those days. It was assumed that everybody had a car so forget it.

For those who recall the decline era the cry 'we need more parking' if downtown is to ever survive rang throughout the era. Create that and everything would be perfect. The Michigan Building, where the DetroitYES office is, was a prime example. The theater dies for lack of parking and then the building faces the same threat. You know the result and every day I park my car in that elegant and telling setting.

Ironically, now that downtown is on an increasingly rapid rise, the fact that so much parking space exists, whether we like it or not, is an advantage. In fact I don't think the current renaissance would be possible without it considering our lack efficient mass transportation.

Even on that front much has and is improving. The Rosa Parks transit center has greatly rationalized and centralized bus mass transit tying it together with the People Mover. It has also dignified the bus transit experience with an elegant and comfortable all-weather setting. And regardless of what one thinks of it, the M1 rail system will not hurt. In fact it will allow outlying parking options to come into play allowing downtown big events to handle our auto-dependent and addicted metro.

The acres of spaces also make new developments conceivable and, as a project like the Z garage shows, it becomes possible to have development and parking.

We can't un-ring the bell of past demolitions and I think that mentality has run its course. Fortunately we have been left with enough of our great architectural legacy which is blending well into the interesting character of the evolving new downtown Detroit.

**nain rouge** · January-28-15, 01:10 PM

You make good points about parking in downtown. That said, I believe Detroit needs a multi-faceted solution to getting people in and out of downtown. It can't just be cars, because as I mentioned in another topic, an auto-centric downtown will almost by rule will be a dead zone for urban vitality. Simply because the parking demands mean that any step developers make towards urban vitality is simultaneously undone by the subsqeuent acquiescing to parking demands.

There's a reason why the strips with smaller 2-4 story urban buildings tend to have the liveliest scenes. When you build a 40 floor office building and intend on everyone driving to it, you've just screwed over an entire block. If you're lucky you'll get an Applebee's out of the deal.

If Detroit wants an urban core, it needs to be accessible by transit. DDOT is in shambles. It isn't the answer right now. It needs to be revamped or we need to create new solutions. Light rail on Woodward should extend to the suburbs. We need BRT in the city that's reliable so people that live in the city can quickly and easily get downtown. It's ridiculous that the people living in Midtown are driving everywhere. That's now how you build a true urban core.

We need to reduce parking demands in Downtown Detroit to make it vital.

**DTWflyer** · January-28-15, 01:29 PM

Commuter rail / light-rail along the Woodward or railroad corridor out to Birmingham/Bloomfield would be a huge enabler for growth of the downtown business environment.

**Khorasaurus** · January-28-15, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

We need to reduce parking demands in Downtown Detroit to make it vital.

I absolutely agree, which is why we need real, region-wide transit. And it's not just Downtown that needs to see parking demand reduced. Anyone tried to park in Royal Oak recently? Even places like Plymouth and Oxford have parking crunches - partially because they are historic downtowns with no public transportation at all.

Of course, cars are never going to go away entirely, so we also need to be more creative with parking. Liner buildings that hide parking garages from the street, or buildings that have street-level retail, then parking above, the residential or office above the parking. We've seen some proposals for things like that, and I think they're a great half-measure while we sort out our transit problems [[which could take a while).

**nain rouge** · January-28-15, 01:46 PM

I also think we need to spread out the "parking love" in Detroit, so to speak. Why should everything that's parking intensive be directly downtown? Why not spread out and build some of that stuff in Midtown and New Center? With cars and modern light rail in the picture, those are practically extensions of downtown.

**royce** · February-04-15, 08:03 PM

Having too many parking garages is not Downtown Detroit's problem. The plethora of surface lots is the problem. With new rules requiring that parking garages have ground level space for retail [[Z lot), building new garages would be welcome downtown. The real coop would be to get more underground parking. The chance to turn I-375 into a surface street opens the door for some underground parking. Too bad they couldn't do underground parking when Washington Boulevard was redone. Having underground parking there now with the Westin and Aloft hotels on each end of Washington Boulevard, would be ideal. Getting rid of the surface lots downtown with either an office building, residential building, or a parking garage will bring back downtown.

**iheartthed** · February-04-15, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

And maybe all that parking space is now an advantage?

One of the biggest knocks on why Downtown Detroit died was said to be lack of parking. Ultimately it was blamed for the demise of the movie palaces and then retail. Down came history and up sprung acres of parking space. Of course the fact that the electric street railway system had been destroyed was completely overlooked in those days. It was assumed that everybody had a car so forget it.

For those who recall the decline era the cry 'we need more parking' if downtown is to ever survive rang throughout the era. Create that and everything would be perfect. The Michigan Building, where the DetroitYES office is, was a prime example. The theater dies for lack of parking and then the building faces the same threat. You know the result and every day I park my car in that elegant and telling setting.

Ironically, now that downtown is on an increasingly rapid rise, the fact that so much parking space exists, whether we like it or not, is an advantage. In fact I don't think the current renaissance would be possible without it considering our lack efficient mass transportation.

Even on that front much has and is improving. The Rosa Parks transit center has greatly rationalized and centralized bus mass transit tying it together with the People Mover. It has also dignified the bus transit experience with an elegant and comfortable all-weather setting. And regardless of what one thinks of it, the M1 rail system will not hurt. In fact it will allow outlying parking options to come into play allowing downtown big events to handle our auto-dependent and addicted metro.

The acres of spaces also make new developments conceivable and, as a project like the Z garage shows, it becomes possible to have development and parking.

We can't un-ring the bell of past demolitions and I think that mentality has run its course. Fortunately we have been left with enough of our great architectural legacy which is blending well into the interesting character of the evolving new downtown Detroit.

It was always a dubious claim that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. If everyone needed massive amounts of parking to make downtown Detroit viable, then how did it become a dense center in the first place? And why are all of the most vibrant urban centers so short on parking?

The truth is that space is too valuable to vibrant urban centers to dedicate so much space to unproductive uses like parking. It is simple economics. To build a vibrant urban center you need ways to move people in, out, and around, that doesn't require half of the space to be unproductive dead spaces to store cars.

**erikd** · February-05-15, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It was always a dubious claim that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. If everyone needed massive amounts of parking to make downtown Detroit viable, then how did it become a dense center in the first place? And why are all of the most vibrant urban centers so short on parking?

The truth is that space is too valuable to vibrant urban centers to dedicate so much space to unproductive uses like parking. It is simple economics. To build a vibrant urban center you need ways to move people in, out, and around, that doesn't require half of the space to be unproductive dead spaces to store cars.

Excellent post.

**wolverine** · February-05-15, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It was always a dubious claim that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. If everyone needed massive amounts of parking to make downtown Detroit viable, then how did it become a dense center in the first place? And why are all of the most vibrant urban centers so short on parking?

The truth is that space is too valuable to vibrant urban centers to dedicate so much space to unproductive uses like parking. It is simple economics. To build a vibrant urban center you need ways to move people in, out, and around, that doesn't require half of the space to be unproductive dead spaces to store cars.

To build on your point further, I don't think concealed parking is any concession either. I have to make this point as I realistically see Detroit building more highrises in the future. You have to get people out walking more and taking transit to jobs. You build up a larger commercial presence when there's suddenly a market at the sidewalk.

Every time I think of the best fine-grain commercial districts that are "places to be" they are also perhaps the worst streets in America to drive a car. So if you are accomplishing 30 mph travel in Detroit, that probably reflects on the district that there's literally nothing to do or see.

**erikd** · February-05-15, 11:16 PM

The downtown parking situation is likely to change dramatically after self driving cars hit the market. Paying to park downtown will no longer make sense when you can have your car drop you off, drive itself to a free parking spot outside of downtown, and then pick you up whenever you are ready to go.

Car sharing services like Zipcar will also become much more practical and popular once they have driverless cars. Zipcar works great if the car is located very close to your residence, but it is much less attractive if you have to walk 5-10 minutes to the pick up and drop off location.

**wolverine** · February-06-15, 12:02 AM

^ Agree. It's time to start planning for centralized vehicle storage facilities that could efficiently park up to 10 times greater capacity over the same area and dispatch many times faster than conventional garages. Having vehicles on demand will free up more street space for pedestrians. To my earlier point, having the car hidden away somewhere else will hopefully encourage people to walk more, but a car is always readily available if required.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-06-15, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It was always a dubious claim that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. If everyone needed massive amounts of parking to make downtown Detroit viable, then how did it become a dense center in the first place? And why are all of the most vibrant urban centers so short on parking?

The truth is that space is too valuable to vibrant urban centers to dedicate so much space to unproductive uses like parking. It is simple economics. To build a vibrant urban center you need ways to move people in, out, and around, that doesn't require half of the space to be unproductive dead spaces to store cars.

It is simply untrue that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. But it is 100% true that outside of NYC, SF & Chicago, most downtowns fell out of favor partly because retail customers and office workers preferred car culture and 'free' parking.

Fortunately, the balance is being restored, and central cities that rely on transit and expensive parking are again in vogue.

But the argument that if only we'd provided more parking, downtown Detroit would have been saved is silly.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-06-15, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

It is simply untrue that lack of parking led to downtown's downfall. But it is 100% true that outside of NYC, SF & Chicago, most downtowns fell out of favor partly because retail customers and office workers preferred car culture and 'free' parking.

It's not that preferences changed, per se. It's that after folks moved miles from the city into the cornfields [[thanks to some heavy subsidies and regulation), they didn't feel like driving half-an-hour to buy things they could get at the brand new shopping mall near their new villa.

And it's simply not true that downtowns in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco never fell out of favor. In the 1970s and 1980s, those places were upheld as the epitome of everything that was wrong with city living.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-06-15, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

It's not that preferences changed, per se. It's that after folks moved miles from the city into the cornfields [[thanks to some heavy subsidies and regulation), they didn't feel like driving half-an-hour to buy things they could get at the brand new shopping mall near their new villa.

And it's simply not true that downtowns in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco never fell out of favor. In the 1970s and 1980s, those places were upheld as the epitome of everything that was wrong with city living.

The City of Chicago, for example, in the late 1980s still held 1/2 of the jobs in the Chicagoland region. Detroit by comparison fell to about 10,000 downtown jobs in a region of 4m. Sure, apples to oranges... but I think my point is clear. We would have been happy to have done as well as Chicago. We didn't. Downtown Detroit in the 80s was a sad place to live and work -- as I did then. [[I liked it, but it was pathetic.)

**mwilbert** · February-07-15, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

The City of Chicago, for example, in the late 1980s still held 1/2 of the jobs in the Chicagoland region. Detroit by comparison fell to about 10,000 downtown jobs in a region of 4m. Sure, apples to oranges... but I think my point is clear. We would have been happy to have done as well as Chicago. We didn't. Downtown Detroit in the 80s was a sad place to live and work -- as I did then. [[I liked it, but it was pathetic.)

I don't disagree with this comparison in general, but do you have a source for the idea that employment in downtown Detroit fell to 10,000 jobs? I'm pretty sure that is impossible. I would think the number was closer to 50,000, and it has nearly doubled now. But it hasn't risen by a factor of ten.

**iheartthed** · February-07-15, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't disagree with this comparison in general, but do you have a source for the idea that employment in downtown Detroit fell to 10,000 jobs? I'm pretty sure that is impossible. I would think the number was closer to 50,000, and it has nearly doubled now. But it hasn't risen by a factor of ten.

Yeah, I agree. Maybe working in the private sector there were only 10,000 workers [[even that's very hard to believe), but the city of Detroit alone must've had nearly 10,000 workers downtown during that time period.