the local business owners and landlords who actually own buildings and do business in that neighborhood DO NOT WANT additional parking
First, speaking of those who actually own businesses in that neighborhood, aren't we forgetting one such important group: the Opechee Construction team? They own property and do business in that neighborhood, and why their thoughts on appropriate land use should be disregarded simply because they weren't the subject of a local newspaper article is beyond me.
Furthermore, I work in a law office on India St., and the statement that business owners in that area don't want additional parking just simply isn't true as an across the board generalization. Sure, some are in step with smart urban planning ideals, but get real, most people drive cars. It's ok to be a visionary, but you must be practical too. If not for this new parking garage, the proposed second phase of development (more condos and townhouses, in addition to those already under construction) would compete for the spaces already approved for the Hampton. Unless and until Amtrak drops off on the peninsula, those utilizing the Hampton hotel most likely will need somewhere to park (I hear its a long hike from Massachusetts).
Thanks for posting the article to which I referred in my previous post, above.
The developers of this parking deck are from suburban New Hampshire, and seem to be operating under the ridiculous assumption that their hotel will need twice as many parking spaces as the typical interstate rest-stop motel.
This is a destination hotel, with residential and restaurant components, not a rest stop. Also, as I said above, the options are either a new (relatively SMALL) parking garage with residential on top, or a vacant surface parking lot. And speaking of "walkability", as part of the development permitting process, the developers agreed to add 22 new bike parking units and a new perimeter brick sidewalk. They also agreed to narrow the vehicle entrance area and add a new trail crossing that allows pedestrian permeability of a block that was previously fenced off. What more can be asked for? These developers have done a tremendous job responding to the City planning staff's recommendations and should be commended for a job well done. They shouldn't be held accountable for the blunder that is the nearby Oceangateway garage (which by the way is only such a failure because the units for which it was built sunk following the financial meltdown and a lawsuit regarding land ownership). If the riverwalk (watermark) and India street office building had risen, (and in time they will) the same people in the article you posted would currently be complaining that there is too LITTLE parking (as they do practically everywhere else in the city when a new building is proposed). Even during the planning board meetings on the FIL ordinance, which is a great idea as it would relieve developers of
unnecessary parking spaces, people were up in arms about the prospect of losing additional parking. And for the new avesta housing project which is an adaptive reuse of a pre-existing building on Munjoy Hill, the project sailed through with one exception: neighborhood complaints about loss of available parking. People just like to complain about anything new. One day its too little parking, the next its too much. Well, in a country like America, which adheres to principles of private property ownership, those decisions are left up to the entity which owns the land, unless they impede on the public safety, health, or welfare or otherwise cause some sort of a nuisance. And in anticipation of the argument that a new parking garage would itself be a nuisance, successfully making that argument would require showing that it would be MORE of a nuisance than a surface parking lot with no additional residential units above (the only alternative at this point), which, quite frankly, it wouldn't.
City governments and federal administrations created the status quo, where parking is necessary due to prevailing transportation planning and land use policies. It is important to remember the context within which modern day developers work. Cities have for a long time required certain minimum parking requirements for new developments. This increased the attractiveness of living in the suburbs, and therefore perpetuated the problem. The developers of the Jordan's Meats site shouldn't be rejected because of the externally imposed financial constraints that operate on their business decisions.
Meanwhile, the high-rise Ocean Gateway garage across the street can't even give their parking spaces away.
First, this has NOTHING to do with the demands of target customers at the Hampton. This is a case of mismatched supply and demand, which is common in parking scenarios. Intermed and the now-going-defunct student housing project on Marginal Way worked out a positive alternative wherein spaces in the intermed garage are utilized by residents in the student housing complex after hours. This can't always be the case, though, because it depends on cooperation between private landowners of a sort that cannot be imposed by city government.
Second, "High rise" as a designation typically includes structures over 12 stories in height, which is about twice as tall as the Ocean Gateway garage. The garage is about as tall as most commercial structures in historic European cities that are known for their charm and which were built before the elevator and advances in steel technology allowed high rises.
And when was the last time you drove from east bayside to park at the oceangateway garage? I'm guessing its not often. Ever tried to find a spot at the Casco Bay garage on a summer weekend day? No chance. The only alternative is to park at the Ocean Gateway garage, which I have had to do on more than one occasion when taking a cruise.
If parking garages are "necessary" for new development, then why haven't we seen anything go up next to the half-empty Ocean Gateway garage?
[/QUOTE]
You must have misunderstood my comment. I said structures like the one proposed are necessary if the projects which depend on them are to be viable. I did NOT say that from parking, development naturally flows. In most cases, you cannot have development without parking, but that in no way means that just because you have parking development necessarily must follow.
And to answer your question about Ocean Gateway's garage, I could point you to a number of your own posts about the global financial meltdown and subsequent credit crunch. THAT is why we haven't seen anything go up next to the Ocean Gateway garage.
Building yet another new parking lot on the old Jordan's Meats lot is going to a) lose money and b) complicate the future construction of any other new buildings on the same lot. Both of these factors will make it more difficult for the developers to build anything there in the future.
Wrong. The site plan review has already approved a surface parking lot. Now the developers are proposing replacing the surface lot with a two tiered parking deck with townhouses in front and condos on top. Neither the townhouses nor the condos would be attractive to buyers without parking. Of course, that's not how I wish things were, but it's how they are. Changes in prevailing norms come through incremental changes, not someone saying "ok, no more cars or parking." If that happened in a place like Portland, the city would fade away. In fact, it already happened. For all the crap Franklin Street gets (all of which, I think, is well deserved), it is also what enabled the City's rebirth. Portland had fallen on rough times, and was considered a decaying old sea port. The Arterial enabled increased trucking to and from the MSP, and it also allowed projects like the Golden Triangle and adjacent high rises, and the civic center, old port rejuvenation, and waterfront renewal. It is a horrible design, but it's purpose was served. Now that Portland can stand on its own again, it may be the right time to think about reassessing to what degree we are willing to put up with the arterial.
So, after that tangent, I return to the point I was about to make. I don't understand how you can say that a new parking structure will complicate further development on the site when it is precisely BECAUSE of planned future development that the structure is being proposed. The garage is to be built simultaneously with new residences if pre-sales allow for this, or, if not, then as soon as financially viable. I realize the speculative nature of this, which presents us with the possibility that no new residences will be constructed, and the neighborhood will have yet another parking garage that is little more than a vestige of larger failed projects, but the alternative is to retain a surface parking area, which will be more "suburban" (to use your condescending term for the NH developers) than anything else. And suburban parking lots aren't any more pedestrian friendly than garages. At least a garage will present the
opportunity of an informed and respectful pedestrian oriented design. A surface parking lot is nothing more than the name itself suggests. With a garage, there is opportunity to do things right. Its not the garage itself that people should hate, its the usual way in which they are designed (drab, ugly, monotonous), and this can be, and in many instances has been, changed through community feedback. See the garage on Cumberland ave that was retrofitted by the Eastland Hotel.
Lastly on this point, how can you say this will lose money? If a garage is built on the easterly section of the Jordan's site, it will be classified as an improvement to the land, and will therefore result in additional taxes for the developer, paid directly to the city. So city revenues will rise and city services will be less strained. And, if for some odd reason the developers themselves were to lose money on this deal, say through faulty calculations or parking demand projections, why should anyone other than them worry about it? If the complaint of neighbors is that they want a more pedestrian friendly extension of the Old Port, then lets stick to that, and not discuss irrelevant cost-benefit analyses of the developers. I'm quite confident that if they were off the mark that often, they would have gone out of business the day before yesterday.
Finally, whose business sense are we going to trust more - a suburban New Hampshire developer doing business in downtown Portland for the first time ever, or business owners and landlords who have been there for years? This parking garage is going to be a blight on the whole neighborhood, and that's going to make future development in the area even less attractive.
First, these developers are not new to Maine or Portland. They built the AAA headquarters on Marginal Way that kick-started the rejuvenation of the Bayside neighborhood and which currently houses GPCOG, an organization dedicated to smart planning. And this garage will not be a blight on the neighborhood. If anything, the neighborhood will be a blight on the garage. The vacant Jordan's building was a blight. The boarded up brick buildings exuding disinvestment are a blight. The not-through streets and franklin arterial and rundown grassy walkways are a blight. India street was the City's first downtown "core" and it has since become a peripheral area for downtown and the old port. This development may change that and revert things back to how they used to be a bit.
lastly, I just have to add that, if they (surrounding business owners and landlords) want a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere so much, why don't they pay for it? Buy the site and put up a community garden. Oh wait, they probably can't afford it, otherwise they would have just located in the Old Port to begin with. When the Village Cafe, which started out in one bay of a nearby mechanics garage, sold out to developers in 2005, I think it spoke pretty loudly for the owners and landlords in the area. When the largest parking garage ever considered for Portland (on the site of the Top of the Old Port Parking Lot) was proposed in 1987 by a local resident who lived on what later became the Village Cafe site, I think that spoke pretty loudly for the residents in the area. Moreover, the city, which consists of elected representatives, not only approved but encouraged this sort of development in their plans for the eastern waterfront. If the residents don't like it for whatever reason today, the proper forum in which to address their concerns is not the paper, its the voting booth.
lastly, if parking is so bad and not needed, why do businesses on upper India constantly have patrons from the bike shop (of all places) stealing their slots. Why do you see parking lots behind buildings if they are so bad? Why don't the people who are complaining about this new structure turn their parking areas into green spaces. Change starts with those who want it. Naysayers and NIMBYs do a terrible disservice to this City. This isn't Robert Moses bulldozing through Jane Jacobs' yoga studio, this is a committed developer who has a proven track record offering to build something the City ASKED for.
