I recently wrote this paper for one of my urban geography courses and thought some people on this forum may find it of interest.
The Great Debate:
Does Parking Lead to Downtown Decline or Revitalization?
Introduction
By all accounts there was nothing out of the ordinary about the year of 1924. But in that year, the writing on the wall was written for the fall for downtown. On the corner of LaFayette Boulevard and Cass Avenue in downtown Detroit the first surface parking lot was constructed and photographed. While such an event may not seem monumental in the grand scheme of things, it is a precursor to the dominance that the automobile would have in shaping North American urban form and in particular, the downtown.
In the decades following that first parking lot the downtown or Central Business District (CBD) would undergo a rapid and destructive transformation. With the advent of widespread automobile ownership, residents had a level of mobility unlike ever before in history. No longer would they be subject to the timetables and delays of the streetcar and other forms of mass transit.
Central Business Districts suddenly struggled to cope with the sudden onslaught of automobile traffic; arteries became clogged and more importantly, there was no infrastructure to handle these cars once their occupants had left it. Parking soon became a nightmare for shoppers often making a simple shopping trip into a journey. With mounting frustration at the lack of any progress in the parking situation or congestion, motorists embraced suburban shopping malls with their free and plentiful parking with open arms. Thus, the great debate of downtown parking was born.
On one side of the debate is the business perspective whose belief is that plentiful and cheap parking in the downtown is necessary for retaining and attracting activities and businesses back into the downtown. Opposing the business perspective is the urbanist perspective which sees cheap and plentiful parking as a plague that has destroyed the vitality and density of the downtown.
So which side is right? Is plentiful and cheap parking a boon or bust for the downtown? This paper will attempt to answer this question by examining how parking effects small, medium and large sized cities in North America.
The Urbanist Perspective
In order to understand the urbanist perspective on parking in the downtown we must first describe what their idea of a healthy and vibrant downtown is. For the urbanist, the key factor in making a vibrant downtown is having a high density of differing activities. Possessing such a quality in a downtown ensures that there large amounts of attractions located in a small area. This in turn, attracts a large and varying population at different times of the day. To sum up the urbanist mantra, “The clustering of museums, theatres, restaurants, stores and offices is what a downtown can produce…[which] is difficult to replicate in other parts of the city.” (Shoup, 2005, 158; Jacobs, 1961, 19)
One of the main components in the urbanist’s “utopian” downtown is the pedestrian. The reasoning behind such a notion is that the
“prevalence of people on foot helps to maintain the higher densities intrinsic to downtowns from the outset…[and are] essential to the economic survival of many downtown businesses, especially street level shops, services and restaurants that depend on walk-by customers. Pedestrian activity serves to define the image and vitality projected by a downtown.” (Robertson, 2001, 30; Jacobs, 1961)
The ultimate goal therefore, is to let the downtown regain its character and structure before the prevalence of the automobile and its associated infrastructure reared its head.
In contrast to this vision, an unhealthy downtown is not pedestrian friendly but rather, built to suit the automobile. A feature in particular is sited by urbanists as being the main culprit in the downtown’s decline, parking. One might think of federally subsidized urban renewal as most influential in clearing city centers of old buildings, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. But it was not Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 that precipitated most of the land clearing around and in downtowns in American cities. It was, in fact, the parking lot syndrome. (Jakle, 2005, 171)
The results of this syndrome were devastating in the eyes of urbanists. The mystique and wonder that the downtown had brought through its varying architecture and street scene had been replaced with the “landscape that presents no surprises…[and has] no deep significances.” (Relph, 1976, 136) To put it more bluntly, “Parking lots have eaten away cities in the United States like moths devouring a lace wedding gown.” (Childs, 1999, xxi)
Density and various activities were reduced greatly as each building became surrounded in a sea of blacktop and automobiles. This in turn created a harsher and less inviting pedestrian environment with the end result being the death of the street scene. The pedestrian has become a largely vanished breed in many downtowns, and street life, the traditional definer of urbanity, is largely gone. (Jakle, 2005, 182) Streets that are dead after 5:30, boarded up store fronts and the continuing flight to the suburbs are the results of placing parking before pedestrians.
A key example urbanists use to illustrate their point on parking is by comparing Los Angeles concert hall to San Francisco’s. Both of these concert halls were built with the same intension; to help revitalize their respective downtown districts. That however, is the only similarity between the two. San Francisco’s “Louise Davies Hall” was built with no parking minimum and as a result, built no parking garage. The “Disney Hall” in Los Angeles was forced to construct a 2,188-space underground parkade that cost $110 million. (Manville & Shoup, 2004)
Aside from the fact that the parkade bankrupted the County of Los Angeles, it also ensured that patrons would never have to once step on the streets of downtown L.A. Such inclusionary architecture did nothing to help local businesses or improve the street life in downtown Los Angeles. In contrast, the “Louise Davies Hall” allow people to stream out onto adjacent streets and give patrons the opportunity to populate the streets and in turn, attract non-concert goers. (Manville & Shoup, 2004, Jacobs, 1961)
In order to combat the scourge of destruction that parking has brought to the downtown, the urbanist perspective seeks to reduce the demand of parking as well as the supply. One of the main tenants of the urbanist solution to the parking plague is to replace minimum parking requirements with maximum parking requirements. This ensures that there are not any wasted spaces and that any needed parking will consume the least amount of land possible. Urbanists also point out that not requiring a minimum parking space will allow for lower construction costs. Eliminating free parking subsidies by governments and employers and educating the public on the harms that parking has on urban areas and on the environment. (Jacobs, 1961; Shoup, 2005; Shoup & Wilson, 1990)
The Business Perspective
While the urbanist perspective claims that having abundant parking in the downtown plays a large part in its decline, the business perspective states the complete opposite. Joe Diner, president of real estate company JJ Barnicke in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada states the business perspective perfectly. "People who say there is too much parking downtown do not know their ass from a parking lot. You cannot have too much parking downtown." (Welch, 2005, B1)
The rationale behind such reasoning is based on two key facets; transportation choice and history. The first of these, transportation, is based on the simple premise that people cannot live without using a car. This in part, is due to the urban form of the North American city and its inability to produce a sustainable transit system as well as cultural beliefs that promote driving. Proponents point to surveys that state “53% of all downtown commuters said nothing would get them out of their cars” and to figures that show decreasing ridership figures for even efficient mass transit systems such as the ones found in New York and Chicago. (City of Calgary, Calgary, 1994, 19)
The second facet is based on historical experiences, particularly from the era of transportation transition when the CBD was still the magnate of the city. As the automobile became increasingly the preferred choice of transportation, inner city merchants were staunchly opposed to change their practices of parking.
For example, in Passaic, New Jersey, a “buying center” for a huge metropolitan area, were not easily persuaded that a city parking authority should be empowered to purchase property for three parking garages to be built on the fringe of the shopping district. Exemplifying the failure to embrace change and face customers positively, one store owner forced shoppers to go to the rear of his store and up one floor to have their parking ticket validated for a discounted rate.(Jakle & Sculle, 2005, 193)
The effects of insufficient parking in the downtown were particularly dramatic in the following decade. For example, in Moclair, New Jersey, (a city with the third highest per family purchasing power in the U.S.) half the money spent on commercial shopping was in nearby cities where parking was more prevalent. A modern day example is Portland, Oregon which has had a cap on the total number of parking spaces in the CBD to limit congestion and push people to the light rail transit system. Retailers and other businesses however argued that the "perception of parking scarcity" was hurting business rather than improving the downtown…the city was eventually pressured into building 4,000 more lots. (Oliver, 1996, 26)
In addition to supply, the price of parking is also of great concern to the business perspective.
If parking is priced by regulation or lack of supply in the CBD, downtown employers and retailers may move to the suburbs, where parking is plentiful and free. Decentralization is encouraged, because people are more likely to choose to work & shop where parking costs are the lowest – the suburbs. (Transportation Research Board, 1998, 22)
Proof that the price of parking retards people from coming into and shopping in the CBD can be found in numerous survey results. In a survey conducted in the City of Winnipeg, respondents were given a list of possible reasons of why they might avoid visiting downtown. The top reason according to respondents was parking, particularly due to the high cost of parking when compared to the free shopping at suburban shopping malls. (City of Winnipeg, 1987, 38)
Parking is clearly the most significant problem in terms of attracting people to the downtown and it is the prerogative of the business perception to fix this through increasing the supply and convenience of parking as well as reducing its cost to its users.
The Great Debate
So which side is right? Does the urbanist perspective accurately describe the effect parking has on downtowns, or is the business perspective’s stance on parking correct? Upon reviewing the literature it appears that there is an overarching determinant in defining the role parking plays in downtown; city size. The size of a city is deemed critical because larger cities can provide better serviced transportation alternatives to the automobile and other advantages as well. For the purposes of this paper, parking and its effects on the downtown will be examined in small cities (15,000 to 100,000), medium cities (100,000 – 900,000) and large cities (900,000 and more).
Of the three city sizes being examined small cities are the most affected by the availability and price of parking. This assumption can be based on a number of different factors experience by these cities.
The first is that alternatives to the automobile are ineffective or missing altogether. Unlike their larger counterparts, small cities have significantly lower budgets yet serve areas whose densities are equal to or lower than those found in the suburbs of large cities. If mass transit is available in these cities, it is often in poor condition with infrequent service and spotty coverage. This in turn forces residents to drive and is a key reason why vehicular traffic entering the CBD per 1,000 population is nearly fourteen times that of large cities. (Burrage and Mogren, 1957, 24) Without parking
Secondly, the CBD in small cities has a weak position compared to the fringe of the city. (Goodwin, 1969, 56) Due to the localized economy and small geographic size of the city any sort of competition generally does harm to the CBD’s merchants. Generally the merchants located in the CBD have a poorer selection, pricing and service due to the fact that many of the buildings are antiquated and obsolete. These downtowns are hit particularly hard when shopping malls are built on the fringe. In order to stay competitive with the malls, free, abundant and convenient parking is required to meet the need of the consumer who drives a car.
Thirdly, the attitude of the small city resident plays an important role in shaping the parking situation of small cities. Unlike large cities the majority of shopping trips made by residents are short in duration and frequent in nature. (Goodwin, 1969, 57) This in turn creates an expectation that trips made by car will be ones without congestion and parking issues. The large city resident is usually grateful for any parking space, while the small city resident demands that he be able to park near his destination. (Goodwin, 1969, 57)
The dominance of the automobile, lack of mass transit, weak position of the CBD and attitudes of drivers ensure that cheap, abundant and convenient parking in small cities must be present in order for the CBD to survive. If parking is too expensive, not close enough to shops or short in supply, shoppers will simply look to other areas that do not have these problems. Thus, the CBD begins a sharp turn into decline as it loses ground to suburban shopping malls and power centers.
Medium sized cities face similar challenges to those experienced by smaller cities but there are some differences between the two. The first is that its CBD has a much different use; while a small city’s downtown is used mainly for shopping purposes, a medium sized city will have a significant proportion of its commercial space devoted to office space. This in turn carries with it a sort of prestige which automatically gives the CBD more flexing room than its small city counterpart. Concentrations in medium sized are much higher than in those of small cities and if an agglomeration economy is present, adopting parking strategies that stagnate or control the number parking spots can be applied. (Voith, 11, 1998) If there is no large demand for high densities then parking becomes a necessity in order to make the downtown as attractive as its potential suburban location.
While one large scale development at the fringe may not cause widespread decay, continued fringe developments will certainly ensure that commercial decline is inevitable in the CBD. When confronted with the choice of making the journey to the downtown and fighting one’s way to a parking spot or making a short trip to the local shopping mall where parking is free and plentiful the choice is obvious. Surveys confirm this notion by indicating that the top reasons why people avoid downtown is because it is hard to find a parking spot, parking is too expensive and having to park too far away from destination. (City of Winnipeg, 1987, 38; Nakai, Teknomo and Hokao, 2000)
A second issue for medium sized cities is a lack of efficient mass transit during non-peak hours. While transit travel and frequency times are extremely well during peak hours they are often atrocious during the day, evenings and weekends. For example, it takes the author of this paper 30 minutes by car and 38 minutes by bus to get to downtown Winnipeg during peak hours. During non-peak hours however the trip length to reach the CBD by car shortens to 20 minutes while the trip length by bus actually increases to nearly 50 minutes. When confronted by this, it is easy for those with a choice in transportation to choose the car and save their valuable time rather than waste it waiting and sitting on the bus.
While medium sized cities have more flexibility than small cities, parking still plays a very important role in maintaining or increasing development. Without the presence of an agglomeration economy and due to an inefficient non-peak hour’s transit system, parking becomes a key component in helping attract people downtown outside of the typical work week hours. However it should be noted that there is a danger in having too much parking, particularly of the surface lot variety. The results of over-building parking are large dead zones, devoid of any life outside of the work week. Decline of the surrounding areas can actually be hastened particularly if they thrive on pedestrians for a large majority of their business.
Of the three city sizes, large cities exhibit the most flexibility when it comes to determining parking policy. They are able to do so because larger cities tend to have higher densities which favor mass transit systems rather than individual automotive use. By having an efficient and rapid transit system that is spread out through the city, people have a viable choice of transportation other than the automobile. By having an alternative, this takes significant pressure off of parking, particularly if parking rates are high and if supply is low. (Voith, 1998, 11)
Due to the large geographical region that these large cities encompass along with high energy costs many people have begun to move back into the downtown and inner city. Many portions of these cities however were not built to suit the automobile and the issue of convenient and cheap parking has come to the forefront. Areas like Lincoln Park, Chicago, which was originally built as an “L Train suburb” has now become a gentrified neighborhood full of attractions for tourists and locals. Although there is a significant parking shortage people continue to flock to this area because of its dense concentration of activities. Parking in inner city neighborhoods and downtowns that exhibit a high attractiveness does not require a great deal of parking because people are willing to go that area regardless of the availability of parking.
Conclusion
Both sides of the debate have put forth their respective theories and viewpoints on parking both have unfortunately come up short in their efforts. Parking, like many other aspects in the urban realm cannot be singled down to a narrow theory. Although each perspective exhibits useful information, these theories cannot be applied uniformly for every city and its respective downtown.
As shown by the examples from above, the three city sizes require both perspectives in order to create a functioning downtown. Without parking in small and medium sized cities the downtowns would most likely fail and become large empty fields. Consequently, without the urbanist perspective the CBD’s in these cities would become a sterile urban wasteland, devoid of life and vitality. Although the urbanist perspective wins out more or less in large cities, parking still plays a key role for those unwilling to take transit and commute into the downtown for work or shopping.
Bibliography
Calgary, City of (1994) “Calgary GoPlan: Calgary Downtown Parking and Transit
Study” City of Calgary
Transit Cooperative Research Program, (1995), “Parking Pricing and Fees: Traveler
Response to Transportation System Changes” Transit Cooperative Research Program, [[url=http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c13.pdf]http://trb.org/pub...tcrp_rpt_95c13.pdf[/ur l]]
Goodwin, A. (1969) “Techniques for Evaluating Small City Parking Problems” Journal
of Retailing, 45 (2), 53 – 72
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random
House
Jakle, A. J. and Sculle A. K. (2005) Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture,
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press
Litman, T., (2005) “Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability” Victoria
Transport Policy Institute [[url=http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf]www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf[/url]]
Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking Chicago: Planners Press
Manville, M and Shoup, D., (2004) “People, Parking and Cities” [[url=http://www.uctc.net/]http://www.uctc.net/[/url]]
Mildner G, Strathman J. and Bianco M., “Parking Policies and commuting behavior”
Transportation Quarterly, 51 (1), 111 - 125
Nova Scotia (1982) “Downtown Parking: Issues and Insights” Government of Nova
Scotia
Robertson, K.A. (2001) “Parking and Pedestrians: Balancing two key elements in
downtown development” Transportation Quarterly 55 (2), 29 - 42
Winnipeg, City of (1987) “A Study of Parking in Downtown Winnipeg” City of
Winnipeg, 36 - 38
|
