The city council this week is doing what it should have done to begin with, evaluating the entire downtown parking landscape. Some interesting ideas and directions arose out of the staff report, that suggests perhaps the opposite conclusion than they intended – wait and see how parking develops as other critical changes are implemented.
The Davis Enterprise, which does not appear to have spoken with Council or City Staff, is under the mistaken impression that Davis has to build the project or risk losing redevelopment funds.
Writes the Enterprise Editorial: “In a rush to use or lose redevelopment funds, the city of Davis is moving forward quickly with a proposal to build a $14 million parking garage with ground-floor retail spaces on the existing parking lot between Third, Fourth, E and F streets.”
“We’re concerned about the speed of this proposal, but we understand the rush. Davis doesn’t want to lose out on the ability to invest those redevelopment funds in a project that could change the face of the downtown business district.”
“Can the project be completed before the redevelopment funds dry up? That’s the $14 million question,” they conclude.
But, unfortunately, the Enterprise got this part completely wrong.
As the staff report indicates, “The Redevelopment Agency issued bonds in March 2011 with the goal of obtaining $11.4 million for a downtown parking structure.”
Once they issued those bonds, the funding was secured.
The rush was back in March, when the council felt they needed to issue the bonds before the state either shut down or drastically altered redevelopment. They then brought several projects online and took out bonds.
There is no danger of the money drying up now – that was the whole point of their March actions. The funding is now secure.
Given that, the urgency to go forward with parking at this time is reduced.
I am ultimately not convinced that we need the parking structure at all, and certainly I question the location at E and F and 3rd and 4th.
The city staff report for the parking discussion may give the city a chance to move forward before creating the new parking structure.
The staff report argues that the $11.4 million could be redirected to financing streetscape and other public improvements.
Of course, utilizing that money would mean that the city would have to “to identify other funding sources for the parking structure when/if it is built. Funding sources could include property owner assessments or revenue from paid parking.”
The Vanguard believes that this is a better and more measured approach, rather than simply rushing in to build a huge parking structure, that the city may ultimately not need. And if, after implementing the other changes, it becomes clear that the structure is necessary, the Vanguard would be supportive of finding the appropriate funding.
The changes in the scope appear to have emerged from the meeting of the Transportation Technical Advisory Group on August 19. According to the staff report, the TAG made a number of recommendations for improving the workplan.
The TAG also voted to recommend the City Council suspend all activity on the parking garage until the Downtown Parking and Access Plan is completed.
Staff opposes the idea of a comprehensive plan, which they say would require tens of thousands of dollars and take between six months to a year to complete.
The staff report argues, “Staff anticipates that a plan would not reveal much more than has already been identified as problematic, or solutions that have not already been considered.”
The identified challenges include:
- Sidewalks are narrow and cluttered with utilities, signs, street furniture, bicycle racks, and merchandise.
- Limited parking constrains redevelopment or encourages construction of on-site surface parking.
- Many downtown employees use prime downtown parking spaces, moving their cars every two hours adding to congestion and perception of insufficient parking.
- Perception of insufficient parking discourages potential customers.
- Visiting drivers often get confused by the blockface system and/or are ticketed because they park in spaces that don’t accommodate their needs.
- Delivery vehicles block travel lanes, slowing traffic and contributing to congestion and unsafe operations.
Staff later cites another study that points out the lack of both long-term bicycle parking and short-term secure bicycle parking. They also note that the method for handling green waste is “unsightly and blocks parking spaces.”
“After reflection, and comments from the public and the business community, staff is recommending immediate action on parking and access improvements that have already been vetted by the community,” staff writes.
Staff recommends the creation of a system to guide drivers to parking spots and visitors to their destinations, an evaluation of the two-hour time limits, competition of upgrades and signs to the First and F parking structures, working with the Yackzan Group to increase utilization of the Fourth and G parking structure, and converting the depot parking lot to paid parking.
Staff recommends Council direct staff to: “Commission a streetscape improvements plan for primary retail streets downtown to enhance the shopping and sidewalk dining experience, better accommodate bicycles, and strengthen connections between peripheral parking areas and destinations.”
Third, they recommend continuing with preliminary design efforts for a mixed-use structure on the City parking lot in the 34EF block, emphasizing high-quality design and a context-appropriate scale.
By the end of 2012, they would return with an updated comprehensive utilization analysis and conceptual plans for downtown streetscape improvements and the design for the mixed-use structure.
Contrary to the Davis Enterprise editorial, we do not need to rush this at this point, as the funding is secure. If the other improvements to the downtown mitigate the need for new parking structure development, then we have all benefited from the delay.
If the city still needs to do the project, however, they will have to find some additional funding, but creating the parking within the context of evaluating the entirety of the downtown parking makes far more sense than rushing this project through at breakneck speed.
We continue to believe that better utilization of existing parking is the preferred alternative. But if that does not solve the problems, then we can revisit the need for this structure at that time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I just hope that the bond money will not be spent on designer sidewalks such as what was done a couple of summers ago, the bulb outs that take space and make car/bike compatibility even more difficult. The bond money was decided in haste and it should be spent wisely!
Speaking as a daily downtown pedestrian and occasional downtown cyclist, I love the bulb-outs and hope we see more of them.
David, you missed the entire thrust of the Enterprise editorial, which was:
“THIS PROJECT must enhance downtown’s vibrant ambiance. It must provide convenient, accessible parking and upscale new retail spaces. It must be attractive and fit the scale of neighboring establishments. And it must be engineered to allow easy coming and going for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.”
You choose to focus instead on a secondary or even tertiary aspect of the editorial, the “rush” part. But even that part you got wrong; the Enterprise got it right. The only thing the Enterprise got wrong was confusion between past and present tense. When the Council voted 5-0 on April 19th they were indeed concerned that the State might somehow block the project. Sue Greenwald specifically stated that she wanted the project to be initiated and completed as quickly as possible. The meeting video makes that indisputedly clear.
In the present, the concern that “In a rush to use or lose redevelopment funds” is real. The City is having to pay an annual “ransom” fee ($1.3 million in 2011 I do believe) to the State to keep the RDA intact. The City is incurring monthly interest expense on the bonds. City staff bills the RDA staff time for every study and analysis conducted. The State may still raid the RDA next year when they are once again faced with a budget shortfall. And the bond proceeds are being frittered away on studies and minor improvements to keep the wobbly Council on board to the extent that staff is reporting that no funds will be available for a big project by the time all these little pet projects are completed.
The Enterprise is absolutely correct when they state that the bonds were issued so that the City could “invest those redevelopment funds in a project that could change the face of the downtown business district”. That was the motivation of the Council during the entire RDA debate earlier this year. And the project funds were already earmarked at that time, indeed, long before then.
David, your “opining” is not supported by the Council meeting videos. Why is that?
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch of Davis Commercial Properties and Co-President of the DDBA)
[quote]The Davis Enterprise, which does not appear to have spoken with Council or City Staff, is under the mistaken impression that Davis has to build the project or risk losing redevelopment funds.[/quote]
I asked this question directly of Ken Hyatt, at a TAG meeting. He said that essentially the bonds issued need to be used within the next 3 years, so to that extent there is some urgency. But it certainly gives the TAG some time to look at the issue, as well as the Safety and Advisory Commission, to come up with a more comprehensive Downtown Access and Parking Plan BEFORE the parking garage is decided on. Meanwhile we are going to get a preliminary report on what the parking garage would look like…
[quote]Sue Greenwald specifically stated that she wanted the project to be initiated and completed as quickly as possible.[/quote]
I don’t think that is what Council member Sue Greenwald said, or if she did this is being taken completely out of context. But I will leave it to Ms. Greenwald to make any corrections here…
I’d like to correct a statement I made in my previous post. I did not mean to imply that I disagree with staffs recommendation for studies and minor improvements. I agree that all these efforts have merit, will improve the Downtown, and should be pursued over time. However, the RDA funds should be focused on 2 big capital projects right now, specifically the 3/4/E/F project and the E Street Promenade. We should get these projects done right and then focus our attention and resources on the next set of projects.
ERM, I don’t know on what basis you are contradicting my statement regarding Sue Greenwald’s comments at the April 19th Council meeting. I have reviewed the video numerous times at http://cityofdavis.org/media/council-2011-04-19.ram. Unfortunately, I can’t get the video to play this morning. Perhaps someone else can troubleshoot it.
Sue commented that she was “Very much in favor of moving forward with this project”, she was mistakenly concerned about the project being 7 stories, but expressed no reservations when told the project had 5 stories, and she repeated several times that she’d like the project to move forward quickly.
David, you make much of the actions that were taken by TAG yet you fail to take into account the significant amount of misinformation upon which TAG had acted upon and upon which I have previously reported on in the Vanguard. Honestly, I’m beginning to despair that anyone is interested in these “inconvenient truths”. But I’m going to take another stab at myth busting in perhaps the vain hope that opinion can be swayed by truth and reason.
Much has been made of the 350 on average vacant parking spaces in the structures. I finally had an opportunity to review the DB! parking count spreadsheet in detail last week. There are a number of flaws and errors in the sheet.
1. Numerous counts were conducted where both garages were not counted at roughly the same time (within 30 minutes of each other). Indeed, there were only 16 counts conducted at roughly the same day and time. It is not possible to make an accurate determination of the average occupancy for both garages if one is counting each garage at different times and days.
2. Only 3 counts were conducted while school was in session for both garages at the same day and time. The remaining 13 counts were conducted during the summer. The counts are heavily weighted to the summer. Need I point out that EVERYTHING is at low capacity in Davis during the summer.
3. According to the DB! counts of both garages same day same time during the summer, the average number of free/unreserved spaces is 163, not 350. The vacancy rate is 27%.
4. All of the foregoing is actually beside the point and entirely misleading. As I’ve mentioned before, average utilization is not the primary metric used in parking management. Peak demand is the metric used. I’m not talking about spikes in peak; rather, the typical peaks that one experiences in a community. Parking capacity is designed in relation to peak demand, not averages. The same is true of classrooms, stadiums, council chambers, etc. If UCD were designed around summer enrollment, I’m quite sure the facilities would be far fewer and smaller. And if we designed bicycle rack capacity in the Downtown around average utilization, we would have to remove a great number of racks, instead of increasing them as I’d prefer to do.
The 3/4/E/F debate these past two and a half months has been widely distorted by the incorrect reporting of the average number of vacant garage spaces in numerous forums (Council, TAG, SPAC, Vanguard, Facebook, etc.). This is not conducive to a substantive debate.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[i]”However, the RDA funds should be focused on 2 big capital projects right now, specifically [b]the 3/4/E/F project[/b] and the E Street Promenade.”[/i]
Michael, I have a suggestion for you and everyone else in Davis: lets call the 4.5-story structure in question “the E-F garage.” It is clean and easy to say and write. The longer forms are cumbersome, unnecessary and linguistically dolorous.
There is no need to include 3rd or 4th, as the project does not face either of those streets and there is no other multi-story garage proposal for any other lots fronting E Street or F Street at the moment. I recognize that part of this project is retail and not garage space. However, the reason to build this structure at this site is primarily for new parking to allow the core to build up and include more retail or restaurant, more office space and more residential. It also should free up more street parking.
If you are speaking to people completely unfamiliar with the project, I can see going with the whole shebang of 3-4-E-F retail and parking garage project. But for most people who take an interest in public affairs, they know what the deal is: It’s the E-F garage project.
DTBusinessman:
(I want to commend you for having the courage to sign your name, Michael.)
My position has shifted on this parking lot in response to citizen input, deeper reflection and the morphing of the project.
Originally, the project was envisioned as the entire block. Then, it shrunk a bit to all of the block except for the row of buildings along F Street. It kept shrinking.
When the project was all or most of the block, I thought it could make sense because it could add major retail space than could include needed larger retail anchors such as a department store, electronics store and drug store such as Walgreen’s. (I had assumed that we would make approval provisional upon signing up the needed anchors).
Using the entire block, we could also have gotten the same or more parking spaces with only two stories and a recessed third story that would not be visible. At this point, I thought the trade-off could be worthwhile.
The footprint now includes only a portion of the existing parking lot. This would not allow enough retail space for major anchors, and the lot is now five stories high.
The project will be very expensive, I think it will be aesthetically unappealing, and the retail space will not be adequate for major anchors.
As of our last meeting, I had decided that the trade-offs were not worthwhile.
Sue, would you support the project if it were a smaller, cheaper project with 1st story retail and 2 stories above of parking?
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I haven’t thought that through yet, Michael. When the project was expected to cover the entire block, we would have traded the small surface parking lot for major retail space and greatly increased parking even at a lower height (because the parking would have covered the much larger footprint than the existing surface lot). If the project retains the smaller footprint, i.e., the footprint of the existing surface parking lot, we would be trading a surface parking lot (which people much prefer) for only twice as much parking (and it would be garage parking that people don’t especially like) at enormous expense.
Since he is calling into question the validity of the data collected by members of Davis Bicycles! I would like to respond to Michael Bisch’s comments of 10/01. This will take several comment because of length limitations.
[quote]Much has been made of the 350 on average vacant parking spaces in the structures. I finally had an opportunity to review the DB! parking count spreadsheet in detail last week. There are a number of flaws and errors in the sheet.
1. Numerous counts were conducted where both garages were not counted at roughly the same time (within 30 minutes of each other). Indeed, there were only 16 counts conducted at roughly the same day and time. It is not possible to make an accurate determination of the average occupancy for both garages if one is counting each garage at different times and days.[/quote]
I shared the data (which we began collecting in March) from our counts of the two garages with Michael on 22 August. Since then we have continued with our counts in both garages and have tried, when possible to pair our observations. However, there is nothing wrong with citing an average for each garage–which is about ALL counts at ALL times–and then combining the averages to come up with an overall average. These are averages and rather than focus on whether it is “paired” someone analyzing the data should check to see if the data is skewed, if it was collected in roughly the same way, and using roughly the same methodology (in our case in terms of times, etc.).
We would have a credibility problem if we counted one garage ALWAYS early in the morning, for example and the other at some peak time, for example. However, we did not do that so citing an average poses no problem. Also, I should note that there no evidence of skewing in our data–in other words, the mean is not being drawn up or down by a limited number of outliers. We know this because the mean and median are about the same. Thus while “paired” data might be useful for some analysis it does not take away from the overall message because we have counted the garages during times of the day when they are likely to be in use (not after 11:00 PM or before 9:00 AM for example), we have used the same approach throughout and we have no evidence of outliers driving our means.
Robb Davis (Davis Bicycles! Board member)
to be continued…
[quote]2. Only 3 counts were conducted while school was in session for both garages at the same day and time. The remaining 13 counts were conducted during the summer. The counts are heavily weighted to the summer. Need I point out that EVERYTHING is at low capacity in Davis during the summer.[/quote]
I think the last sentence might be what Rich Rifkin would call “begging the question”. Begging the question is asserting that something is true–or can be assumed–without presenting any evidence that it is so. Where is the data that shows that everything–especially as it concerns downtown parking–is at “low capacity” in the summer? We see many events that bring huge crowds to Davis from Livestrong, to Clips of Faith, to Friday Art About to various sports tournaments and UC Davis events. It is not self evident that things slow down in summer. We have taken the time to share data to support a question we have been asking, where is your data that shows–especially in relation to parking in downtown–that your assertion is correct?
[quote]3. According to the DB! counts of both garages same day same time during the summer, the average number of free/unreserved spaces is 163, not 350. The vacancy rate is 27%.
[/quote]
To the uninformed reader the question of free “unreserved” spaces might be confusing. It basically has to do with the fact that some 200 spaces in the 4th street garage are restricted at some or all times of the day. I split the data into restricted versus unrestricted for Michael because he was concerned that we were misrepresenting what was going on in the garages. But our point has ALWAYS been that if there are 300 empty parking spaces in the garages, whether or not they are restricted makes no difference: they are being underutilized. The City of Davis has a right to open negotiations with the owners of the 4th Street structure on an annual basis and raise the issue, if it is true, that more parking is needed downtown and that far too many spaces are sitting idle due to “contracts”. This has been our point: We HAVE ample parking spaces but they are under-/poorly utilized. This is why we feel very comfortable citing the total number of spaces–we have a parking MANAGEMENT problem not a lack of parking.
However, since Michael chooses to cite only the unrestricted parking information in his third point I want to correct what I believe is an error on his part. If, based on his analysis, there are 163 free/unreserved spaces in the garages (a statistic that I will concede to him since he does not fully explain how he got it but it is what I get when I look at “paired data” for unrestricted free spaces in that time period), that does not compute to a vacancy rate of 27%. The 163 free and unrestricted spaces are the average number of free and unrestricted spaces in BOTH garages. There are 343 TOTAL unrestricted spaces in these 2 garages. Thus 163/343 would give a vacancy rate of 47.5% (or an occupancy rate of 52.5%)
Robb Davis (Davis Bicycles! Board Member)
to be continued…
[quote]4. All of the foregoing is actually beside the point and entirely misleading. As I’ve mentioned before, average utilization is not the primary metric used in parking management. Peak demand is the metric used. I’m not talking about spikes in peak; rather, the typical peaks that one experiences in a community. Parking capacity is designed in relation to peak demand, not averages. The same is true of classrooms, stadiums, council chambers, etc. If UCD were designed around summer enrollment, I’m quite sure the facilities would be far fewer and smaller. And if we designed bicycle rack capacity in the Downtown around average utilization, we would have to remove a great number of racks, instead of increasing them as I’d prefer to do.
The 3/4/E/F debate these past two and a half months has been widely distorted by the incorrect reporting of the average number of vacant garage spaces in numerous forums (Council, TAG, SPAC, Vanguard, Facebook, etc.). This is not conducive to a substantive debate.[/quote]
Michael says all of this is beside the point and I quite agree–it is all beside the point from HIS perspective. After all, Michael’s argument about the need for a new parking garage downtown has nothing to do with a lack of parking in the downtown. He has made it clear to members of DB! several times that we need this garage to attract developers who will NOT come to develop downtown unless a garage is built at 3/4/E/F. Thus, if this is the case, then it does not matter if we have a parking surplus or deficit. We need to build the garage not because of a parking need but because it is the only way to stimulate developers to invest in downtown. In other words if Davis builds a garage then developers will come. That has been what we have heard Michael say. Please tell us if we have misread you Michael.
If this is the case, and I were Michael, I would merely wave our data in front of City Council and say: “This data is irrelevant because we need a garage to attract investment–parking needs be damned.”
Instead Michael writes as if we have misrepresented the data in some fundamental way and need to correct that publicly. And yet we have not done that. We went into this data collection to inform ourselves about the issue. We have shared it because we felt that the conversation about any project of this size should be informed by questions of parking need. As we spent time counting we began to see a picture emerging of underutilized garages even as a new garage was being discussed. We felt that was an error and we still feel that way. The data we have collected from the garages since August 22 merely confirms what we have seen all along.
For the past 25 years I have taught people all over the world and students in graduate classes that when one is undertaking a project one must first collect data to assess NEED. Then, with a sense of the need established, one can decide the best ways to address it. In other words, one assess need and resources FIRST and then one plans the best ways to address them. What we in DB! have been saying all along is “Stop! Assess the need first before proceeding with this project.” We feel that our approach has been echoed by the Transportation Advisory Group which voted 8-2 to recommend that the City conduct a thorough assessment of parking and circulation issues in the downtown before proceeding with this project. This is ALL we are asking for.
Our data has enabled us to raise the question. It is not the final word but it should give everyone pause. We have not collected it in an underhanded way. We have shared it when asked. We have nothing to hide and we see absolutely no need to correct anything we have said. We have garages that have MANY empty spaces at most times of the day and evening. That is what our data has shown. Torture the data any way you want it will still tell this story.
By the way, Michael’s thinking about planning for peak is not correct in this day and age. Cities like London are admitting the failure of that approach now and are taxing cars to keep them out of central London because planning for peak created a greater circulation problem. Parking experts such as Shoup say that the failure of urban parking planning is that it requires all buildings to create or pay in lieu fees to provide “full” parking. Evidence shows that this has created unsustainable and crowded downtowns. LA (among others) is moving away from it. In other words, planning for peak parking and vehicle movement is being recognized as a mistake. Planning for traffic is not comparable to UC Davis planning for students. Parking and transportation planners are waking up to the failure of planning that creates too much parking.
Robb Davis (Board Member of Davis Bicycles!)
And just to round this out with information Michael does not have because we are still collecting the data:
For the F Street Garage, which has 189 parking spaces, based on 50 counts between March 3 and September 14 the average number of free (empty) spaces in the garage is 98 (Median=100) for an average occupancy rate of 51% in that garage. Half of the data points lie between free space counts of 60 and 135 (interquartile range). The highest occupancy rates recorded occurred on a Friday afternoon and a Friday evening 88 and 87% respectively.
For the 4th Street Garage, which has 345 parking spaces (not counting 50+ spaces on the roof which are behind a fence to keep people from accessing the roof) based also on 50 counts during the same time period, the average number of free (empty) spaces in the garage is 245 (Median=249) for an average occupancy rate of 29%. Half of the data points lie between free space counts of 200 and 280. The highest occupancy rate was 57% on a Tuesday afternoon.
We have 35 observations for which we have “paired data”–data collected in both garages within an hour of each other (meaning a total of 70 observations). The average number of free (empty) spaces in both garages combined at these times is 348 (Median 336) for an average occupancy rate in both garages of 35%. Half of the data points lie between free space counts of 286 and 402. The highest occupancy rate in both combined was 67% on a Tuesday afternoon.
Robb Davis (Board Member of Davis Bicycles!)
[quote]DT Businessman: David, you make much of the actions that were taken by TAG yet you fail to take into account the significant amount of misinformation upon which TAG had acted upon and upon which I have previously reported on in the Vanguard. [/quote]
[quote]Robb: We feel that our approach has been echoed by the Transportation Advisory Group which voted 8-2 to recommend that the City conduct a thorough assessment of parking and circulation issues in the downtown before proceeding with this project. This is ALL we are asking for. [/quote]
The TAG group, of which I am a member, was primarily concerned the city was putting the cart before the horse. A Downtown Access & Parking Plan should be developed first and foremost, BEFORE deciding on a parking garage. To us it was a matter of common sense.
Of course we were also assuming the parking garage would be used for the purpose of addressing a parking problem. We were not necessarily viewing the parking garage in the context of attracting downtown retail development. It would seem to me the PRIMARY PURPOSE(s) of this parking garage needs to be more clearly defined.
It was also clear to TAG, that more data needs to be collected. If the data was collected during summertime, then make sure data is collected during wintertime as well, to ensure there is no bias and we are getting the full picture of any parking issues. Again, common sense.
[i]We see many events that bring huge crowds to Davis from Livestrong, to Clips of Faith, to Friday Art About to various sports tournaments and UC Davis events. It is not self evident that things slow down in summer.[/i]
Once again, you are using [i]events[/i] to support an argument about [i]retail parking[/i]. The parking issue in downtown Davis has to do with shopping. Not events. It is probably self-evident to downtown merchants that things slow down in summer. Maybe someone could survey them, as this project seems to be driven by a strongly-held perception among DDBA members that there is a retail parking issue. The population of Davis dramatically drops in summer, so it seems self-evident to me that the parking issue is affected. But clearly you don’t agree.
If you have the data in a spreadsheet format, you can send it to me at donshor@gmail.com and I will host it on a server and provide a link.
[quote]Maybe someone could survey them, as this project seems to be driven by a strongly-held perception among DDBA members that there is a retail parking issue. [/quote]
Now I am questioning whether the perception of DDBA is the members are addressing a retail parking issue, or a development issue, or both and in what proportion? Again, I repeat, the PRIMARY PURPOSE(s) of the parking garage proposal needs to be clearly defined. To know the primary purpose(s) is to make a better informed decision…
Robb’s data just shows how much we DON”T need another eyesore of a garage.
Don. The DDBA’s lead on these discussions, Michael Bisch, has consistently broadened the purpose of a structure to provide more parking to include future (unspecified) development, events, and non-shopping destinations like restaurants and galleries such as were the draw for the Art About inventory DB! conducted. So we set about to gather data, collected at reasonable times of the day and evenings, every day of the week, good weather and bad, UCD in full session and not, special events and normal times. A true average would include parking utilization during the hours between 11 pm and 7 am, but we tried to be fair and avoid those times. That skewed our data significantly and increased the apparent utilization of the garages. But we need to keep in mind that the meter runs on bond payments 24 hours a day.
Another topic: We will get the raw data to you soon to post. Thanks for offering to do that. Then anyone else can confirm that if we include only the 70 counts that are paired up in the same hour the average number of empty parking spaces in the two structures actually goes UP. So trying to cherry pick the data doesn’t strengthen the argument that we need a new structure.
Really? We need to conduct a survey or commission a study to determine there are fewer shoppers in the Downtown in the summer? It’s not sufficient that retailers report substantially lower sales during this period? And it’s not sufficient that with one’s own eyeballs one can see that there are fewer people about in the summer?
Furthermore, a number of the bloggers on the Vanguard don’t seem to realize that events generally, and I stress “generally”, don’t boost retail sales directly. The theory is that events boost retail sales indirectly over time as visitors discover the Downtown due to events.
ERM, I don’t know what to make of your questioning of the project purpose from the DDBA perspective. How many editorials, radio shows, Brown Bag lunches, Vanguard postings, commission and countil meetings must I attend/arrange/participate-in/write/submit to make the purposes known.
Rusty49, how do you know the project will be an eyesore in the absence of any conceptual drawings and renderings?
Robb and Steve, knock yourselves out. Go ahead and apply your averages metric to community problem solving, e.g. housing, water, power, infrastructure, including bicycle infrastructure, etc. It’ll be interesting to see whether your metric finds traction with the Council.
Oops! I failed to property identify myself.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Rusty49, how do you know the project will be an eyesore in the absence of any conceptual drawings and renderings?”
Dear DT aka Bisch, I trust what I can see with my own eyes. I have yet to see a pretty parking garage and everytime I use the F or G ST. garages there are plenty of parking spaces not being utilized. Seeing is believing.
Don – We will get you the data within days. You will post it and then everyone will pick it apart in their own fashion (“Oh, you should never count spaces at 10:30 on a Tuesday.” or “THAT Friday night was a light night downtown…” etc.) So be it. We collected this data in good faith to try to understand the usage of two garages. It has already been attacked because it was collected in the summer. Also, now we have to account for “retail parking” as if other events that bring people to Davis do not matter in our calculation of how parking facilities are used. I am, frankly, confused. Please provide a definition of “retail parking” so we can try to account for it…
Michael–Frankly, we have knocked ourselves out. I am a bit tired and cranky but wonder why our efforts to inform this debate are greeted with such disdain. As I said earlier, our intent is to inform the question: “Do we need another parking garage?” That’s it.
But, just to be clear… In my last posting I provided two measures of central tendency–mean and median. I also provided the 25th and 75h quartile and the maximum occupancy rate. Quartiles represent one way to look at the spread of the data.
F Street Garage: 75% of observations showed free parking spaces of 60 or more.
4th Street Garage: 75% of observations showed free parking spaces of 200 or more.
Paired data: 75% of observations showed free parking spaces of 291 or more.
We have gone beyond central tendency. Do I need to publish deciles? Percentiles? Minimum occupancy rate? Would it help if I produced box and whisker plots (not easy in Excel)?
In a few days everyone will have the full data set and can analyze it to their hearts’ content. Quibble with our approach if you want but do not question our credibility. We ARE contributing to a meaningful debate on this question and have conducted ourselves in a transparent way. We have volunteered our time to do this because we, like you all, care about Davis and its future. We just want to make sure that decisions concerning large expenditures of this nature are carefully considered.
Robb Davis
To Don Shor. I’m ready to get our data to you now that the principles in our team agree to share it. Do I use redbarn? Steve.
I’m open to any ideas to improve the downtown, for sure. I know that Michael Bisch and I both share a love of living and working downtown. I am skeptical of a huge parking garage with stacked above ground parking going into that block. I think underground parking is much better. I would be interested in seeing a cost comparison between parking in above ground layers, versus underground.
Also, why not do some sort of atrium or enclosed pedestrian mall there, with more focus on walking and bikes and less on the automobile? I’m just tossing out ideas; never had to study a redevelopment project as big as this one.
[quote]ERM, I don’t know what to make of your questioning of the project purpose from the DDBA perspective. How many editorials, radio shows, Brown Bag lunches, Vanguard postings, commission and countil meetings must I attend/arrange/participate-in/write/submit to make the purposes known. [/quote]
Sorry, but I cannot tell from your post if the parking garage according to the DDBA is to serve the PRIMARY PURPOSE of parking only, the dual PRIMARY PURPOSE of parking and retail, and if so in what proportion? Also, what retail or is that as yet still undefined, if that is part of the dual purpose? IMO these are crucial questions, and I suspect ones that will be raised at CC meetings…
[quote]I am skeptical of a huge parking garage with stacked above ground parking going into that block. I think underground parking is much better. I would be interested in seeing a cost comparison between parking in above ground layers, versus underground. [/quote]
It is my understanding underground parking would be prohibitively expensive…
I’d like to see the research, thank you.
If staff are ruling out underground, they should have a cost study of it.
The Chen Building is beautiful, but its structural problem is lack of parking. Sue and I moved to require them to put in underground parking, but we could not get a third vote. The hidden cost to that lack on on-site parking is all the spaces around the building that have to be shared with nearby retail and restaurants are jammed from people using the Chen Building. That “lost business opportunity” cost to the neighborhood was not factored into the analysis done by the CC majority that did not require that the Chen Building take care of more of its tenants’ cars on-site.
Steve: use donshor@gmail.com
Thanks.
For those who would like to learn about other approaches to parking, there is a very nice 30 minute YouTube video of a recent seminar given at Yale by Professor Don Shoup from UCLA which explains the basics of his “performance parking” based pricing for street parking.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8vkbfz8PU8[/url]
Mike, you’ve put your finger on the issue. The Chen Bldg. would not have penciled out had the landlord been required to provide onsite parking. Downtown Davis does not generate enough economic activity per sq. ft. to justify the cost of onsite parking. That’s why it is necessary for the RDA to subsidize parking. Presumably that’s the reason you didn’t provide on-street parking when you intensified the land use of your two properties. By the way Mike, I noticed the other day that you were part of the 3 council majority that approved the most recent in-lieu-of-parking ordinance increasing the city parking subsidy.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Mont, the performance parking you are talking about does nothing to help realize a Chen Bldg. type development.
ERM, you asked about the project objectives. Here you go:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
Davis Downtown Business Association
Letter to the Editor- The Davis Enterprise
Dynamic 3rd/4th/E/F Retail & Parking Redevelopment Project supports community sustainability, adds to Downtown vibrancy
The Downtown plays a critical role in maintaining a sustainable Davis community, compact with greenbelts and surrounded by agricultural land. The Downtown is the primary business, entertainment and cultural center of Davis; a hub of innovation and creativity; and the extraordinary lifestyle center of the City.
The Davis Downtown Business Association is proud of our Downtown, which welcomes a variety of residents, visitors and students seeking diverse and uniquely “Davis” offerings: dining, shopping, movie theaters, events, art galleries, offices and residences. Yet, we aspire to be much more, and the 3rd/4th/E/F Retail & Parking Redevelopment Project will help us get there by:
•Providing 12,000 sq. ft. of high-quality retail space necessary for critical mass for our Downtown retail sector;
•Adding another aesthetically pleasing and sustainable structure to the Downtown, complimenting the charming and eclectic design landscape of the Commercial Core;
•Spurring further development within the vicinity of 3rd/4th/E/F streets as did the cinema/parking project at 1st & F streets and the multi-use/parking project at 4th & G streets;
•Providing parking and charging stations for electric vehicles;
•Offering flexibility for reducing the number of on-street parking spaces to accommodate more dining, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (replacing on-street parking spaces with extended sidewalks for outdoor dining, for example);
•Enhancing the Downtown pedestrian experience by reducing circulation of cars seeking on-street parking spaces;
•Providing parking supply for future Downtown visitors at large conferences and lengthy events, where guaranteed parking is a necessity;
•Creating way-finding and accessible parking options for commuters to the Commercial Core;
•Addressing a variety of parking needs for a broad range of Downtown frequenters.
We are confident the 3rd/4th/E/F Retail & Parking Redevelopment Project will contribute to the development of Downtown as a vibrant, accessible, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, mixed-use, urban center and innovation district. We have the resources, know-how, ability and support—as demonstrated at our Aug. 24 Brown-Bag Discussion, where the overwhelming majority of the more than 60 attendees (community residents, landlords, and business owners) openly discussed and verbally backed the project. Let’s do it—GO DOWNTOWN!
Michael Bisch & Rosalie Paine
Board Co-presidents of the 750 member-strong Davis Downtown Business Association
[quote]Mont, the performance parking you are talking about does nothing to help realize a Chen Bldg. type development.[/quote]
I disagree. Performance parking provides the shoppers with exactly what they said they want – “convenient parking” – since it guarantees a couple of open parking spaces in every block. In addition, it does this by providing an economic disincentive to busboys, clerks, and other employees who are using the scarce on-street parking resource by pushing them to the parking structures. Why doesn’t this help any new development, not to mention the development that already exists in downtown?
IMPORTANT NOTE:
I made an error in something I wrote in a previous posting. DB! counts DO include some observations before 9:00 AM. There are 6 discreet observations before 9:00 AM. I apologize for any confusion this might cause.
Robb Davis
To DT Businessman: Thanks for the additional information – that definitely helps me get a clearer picture. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems evident there are two primary purposes of the parking garage, parking and retail. It is still not quite clear in what proportions the purposes are, but from the description I would guess 1/3 retail, 2/3 parking. In other words the overriding purpose is to address the parking issue, but another primary purpose is providing retail. So my next question is about the retail – is it as yet undefined, or does the DDBA have any particular type of retail in mind? Also, how much retail, e.g. how many stores approximately? Would they end up competing with existing downtown retail, or will some effort be made to make sure any retail does not compete with existing businesses?
Mont, on what basis do you disagree? Have you had developers, entrepreneurs, or retailers tell you that they would do a development in Davis or open a business or store in Davis if only Davis would institute performance parking downtown? I do this for a living; we can argue about whether I do it well. Performance parking doesn’t do diddly as far as attracting new businesses or developers to Davis. It’s not a part of the decisionmaking process at all. “High foot traffic, check, quality retail space, check, performance parking, check.” It’s not on the list.
Yes, some shoppers may complain less when more on-street spaces are freed-up by performance parking. Some shoppers undoubtedly will complain about paying for parking. We shall see which group is larger once the scheme is implemented. My prediction is there will be far less complaining about the performance parking if simultaneously we make dramatic improvements to the Downtown visitor experience i.e. costruct an E/F project and the E Street Promenade.
Mont, the part I’m not getting is why are you guys so quick to discount the feedback you are getting from merchants, developers, and leasing agents? When someone with expertise in this area says performance parking will not increase investment in the Downtown, why does this not give you pause? I wish performance parking were the silver bullet, but it’s not. It will chase the pesky downtown employees into the garages, a good thing, free up some on-street parking, but not enough, and likely generate some income for the City. But it will not stimulate additional Downtown growth and economic activity.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
ERM, the project is not about parking at all. It’s all about more economic activity and a more vibrant downtown experience. Parking is merely a means to achieving the ends. The DDBA does not have any particular type of retail in mind. In fact, we need to get away from this notion that we live in a command economy. We need to create conditions, including constructing infrastructure, that are conducive to entrepreneurial activity. I don’t expect the DDBA will be playing anti-competitive watchdog. That said, I’m personally a huge cheerleader for homegrown businesses, but there’s a place for national and regional businesses in Downtown as well.