Once ubiquitous, parking garages fall to the wrecking ball

[iheartthed]

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]

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]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.