Re: Fore Street garage, the developers' most recent application to the Planning Board, on August 10, included only the parking component. See the letter dated July 20 in the most recent application:
http://www.portlandmaine.gov/planning/pb207-209forest8-10-10.pdf
At the planning board meeting, the developers stated that the subdivision approval for their townhouses would wait "until the market recovers."
Second, it's an indisputable fact that parking garages in this neighborhood are losing money - their capital costs ($20,000 per space and up) far exceed the modest rents they take in (about $100 a month). As Tom Bell wrote in his article, the City is losing $64,000 a year on their 1/7th ownership stake of the Ocean Gateway Garage.
So how is it in the developers' best interest to build yet another garage without any additional development to fill it? Wouldn't they be better off if they waited until they're ready to build out the rest of the lot? This isn't a question of NIMBYism - it's a question of basic financial aptitude. The garage ONLY makes sense if they're bringing unrealistic, suburban-scaled expectations for parking requirements to the project. It's going to lose money, and that's going to damage their ability and eagerness to finance any kind of development here in the future.
Last, but not least, there are also rigorously-documented negative effects that parking garages have on surrounding land values. Sure, if Portland wants to recruit large law firms and other large employers downtown, they'll need more parking. But how many large employers are out there? That's just not the City's economic development strategy anymore. Instead, our city's best bet is to focus on small, innovative businesses with large growth potential. Those businesses - several of which are not happy about this garage - are far more likely to benefit from lively, walkable streets with active street-level uses than from cheap, abundant parking.
If you still don't believe me and the local business owners, maybe you'll believe the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which published this research paper way back in 1998:
http://www.phil.frb.org/research-an...ess-review/1998/january-february/brjf98dv.pdf
Looking at parking and rental rates in Philadelphia's downtown, there was a statistically-significant relationship where parking supplies went up, and rental rates went down over time. What happened was this: as the city built more and more parking to attract more large offices, they either demolished outright or made the downtown district a less pleasant place for doing business for a diversity of neighborhood services (lunch spots, dry cleaners, bookstores, bars, etc.) that didn't necessarily require a lot of parking, but did make the downtown a more attractive place for office workers to be and maybe hang out after work. As they left and downtown became more of a monoculture of office buildings and parking garages - a relatively uninteresting place to be - overall rents declined. And as rents declined, private development became less and less attractive from a financial perspective, even though there was lots of cheap parking (see pages 10-11 of the paper linked above).
In Portland's case, being close to the Old Port and Arts District is much more likely to attract office tenants than an abundant supply of cheap parking. Look at Pierce Atwood, one of the city's largest office tenants, as Exhibit A: they're moving their offices from Monument Square, where they're right across the street from two large garages, to the Fish Pier, where their motorist employees will need to walk several blocks to a smaller surface parking lot they're leasing. They're moving because they're seeking a more interesting place to work - not a convenient place to drive to.
It comes down to a question of what Portland wants to be - do we want to have what's essentially a suburban office park in a denser setting downtown? Or do we want a mix of smaller, more innovative businesses in more architecturally interesting neighborhoods?
Building a parking garage on every block might help to deliver the former, but it's also going to damage our ability to achieve the latter.
Your desire to see Portland develop into a vibrant place to be for all who use it is not lost on me. However, your fears are exaggerated.
1. Nothing is indisputable. In fact, modern science ignores arguments that claim to be indisputable as not worthy of further discussion. With that in mind, let me dispute your assertion that parking garages lose money. To do this, let me start by asking you a question. How much do hotels charge their customers for use of on site fitness rooms? Usually the answer is: nothing. However, it still costs money to keep the lights on and the machines going. So, is it fair to say that fitness rooms, by your calculations, are also money losers? No. Why? Because you need to broaden your perspective. Currently, you are looking at parking garages in a vacuum, when in fact they should be seen as part of a total package of amenities. Parking is a lure to tenants and customers, so while it may not in and of itself generate tons of money (see the Ocean Gateway garage you so feverishly lament), the business it is created to support benefits indirectly from its existence. The value isn't direct. I'm sure you have noticed that Amtrak is not a particularly strong money maker either, and requires subsidies. Housing requires subsidies. The civic center requires subsidies. These things generate quality of life benefits in addition to also often times generating indirect financial gain (spin off effects from the civic center, reduced transportation costs through amtrak, positive investment instead of rent through home ownership). Having the available parking in place first, which isn't a problem to build without residential at the same time because it will be internally financed, will be a draw to this development, and therefore make it a more viable project.
And Tom Bell's comments: the city subsidized the garage in hopes that major condominium development and CAT ferry service would follow. Not only has the condo project and office building for which the garage was built fallen through (due to no fault of the city's or the developers), but the CAT has also jumped ship and left town. So, you see, again you are viewing things out of context. By saying the City loses $64,000 a year on the OG garage, you are in essence saying nothing more than, hey, look, the City of Portland has suffered financially from the recession, too. Had things gone as planned, positive new property investment would have generated more than enough property taxes each year to recoup the $64,000 annual subsidy. The recession, and not the inherent senselessness of parking garages, has made this not the case. Context is everything.
And as to your comment about waiting to build the garage until the residences are ready to be built simultaneously, yes, in my opinion, that would make better sense. However, I don't think you are correct in stating that if the developers lose money temporarily on the garage while there isn't enough demand to completely fill it they will as a result be less inclined to develop additional units in the future. If anything, their balance sheets will practically compel or necessitate them to build additional residences in the future, to recoup their investment costs. In a way, the garage should be seen as a financial commitment that something else in the future IS going to be built, because, as you so clearly pointed out, structured parking doesn't pay for itself. It only makes sense if it is part of a broader context plan, one for which ample parking is a necessary draw.
2. The rigorously documented effects of parking garages are probably correct. However, they probably relate to large overbearing structures designed with little regard to pedestrian needs. This parking structure will barely exceed the height of a person, and will be landscaped and oriented toward the sidewalk. Somehow I think the studies regarding Philly had another sort of garage in mind.
Also, it is one thing to say that focussing on large employers isn't the city's economic development strategy anymore, and quite another to leap from that premise to the conclusion that our best bet is to focus on small businesses. Do they help? Sure. But Portland's largest periods of economic expansion have never been focused on tiny businesses. Those businesses add to the quality of life in the immediate area, but they do little else. Moreover, Portland's largest industry is and for a long time has been tourism. After that it is probably law, banking or medical related industries. Bagel shops aren't up there. But don't get me wrong, I still like bagels.
On to pierce atwood. Their current building was constructed before either of the parking garages you alluded to, so they have never been dependent on garages. Moreover, we are talking here primarily about the hospitality industry, not offices, and more specifically about one hotel in particular. The parking needs of a law office across town, like the OG garage, have nothing to do with the desirability of the proposed new Fore India Middle LLC garage. Secondly, regarding Pierce Atwood, are you sure you feel confident stating that they are moving purely because they want a more interesting place to work? After NIMBYs defeated the two highrise office towers proposed to house Pierce Atwood in 2005 and 2007, Pierce Atwood's plan up until relatively recently was to move to a large suburban office space in South Portland. How interesting. The only reason they are remaining in the city is because we are allowing them the option of TIF.
Lastly, the decision between wanting Portland to be a single office use downtown with no added vibrancy or a mix of Jane Jacobs fantasyland structures is not so cut and dry. We can have both. There are plenty of large employers out there, and they are growing larger every day. Why you would suggest the opposite is something about which I am not sure.
Also, when you say more "innovative" businesses, what do you mean? Large law firms are amongst the most innovative places in town. Innovativeness has nothing to do with size. Neither does architecture. The scale of architecture is best experienced from a distance of at least 400 feet, when the light and elements can be seen interacting with a structure in its entirety. Architecture doesn't have to be small to be great or interesting. Of course, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. So I'm not sure your second to last paragraph has done much to persuade me at all.
What I think is really going on here is this: you have a mindset, and that is that all parking is bad. Ideally, I'm with you. Practically, you are wrong, though. Following this mindset, you use whatever info you can to try to legitimize your position. Not bad, and not unlike what I myself am doing. But, your unwavering hatred of parking garages is too rigid. You just simply can NOT be against any and all parking garages, because to do so might mean you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, a common NIMBY problem.
