3231, RMB, urbanomics, MiamiOH, p28curry, Pugu, tkm0911 and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.
^^Which is why banks care about parking. If the developer can't lease the buildings, they will default on their loans.
Quote from: Hts121 on April 24, 2012, 09:43:07 AM^^Which is why banks care about parking. If the developer can't lease the buildings, they will default on their loans. I think it would be interesting to do a market assessment among various demographic groups in which two of the questions asked is:If you could rent an apartment without a parking space included and save $100 per month on your rent, would that apartment be more attractive to you or less?Which would you prefer at the same rent level -- an apartment without a parking space but with higher-quality finishes and amenities (in-suite laundry, balcony, better views, etc) or an apartment with a parking space included but having lower-quality finishes and fewer amenities?
Banks care about signed leases, not parking. You can build a tree house with a rope ladder and no parking but if you can get it leased for $20/sf, you can probably get a bank to finance it.
One huge parking garage will take away the motive for surface parking lots once the draw of uptown hits full stride. As long as there are freeways, there will be a need for parking.
The 700-car parking garage is behind both towers and not visible from the street. I can only see this as a positive thing. It doesn't disrupt any of the street-lining retail and provides covered parking for residents. So what's the big deal? Is this what people have a problem with?
Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!
Quote from: KJP on April 25, 2012, 11:15:41 AMPut a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!! UCI should literally be demanding that from the developer team. Unlike some of the downtown projects we grumble out, UCI holds all the cards. As long as it doesn't break the budget, it can demand anything it [and we] thinks is beneficial for the wider UC area here.
I'll be interning at UCI this summer. I'll try to influence positive changes on this the best I can. It's ridiculous that the proposal includes killing the pedestrian experience between Little Italy and Euclid
Cleveland isn't Chicago, but parts of Cleveland have as much transit and amenities as Chicago does. And this area is one of them. This site has more than just a transit stop out front. It's in the crotch of two high-density transit routes, plus lesser density transit, plus pedestrian accessibility to all basic services, plus access to bike-friendly routes in several directions. Yet I fear we in Cleveland build like we've always built because we're too timid to compete with the likes of Chicago. Building and maintaining all those parking spaces will cause higher cost burdens on developers, lenders and ultimately, tenants. Are we sure that there is a significant portion of the market that would love to reduce their cost of housing by not having to pay for parking? Or to provide shared parking -- using a parking space at night for residential that may be used by an office user during the day?This site would be a great opportunity to support the use of location-efficient mortgages, but it requires a public sector sponsor like RTA, the city, UCI or a combination. Maybe Coral isn't willing to be the guinea pig, not with this project. But if a LEM-supported project could be done anywhere, this location is clearly one of the best between Chicago and the East Coast.
Agree with clvlndr, you can't not have parking. That isn't a solution. But there are good and bad ways to have parking and I do hope that UCI makes sure there's no pedestrian dead zone here. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Btw, I like the LEM idea. Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere? Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD? Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?
Yet we are still in complete reliance upon developers to do the correct thing?
Transit cannot compete with free or near free parking.
I don't subscribe to the theory that forcing people past retail helps retail. Maybe it does, but not enough to justify the coercive annoyance. If people want to shop, they'll shop if viable options are made available. But if they don't want to shop, if they just want to cross the street, why not provide the best possible way for them to do that? I bet they'll appreciate the respect and consideration. Copious walkways don't seem to have harmed the downtowns of Minneapolis or Cincinnati, so I don't think they'll cause much damage here.
Quote from: clvlndr on April 26, 2012, 02:50:21 AMBtw, I like the LEM idea. Is this comparable the the tax increment financing idea that's been floated elsewhere? Do you have precedent where a transit agency used this to foster TOD? Sounds like a great idea but RTA would 1st have to own the land, right?KJP, are you familiar with any commercial LEM models? The traditional LEM product is purely residential and I don't think translates to this kind of development, but I'm curious if you've come across something else.
Quote from: CleveChiNola on April 24, 2012, 09:04:04 PMOne huge parking garage will take away the motive for surface parking lots once the draw of uptown hits full stride. As long as there are freeways, there will be a need for parking.Except the nearest freeway to this site is three miles away. I think that can be an advantage to market a different lifestyle than the standardized one that's copied just everywhere else in Ohio. If we want to keep compete for young people, then offer a lifestyle that's attracting them to the coasts, Chicago and a few other cities. We have the opportunity to do something unique and special (for Ohio) at this location. Let's not water down the potential for something more creative, branded and unparalleled.Quote from: MuRrAy HiLL on April 24, 2012, 09:37:06 PMThe 700-car parking garage is behind both towers and not visible from the street. I can only see this as a positive thing. It doesn't disrupt any of the street-lining retail and provides covered parking for residents. So what's the big deal? Is this what people have a problem with?I don't have a problem with that garage. It creates a buffer against the 90 daily freight trains and 80 daily RTA trains that pass that site. But it reminds me of the line from The Blues Brothers.... Jake: "How often does the train go by?" Elwood: "So often you don't even notice."It's the garage on the south side of Mayfield that bothers me, as well as the skywalk. I'm especially concerned about the garage being designed without a public interface along Mayfield (ie: retail space or two, lots of glass/doorways, doors that open on to the sidewalk -- ie no strip of grass). In other words, if this has to be built, don't build it like this....This is horrible. Having the bunker exit/enter on Mayfield would be bad news for peds. And the vending machines don't make this anymore pedestrian friendly! I almost laughed at how bad this is.....Instead, build it like this.....Put a little thought and creativity into it! University Circle demands this of you!!