Just Not Enough Parking

I guess it has been a while and it is inevitable that it gets the spot light again at some point. Friday, Steve Brown of the Dallas Morning News ran an article lamenting the lack of parking in downtown Dallas, particularly as new developments take the place of surface lots.

Can I scream please? It is the same tired line. Let me repeat something I have said here over and over. There is not a lack of parking downtown. There are near 100,000 public and private parking spaces spread across all land-uses in downtown. There are roughly 30,000 surface parking spaces and another 30,000 in stand-alone garages.

What downtown has a true lack of, and something that will never, ever change, is convenient parking, especially when the city outlaws convenient on-street parking options.

When the wife and I were watching the old Dallas TV series, I always laughed when one of the Ewing's or Barnes' would pull up to their office tower at Renaissance Tower or One Main Place and amazingly find a parking space on the street or in the drop-off zone. They'd get out, shut the door and enter the office building. Of course they would have been towed in real life, but they'd always have the ability to park freely and conveniently. Downtown Dallas will never have that.

All throughout the column, Brown mentions the reason for the lack of surface parking. That right there is a red flag. Surface parking is the biggest use of land in downtown, yet accounts for only a third of the total parking supply. If every surface parking space is eliminated, the total parking supply is reduced by that amount to 60-70,000 spaces. And that's if there isn't any replacement, which rarely happens.

Brown himself makes no mention of transit as an option. He does offer the following quote:

And extra parking was a key ingredient to get worldwide engineering firm Jacobs to consolidate its North Texas offices in downtown. The California-based firm leased more than 80,000 square feet in the Harwood Center on Bryan Street.

But first, the building owner and Dallas economic development officials had to line up extra parking in a garage next door.

“That and DART moved the needle for Jacobs,” said Cushman & Wakefield senior director Matt Heidelbaugh, who represented the tenant. “Proximity was very important for ease and security.

I understand corporate offices are finally moving away from needing increasing amounts of space for the same amount of workers. I am quite happy with the trend. However, most of the '80's towers still have abundant amounts of parking in an attached garage. Also, the vast majority are on a DART line or within two blocks of a DART station. I see Brown making no mention employers subsidizing a transit pass, only subsidizing parking, or in the case above, the city helping the subsidization of parking. No mention of the work to make biking a legitimate commuting option anywhere in the column.

The other thing Brown completely ignores is that as new development takes the place of the surface lots, they will include more parking than what was there, so there is a net increase of total parking spaces. However, those lots just aren't as convenient.

Brown also makes note that the new suburban projects have two to three times the parking of downtown office buildings. They have to, THEY ARE IN THE SUBURBS! Many of those new office buildings are in cities that are designed for the car and have no transit service. How else are they going to get people there? It also this design that ensures the suburban projects will never have any external activity and makes things like Legacy in Plano a nice idea that doesn't quite make for an urban area.

I have said it countless times. Downtown Dallas will never out-suburb the suburbs. It can never make it convenient for the car. It can, however, out-urban them. The suburbs will never be able to offer authentic, walkable urban areas like historic city centers can. Downtown Dallas leaders would be better off playing to those strengths, rather than complaining about the lack of parking.

It wasn't until the end that we got the idea that maybe it really isn't a terrible issue.

An apartment development planned on land surrounding the historic Dallas High School on Bryan Street and a cultural center in the works at Griffin and Woodall Rodgers Freeway will occupy more surface parking lots. Although they remove parking, these developments are good for downtown, almost everyone agrees.

“It is a very good problem to have,” said John Crawford, CEO of the economic development group Downtown Dallas Inc. “Ten years ago, this wasn’t that big a deal.

“As we look at taking away these surface parking lots, we are looking at other options.”

Crawford said the city of Dallas is developing plans to build an underground parking garage below the planned 3.5-acre Live Oak Avenue park.
And Downtown Dallas Inc. and city officials are working with other building owners to find additional parking.

“Parking, both in perception and reality, has been a problem downtown for a long time,” Crawford said. “As we have rebuilt our downtown, it’s become even more a consideration.”

Let me rephrase this. It is a good problem, we are replacing parking, perception of parking is bad. The real answer is that there will never be enough convenient parking options and what is currently there suppresses the desirability of the surrounding area. In essence attractive areas become less attractive to visit the more convenient the parking becomes. Since there can never be enough convenient parking options, alternative modes have to be considered. Without it is like trying to diet by drinking excessive amounts of soda.

I am glad to see Crawford acknowledge that the problem may not be that big. Dallas has leaders that have always thought capacity solutions are the answer to the problem, more parking, more freeways, more lanes, etc. Until Dallas gets decision makers who think otherwise then this will always be a problem. The solution to parking problems isn't more parking spaces, but rather changing the approach to parking.















“Corporate America is downsizing its space needs, and the densities of workers in offices is going up,” said Greg Langston, managing director of commercial property firm Avison Young’s Dallas office. “With some of these buildings — particularly those built in the 1980s — there is nowhere left to park.”

I think ultimately, I absolutely abhor this kind of article because there is always a quote like this. It is patently false and just continues the stereotype that there is nowhere to park to those who don't know. I introduce some maps that I made a few years ago to dispel that there is nowhere to park downtown. While there may be some minor errors from time, they are still pretty accurate.

There are over 100 distinct surface parking lots downtown.

These are the stand-alone garages, which are approximately equal to the number of spaces in the picture above.

Looking at those pictures, does it look like there is nowhere to park? Those pictures do not include things like basement parking in the office towers or residential buildings. City Hall and the civic buildings in the Arts District, among others, have underground parking, but it isn't there on those maps. I could go on, but here's the main takeaway: Between all the office workers, residences and visitors, there are roughly 150,000 people in downtown daily. How can 100,000 spaces for a downtown that sees 150,000 people and is the nexus of the transit system not have enough parking?

Truth is, it does not have a parking shortage. It has and will always have a convenient-parking shortage. But if the goal is to make downtown Dallas a true urban area, then it will always have that shortage, regardless of what the old guard thinks.

Park(ing) Day Dallas

This past Friday was Park(ing) Day, celebrated (or maybe exhibited) nationwide. Dallas participated. While I will post some pictures, the main point of the post isn't going to be about the event, but rather what lasting effects will the event have in Dallas.

Here was a cool little bonus. Unrelated to Park(ing) Day was a Green Expo at Main Street Gardens. It added a nice little bookend to Main Street.

Live music was a common theme for many of the parklets.

This is a shot down Main Street. I added this one to show the congestion on Main Street. This runs contrary to most public policy stances. The general idea is that places that are congested lose their desirability (think of the Yogi Berra saying, the place is so crowded, no one every goes there anymore). Yet, the reality shows the opposite. Yes, this is a one-time event, but it applies to permanent places.

Outside Pegasus Plaza. There is a lot of pedestrian activity here.

This was a live music-type parklet, but anyone on the street could join and do what they wanted. I liked this one a lot because it was representative of what a great urban areas should be.

This parklet was put together by the leasing office of the residential building I reside. They made a small croquet field.

I included this one, not because of any great idea or activity, but the poor urban design of the area. Notice how the others, taken up and down Main Street, are nice and shaded with pedestrian amenities. Going from east-to-west, when you cross Field St, you get to the One Main Place area. It is nice and concrete-ty, complete with a big setback, no shade and barren streetscape. I felt bad for the guys who got this space. Since it is hostile to pedestrians, none are here. Yet, all along Main, people were gathered in droves in the 90 degree heat. If you design it right, people will use it.

On Friday, Main Street was quite busy, but what about now? And what lasting effects will come of it? That is a little bit harder to answer. I was talking with the organizer of it a few days before and that was the question that came up. The more I got to thinking about it, the more I realized something.

Dallas is great at doing the temporary. The better block project that has been done in Oak Cliff, Deep Ellum and Ross, demonstration bike lanes and Park(ing) Day. But in the end, not much changes. Some things in Oak Cliff have, but that's because they are taking things in their own hands, not because of any systemic changes at City Hall.

In the end, I think these things serve one major lasting purpose. It does show that the younger generation is pushing for change in how our cities are built and operate. In the end, that may be the best thing of all.

Why Pro-Alternate Transportation is not Anti-Car

It is generally my philosophy to link and have a discussion on topics that are local in value, for example, the Trinity Tollroad or discuss examples from across the country in relation to the Trinity Tollroad. Today I will make an exception because it is relevant to planning, planners and me personally.

I put it here to give an understanding of my philosophy, and hope that readers will keep this in mind when policies are put forth that may limit the automobile's reach.

Herb Caudill believes that planners are not anti-car and the supposed "war on cars" that planners have been accused of is not true. It is that cars and what they need, from a pure physical infrastructure point, are not an efficient use of resources.

The central fact about cars, from a planner's perspective, is that they take up space. Lots of space. And this matters because space in cities (a.k.a real estate) is scarce and therefore expensive.
Cars take up space when they're moving and they take up space when they're parked, and even though they can't be simultaneously moving and parked, you have to plan for both states and plan for peak demand; so you have to set aside some multiple of the real estate actually occupied by the car at any given time.

That's just a practical observation about the spatial geometry of cities that doesn't bow to my ideology or yours. And it would still remain true even if cars ran on nothing but recycled newspapers and emitted nothing but rainbows and unicorn tears.

In the past, our policy response has been to just set aside more and more space for cars: More freeways, more roads, more lanes on existing roads, more parking garages and surface lots. This approach hasn't worked, and there are two very practical reasons why:

First, you can never build enough. There's a phenomenon called "induced demand" that is very well understood by now. A new lane or a new freeway never reduces congestion in the long run: People respond to new capacity by driving more or by living or working in previously remote places, and you're very quickly back where you started and have to build still more. The same phenomenon applies to increases in the supply of parking. It's a game you can't win.

Second, when you do make more space for cars you quickly start to crowd out any other potential mode of transportation, especially walking. All those parking lots and freeways and roads spread everything else out so that the distances become too great for walking. And the more you optimize any given space for cars the more hostile that space is for pedestrians. Very quickly you get to the point where it becomes impossible—or prohibitively depressing—to get things done on foot.

I agree whole-heartedly about this. While he does say that externalities are excluded for this discussion, I would say that also has a huge effect in my reasoning. DFW as a region is a non-attainment area for ozone. The primary reason for the ozone is the exhaust from cars. To try and solve the ozone issue without addressing cars will never work. Any solution has to incorporate that aspect.

What the "war on cars" boils down to is those that are funded by the road lobby **coughcoughCatoInstitutecough** are working to find a way to keep doing what has always been done in the last 60-70 years. Folks in cars scoff at perceived anti-car policies, for example, tolling of freeways, not because the policy to pay for what you use is bad, but because they have always had free roads.

What planners get flack for is trying to shift the pendulum, which is so far towards cars at this moment, more toward the middle. I have often said, much to disbelieving ears, that I am not anti-car. I am pro-transportation-choice. There have been times where I could have taken something that wasn't a car, but didn't. Sadly, there have also been times where I didn't want to take the car but had no option. That's what we are out to fix.

Downtown and Parking

Though I've been on a parking kick lately, the actual reason I am posting this article from the Tulsa World is that it fits quite neatly with this blog post about the downtown of Midland, Texas. I've said it before many times and it bears repeating again, urban areas function and operate the same regardless of culture, location weather, etc. Tulsa and Midland are similar to Dallas. The only difference is how each city approaches revitalization.

Proper Parking Approach

Followers of this blog know that I don't often venture outside of Texas in general and Dallas in particular. Usually when I do, it is some broad ranging planning topic that has relevance within the local area. Parking is certainly one of those topics. And as loyal readers may be aware, parking has certainly been a topic well covered (directly here, here, here and here and others not solely dedicated to parking).

To that I introduce Seattle, a city with a strong planning department and political will to do urban areas right. Before I delve into that, I want to add a sidebar. Oftentimes, when I read about other cities and their "struggles" to achieve their urban vision, I shake my head in disgust. Not because what they do is wrong, but because all I have to compare it to is Dallas. New York is always working to correct, and for some activists, complaining about the auto-centric nature of some their neighborhoods. If Dallas's urban core had only 1/4 of the urbanity of New York, I'd be happy. Obviously this is a matter of perspective. Seattle is no different. For a city and region that is much smaller than Dallas and DFW, they have a greater concentration of urban areas and higher transit ridership, mostly utilizing buses until recently. Conversely, it still amazes me that no matter the area, the NIMBY's and naysayers all repeat the same things. I'll elaborate in a moment.

The story, which comes out of the Seattle Times and I found posted to an APA LinkedIn discussion board, details the planning department's move to eliminate parking within a quarter-mile of "frequent" transit stops along with other minor but urban-friendly moves. I am highly in favor of what I read. What is the purpose of building a transit system in general, and rail in particular, if the code that shapes the urban environment is not also altered? Merely saying we want mixed-use, lower auto use, more transit riders and more pedestrians is not enough without some action from code changes. Remember, our cities are shaped by the codes that govern them. If those codes produced auto-oriented areas, then they need to change if you want to navigate away from auto-oriented areas. Expecting change by only introducing a new form of transportation won't have a large effect on the whole. Seattle is doing that with this proposed change.

As usual, there are critics and skeptics. A few excerpts:

"I agree with the premise that if we want to create denser, livable, walkable neighborhoods, we should build less parking," said Martin Kaplan, an architect and member of the Seattle Planning Commission.
But he added: "It's a painful transition. Some people want to do it overnight, and some of those people are politicians."

"Yes, cars do pollute. We need to think up something different. But for now, we need parking to survive."

To Jim Hobbs, who has run his car-repair shop for 30 years, the city's proposal to eliminate parking requirements smacks of a political agenda that ignores the way most people still live.
"The city of Seattle doesn't want us here," he said of his auto-centric business. "It's the whole anti-car thing. They say that in an urban village you can get everything you need within walking distance. But I can't afford to live up here. I drive in from Everett. My employees drive in.
"Everybody owns a car," he said. "Or two."

I swear I could have ripped these quotes out of the Dallas Morning News if they were to run a story about the attempt to urbanize a part of this city.

There are two big complaints I see here. One, the city is moving too fast and they need to slow down. Two, they want to get rid of cars in Seattle and we love them. Both are inaccurate at best. The story mentions that Seattle began the process before 2007, or roughly more than six years ago. What kind of transition are they looking for? Ten years? Twenty? I tend to view these ideas as more of a stall tactic. The thinking that if we can delay it now, we can delay it indefinitely. Sooner or later, if the end goal is a more urban city, these changes have to take place. My experience has shown that those who say it is too fast, are against the change altogether.

As for the fact that we love our cars and it is against our country's principles to be for anything but the car, that just doesn't hold up either. I have said before and this won't be the last, people will do what is convenient. People who "want" two cars do so for convenience. They are literally trapped in their home without the car. There is no where to walk, no transit option and even things like cycling are dangerous. Without a car, they are either time poor or under house arrest. Now, some do truly love the idea of cars, but most don't inherently and primarily use them that way because there is no convenient option.

While the third quote drives me crazy because of its skewed stance, it is the middle one that makes me pull my hair out. "Yes, here's the bad things about cars, but because it is what we have and where we are now we can't change it." At some point, you have to begin. Gradual change is rare. In a span of twenty years, cities went from urban, walkable and streetcar areas to suburban, auto-oriented and bus cities. While it was somewhat gradual until World War II, by 1970, cities a we know them today were literally on the map. Thousands upon thousands of miles of freeways and millions of miles of auto-oriented traffic-engineer-designed roads were built.

Now, one point is raised that I can agree.

Residents also question whether the city's transit service is frequent and reliable enough to prompt people to give up their cars. And they worry that existing businesses will be hurt as shoppers struggle to find places to park.

As I made note of in this post about DART's attempt at service cutting in the urban core, urban transit isn't guaranteed. Basing parking standards on transit service can be hit or miss. That also brings up one main advantage of a fixed-based system like rail over the workhorse bus. While rail's frequency can be cut, the route is almost virtually guaranteed not to be eliminated. The same can not be said of the bus routes. However, that doesn't address the concern of the quote above.

The general thought within the planning community is that transit needs to have roughly about 12-minute headways (non-peak times at that) to have any significant impact on development patterns. That doesn't come cheap. This will be important for the Seattle Planning Department to decide. If the headway threshold to define "frequent" is set too high, the lack of parking will be exacerbated, since the service will not be convenient to alter transportation patterns.

The last thing I want to say has really nothing to do with planning, but with my old industry, media. In this case, journalistic integrity seems a bit off. The writer interviewed the "experts" and got both sides of the issue. When they got man-on-the-street quotes, it was all negative. I find it hard to believe, especially in a place like the Emerald City, that not one average citizen is for this idea. Even the headline Parking around Seattle may get worse as city planners favor transit is skewed. If less people are driving and more take transit, doesn't it stand to reason parking stays static? This equilibrium is similar to the Induced Traffic Principle I have blogged about before. There is a limited amount of spaces and capacity will dictate how many use it. However, there is one big difference. Places that are attractive, as studies and focus groups have continually shown walkable neighborhoods to be over their suburban counterparts, will attract visitors. Inversely, the more parking you add, the more places you have to take away to build the parking spaces, making the area less attractive. By providing alternatives, as Seattle is attempting with transit, it can relieve some parking pressure. If more people do take transit and parking is still utilized the same (again another Induced Traffic point), more people will be in and spend money within the neighborhood.

On the other end of the spectrum, this doesn't say there will be no parking. It says there will be no minimum. Developers, or the private market, will decide how much is needed.

Sadly, this type of thing is a long way off from arising in our neck off the words.

Negative Externalities of the Auto

An article in The Dallas Morning News about particulate matter and the DFW area got me to thinking about a new post for my blog. I won't go into too much detail about the piece, other than more and more studies are showing that particulate matter pollution at lower levels are more harmful to the general public's health than previously thought. The majority of this pollution comes from the tailpipe.

It is articles like this that reinforce my stance that cars need to come further down in use and into a more balanced transportation system as a whole. While I can think of numerous other reasons, I haven't put them into one comprehensive post before. So without further ado, here's some of the reasons I know of car's negatively effecting the general public.

My number one personal reason has and most likely will always be for environmental reasons. Supporting this stances, and said far more eloquently than I ever could, are books similar to Jane Holtz Kay's Asphalt Nation. The North Central Texas Council of Governments tracks the pollution data locally, but the one that everyone has been focused on nationally is ozone. The numbers may be old, but 47% of all smog causing agents came from exhaust in DFW. Compound that with expected increase in auto travel and the ability to fight that regional becomes much harder. Barring lobbying for stricter pollution controls and emission standards, this is out of the reach of any regional or smaller government. That means near half of the emissions are untouchable. Sure there are programs that they can do that will encourage people to buy newer and less polluting cars, but that is minor when spread over a region of six million people.

Now, it appears that particulate matter is next on the list of pollutants that are more harmful than we knew before. How many more health harming pollution issues are going to keep arising? The list from the past is long too. Lead, carbon dioxide, smog, ozone, etc. have all been targeted in the past with varying degrees of success. Each time progress is made, another issue or pollutant becomes apparent.

On top of all that, the above only accounts for direct use. There are pollution and environmental concerns for manufacturing, disposal and maintenance for the vehicles. Fuel, transmission fluid, brake fluid, battery acid and other components also cause environmental degradation. Even when the vehicle in in motion, bits of tires are being sanded off. When you brake, metallic brake dust is being ejected. I consider this a hidden environmental cost of car use. Many people are focused on reducing gas consumption through increased fuel efficiency as the answer. I know several environmentally-minded people who think their hybrid is the answer. However, that doesn't account for what was listed directly above and only marginally reduces overall fuel consumption. In my opinion, the real answer is going to have to come through whole scale changes in the way we build our cities.

Speaking of cities, I mentioned some previous posts about how a car-favored city will always struggle to have a great urban environment on any large scale. The best that can be done are small, quaint downtowns surrounded by surface parking, as seen in cities like Grapevine, Carrollton or even Arlington. Transit can help, but until zoning codes reflect a more urban-style development, it will always struggle. The main reason is the space needed to store cars is tremendous. In the Sunbelt, the number one use of land is for parking (one of my biggest gripes is even this is hidden, as the land is actually categorized by its zoning classification). A number that I have seen floated around (though never with a source) is that the City of Houston has 34 parking spaces per resident. That is more space than their house and workplace combined.

That leads me to...the actual infrastructure, which is extremely inefficient in numerous ways. The first is the amount of land required. Since our roadways are effectively conduits for the car and little more, they are basically car infrastructure. The closer into the old urban core you go, the more likely you are to see transit, pedestrians and cyclists on those streets balancing the transportation system, but they are increasingly the exception. If those car-centric streets are added in with the freeway system and the parking from the previous point, the vast majority of the land in a "modern" American city is dedicated to storing and transporting cars.

Consider this point. One freeway lane can transport 2,000 cars an hour. In peak direction, U.S. 75 can handle 8,000 cars an hour (despite the diminishing returns of adding more lanes, I use that number for easy math). At full capacity, a light rail line can carry roughly 10,000 peak direction, on 1/5th the land. As I have explained in previous entries, cities like Dallas may struggle to reach capacity based on the system design and city layout. But, all things equal, transit is the better choice for moving the most people on the least amount on any distance. The most efficient mode of transport is walking. Sidewalks can carry thousands upon thousands of people in a short time. But, since this is America and very little is walkable or even in walking distance, it is rarely chosen. In places where the design supports it, that is usually the most common choice.

By my rough estimate, there are 23 freeway lanes leading out of downtown. That means roughly 46,000 cars an hour. At an occupancy rate of 1.2 per vehicle, downtown evacuates 55,000 people an hour. Downtown employs 130,000 people. That math doesn't add up. Add in the fact that only 20 percent of the traffic around downtown during rush hour actually comes from downtown and the shortcoming becomes quite apparent.

In a way, the takeover of the street from a multi-modal system to what it is now is another externality. A road built for only the car will see little walking, transit or biking activity. It will also mean less everyday activity, which is another problem.

Health and safety is another big issue for me. I mentioned the pollution, but that is not all. The obesity rate in this country would decline is more people were able to get out and walk to accomplish day-to-day activities. This review of another book I own documents this quite effectively. Bottom line, you know there is a problem when doctor and medical groups are beginning to speak out against current development patterns.

On that same note, it would take 50 years of average Iraq War casualties to equal one year of auto fatalities. A big reason President Barack Obama beat out John McCain for president was the general public's war weariness. Yet cars go on at a much greater rate unnoticed by the general public. Now I will grant that the number of fatalities has decreased over the past two decades, much of it due to safety features of newer cars, but it can be a mixed blessing. Accidents that previously would have killed occupants only severely injure them now. In 2005, there were 42, 636 people killed in car crashes. There were almost 3 million injured. While the deaths are decreasing, the injuries are rising.

I tried to keep this post on the public costs, but there certainly are private concerns for users in picking their transportation mode. My opinion, though, is for each person to be able to have that choice. Sadly, particularly in my neck of the country, there is little choice to be had. That is one of the big reasons I wanted to pursue planning. If we can correct some issues, build in moderation, allow connectivity of the built environment, many of these negatives will be reduced.

Downtown Midland: How to Revitalize

Now a heads up from my hometown of Midland, about 5-6 hours west on I-20 from Dallas. My sister directed me to a story in the local paper, The Midland Reporter Telegram, about this effort to revitalize their downtown. She sent it to me several months ago, but I procrastinated discussing it until now.

In many ways, Dallas and Midland are similar. Their downtown's were converted from the center of the city's life to an office park, they have a nearby rival city and a lot of activity has shift to the fringes. Even looking solely at the downtown area of each city reveals similarities. Each have/had vacant office buildings. Each looks great from a distance, but getting inside reveals fake density, similar to what I discussed in this post. Both have out-of-whack parking situations that depend heavily on surface lots and restrict on-street parking. In fact, in a lot of ways, downtown Midland is now where downtown Dallas was 15 years ago. There are even intangible similarities like old money still controls each area and elected officials that do not quite know what is going on in the area or really what is needed to get where they want downtown to go.

This would fit right in if it were in downtown Dallas.

Note the cluster of tall buildings, as well as the vast amounts of surface parking.

Some excerpts from the article that will form the basis of my discussion:

City leaders, along with members of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) board, the Downtown Midland Management District (DMMD), Midland County and the Midland Development Corp. (MDC), among others, have been meeting regularly since the spring to create a unified vision for the future of downtown.
The DMMD in July brought its executive director on full-time. The city also is looking within the next 60 to 90 days to hire -- in conjunction with the other entities -- a full-time employee who would work to develop a "catalyst" project for downtown and to eliminate obstacles that prevent that type of development, City Manager Courtney Sharp said.
What exactly that catalyst project will be still is up for consideration, downtown advocates said. But, they agreed for the first time the entities all are working together toward a common revitalization, rather than each acting separately to achieve essentially the same goal.

...

[Natalie] Shelton [DMMD Executive Director] said she'd support a mixed-use property that would allow for office space on the upper floors and retail or restaurants on the ground-level. Some members of the DMMD said the renovation of the Ritz Cultural Events Center could be a catalyst of sorts as it aims to bring several hundred people downtown at least a few nights a week.
Others have pointed to a combination of possibilities.
"Office space is needed immediately," [Jerry] Morales [at-large City Councilman] said.

...

Gary Glasscock, partner at Tgaar Properties Inc., said they are moving their offices back downtown after operating from farther north for the past several years.
The company purchased Wall Towers east and west, which are about 30 percent occupied, and plans to update the remainder of the buildings to open more office space, he said.
"We've already signed up several leases," he said, adding they've had interest from businesses locally and nationally. "Once that begins we'll start renovating."
Still, he said, there are challenges to re-doing old structures. They're presently conducting a study to determine if asbestos exists in the structures and anticipate it will take about $5 million to fully restore the properties.
"Once you get past the basic issues, this has great bones," he said of the property. "It's a first-class area to be in."

...

Aside from the cost required to bring some buildings up to code, parking issues prevent downtown from thriving, Morales said.

Glasscock said they have an agreement to lease spaces just east of the library, but a lack of parking is prohibitive.

If there were a few developers committed to coming downtown and bringing jobs, Morales said they then could assess where it would be feasible to put a parking garage.

If I were to change Midland to Dallas and the names of the entities involved, this would be just like Dallas' situation. The basic problem as it stands today is that there are too many chiefs and not enough indians. When that situation exists, there are a lot of ideas on what needs to be done. In this case, one wants a cultural institution, one wants office space, some want a parking garage and others want mixed-use office/retail. None of the serious flaws that exist now are addressed. Midland has great bones. That is it. What was proposed does not add the flesh to downtown.

The Councilman wants more office now. The company official bought two office buildings that are 70 percent vacant. Those two don't mesh. Downtown Fort Worth, with an office occupancy above 90 percent in downtown can say they need mopre office. 12.5 percent of the office buildings in downtown Midland are completely vacant right now (which is to say nothing of their overall vacancy rate, which is quite high). The empty buildings are where the biggest opportunity lies. What I have experienced in Midland, coupled with what I know about vibrant urban areas, is the lack of activity outside of office hours (Dallas, anyone?). The current trend across the United States, from coast to coast, cities large and small, is that the younger generation is looking for something different than the prototypical American living situation. That is all Midland is, single-family houses and garden-style apartments. There are no townhomes, no lofts, no duplexes. Convert a handful of these empty and near empty office buildings into a residential use, try to keep them near strategic points and near each other to increase the likelyhood of critical mass and all of a sudden, things will move and they will get their catalyst. People will be walking on the street, retailers and restaurants will be attracted, and Forbes will look at them for the list of best small city downtowns.

However, Midland has not encouraged this thinking. Instead, several empty buildings, six that I can count, have been demolished instead. That is a wasted opportunity. However, the prevailing theme in Midland, like it was in many cities in the United States, from coast to coast, cities large and small, is that no one wants to live downtown. I fear that until someone actually does it, that thought will always prevail and good, solid buildings will be demoed for parking lots.

Speaking of parking ... downtown Midland has it all wrong. There is very little on-street parking, despite the wide four-and five-lane streets that prevail all over the district. You want to encourage ground floor retail? Start there. It will actual bring in revenue to the city, while at the same time reducing parking pressures on the private lots and enticing quick convenient parking for the customers of the potential retailers and restaurants the city wants to attract. I can recall only two restaurants accessible from the street in downtown Midland, and both are always packed.

I have said it before and it will never be invalidated. Urban areas will never out-suburb the suburbs. Downtown Midland will never be able to offer large amounts of surface parking like the places on Loop 250 can. Instead, they need to offer what those places can't, an inviting streetscape teeming with pedestrains. When I say activity begets more activity, that is what I mean. Sometimes people don't go to the mall to shop. Sometimes they go to socialize or people watch. Malls are nothing more than an urban streetscape covered by a roof and usually lacking the mixed-use component. When the land use encourages street-level activity, people will come to observe and be a part of it, not because of what use is there now specifically. The base activity encouraged the ancillary activity, furthering the vibrancy of the street.

Downtown Midland would have to take steps to encourage that pedestrian traffic. A big start would be the addition of the on-street parking, which then gives the pedestrians a buffer from the traffic.

Also, the idea that it takes a catlyst project or one thing to jump start development is a very outdated mode of thinking. Urban areas operate best when they are a conglomeration of lots of little pieces. One residential building with 100 units is better than none, two is better than one and three is better than two. However, it is not linearly better. In this case the sum is greater than the whole. The 300 units are far better than if each 100 units existed on its own seperately. So any policy that is geared toward a catalyst is flawed from the beginning. The focus needs to be on accumulation of several small things at once. Encourage a form-based code that dictates where you want the street-level retail. Make improvements to the streetscape, particularly shade and benches. Set-up a tax break system for certain tyoes of development, ie. residential, that will encourage private entities to look in that direction. Study where transit makes the most sense within the current land-use.

Downtown Midland has tried catalyst projects before and have seen minimal results out of the effort. Midland Center was built, yet downtown wasn't revitalized (just like the empty promises of almost every convention center in America). Centennial Plaza was supposed to be a gathering spot for locals to enjoy downtown in an open setting. But without complementing land uses nearby, it is sparesly used when an event isn't scheduled. There was a massive undertaking to remake the streets and sidewalks from regular concrete to red brick or other fancy patterns. Yet without fundamentally changing how downtown was used, there wasn't a fundamental increase or decrease in anything but the budget.

Bottomline, downtown Midland has a great opportunity, but I just have a feeling that well-meaning officials will miss the mark. Unless they bring in someone with a basic knowledge of urban design and land-use, things will not change. Midland is not different than any other city or region. If places like Fargo, North Dakota can revitalize their downtown, then so can Midland. Weather, industry or age, despite what common criticisms are leveled, will not prevent Midland from having a vibrant downtown. Misguided directions and policy will.

Christmas wish list

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! In the spirit of the season, I am going to throw my downtown wish list out there. Perhaps some important people are watching.

10. More daycare's downtown. There are three church-sponsored and two private daycare's. Granted it is selfish, but downtown would be better off with more kids. When one considers that 130,000 people work downtown, there is a severe shortage of places to put their kids.

9. Fill the empty office space. Before we consider adding more office space, let's see some pre-recession filling of existing office space levels.

8. Renovate each the fortress office tower's lobbies. They don't need to have a half-block to block sized lobby that contains nothing but empty space and mostly unused chairs. Converting these spaces into other uses like retail or at least a pedestrian-friendly design would encourage greater pedestrian activity and therefore greater vitality.

7. More West-Village-type developments. An increase in residential and good urban designed streetscapes are a must if downtown is going to see any increase in vibrancy and vitality. There are lots of solid street-to-street urban blocks that are nothing but surface parking lots and would accommodate these in the proper places, only a couple of blocks from already good areas.


It would be a lovely gift to see a surface parking lot turn into this.

6.  Build out of the streetcar lines. A line down Main connecting downtown with Deep Ellum and Fair Park, a line on Lamar connecting downtown with Victory and the Cedars and a line on Harwood/Olive connecting the Farmers Market with the Main Street District, Arts District and Uptown would let you get near anywhere in the urban core easily.

5. Redo parking. Increase the on-street parking, reform pricing to more of a market approach, lower the number of surface parking towards developments would increase the attractiveness of parking downtown.

4. The addition of the 2nd downtown rail line. My preferred option would be Commerce Subway. It goes under one of the densest parts of downtown and is nearest the most residential units, commercial office square feet, hotel rooms (that is even taken into the new 1,001 room convention center hotel), retail, and park space than any other option. If those are all sold out, I'd even take the Young or City Hall option.

I think this line would carry the most passengers of the four options.

3. Get rid of the one-way street system. For many reasons they have to go: confusion, auto over pedestrian, increased accidents and diminished on-street parking.

2. Removal of the freeway loop around downtown. If I lived in a perfect world, the freeways would run as originally intended, and stop at the city's edge, or in the case, I'd say I-635 or Loop-12. If that isn't enough, I'd settle for the removal of Woodall Rogers and I-345, the strip of freeway between Woodall and I-30 that divides downtown and Deep Ellum and East Dallas.

1. Get rid of the tunnel and skywalk system. I have waxed on and on and on about this, so I'll spare you the repetitiveness.

Santa, any help would be appreciated.

Then and now

Today I want to hammer home a point I brought up when comparing the downtown's of San Antonio and Dallas(here and here). One of my main points was that much more of San Antonio's downtown is composed of historic, pre-WWII buildings than Dallas and it is that fact more than any other that contributes to the vitality of San Antonio's urban core. Meanwhile, Dallas destroyed those very buildings and replaced them with fortress office towers or parking lots.

Over a year ago, I critiqued Main Street Gardens, and one of the things I liked was the recognition of the history of that area, the old parking garage sign, the view corridors toward the old city hall and the sign at the corner of Harwood and Main revealing a bit about the block and surrounding areas. It is that sign that I want to direct your attention now.

Here's an amateur photo.

It shows the property and surrounding areas as they evolved from a residential area to part of the commercial core of downtown Dallas.

In 1885, the smattering of black dots represents the "improvements" to the property, or in layman's terms, buildings on the property. No surprise, as was the norm then, the houses are close to the street, with minimal setbacks and a decent backyard. If you look at the west side of St. Paul, you can see the beginnings of the classical commercial building of that time, long rectangular structures that were usually restaurants or shops on the ground floor and offices or residences above.

Now in 1905 and 1921, there are quite a bit more of those rectangular buildings. In 1921, by my count, there were 27 structures on the north side of Main and 19 on the south part. That is 46 places for people to walk to or from to eat, shop, work or live. That activity creates a vibrant street scene. On Commerce, I count 17 building on the north part of the street and 22 on the south. Again, that creates 39 places for people to walk to or from, creating a vibrant urban setting. Add in the fact that both streets were hubs of the city's streetcar system and it is no wonder there were lots of people on the streets of downtown back in the day.

Even when looking at 1959, there are far more structures than exist today, 26 on Main, 17 on Commerce (though the Grand Hotel did have several street level retail spaces) and one on Harwood.

When compared to when Main Street Gardens opened, 12 on Main, 14 on Commerce, (a half block more is revealed on each side than in the other pictures) there are far less places for people to go to or from and therefore, far less people on the streets. Notice the slow decline in destinations: 85 places in 1921, 43 in 1959, 26 in 2009. We currently have only 30 percent of what was available 90 years ago.

Now, to be fair, some places, like the department store on the northeast corner of Main and St. Paul (that is now a loft building where I live), demolished 12 structures and replaced them with two, but the newer addition created just as much if not more foot traffic than what was there. Sadly, there is also the case of Comerica Tower, which replaced at least five structures (in the picture, as I know there were more towards Ervay) that were pedestrian-friendly with one that is not. On the southeast section of Commerce and Harwood, about a dozen buildings were razed and made parking.

Sometimes I wonder what goes on in the process at City Hall. We know what works. We know what doesn't. If the stated goal is to create a vibrant urban core, go back to doing what you were before when it was and stop doing the things that have gotten us to where we are now. Trying to do the same thing and hoping for different results is the definintion of insanity.

Measures of Density

Those in the planning profession often come across different measuring units when it comes to various things like development projects or regions. Oftentimes, these get jumbled in the public forum and some folks cherry-pick numbers for their means. I'd like to discuss a few right now, and their implications towards planning vibrant urban areas.

Perhaps the most common to the public is people per square mile (ppsm) or kilometer. This is a great one for measuring a region or a certain area, especially for comparison purposes. New York, for example, has a population of 8,175,133 over 305 square miles (8,175,133 / 305 = 26,804 ppsm). Los Angeles population is 3,792,621 contained in 469 square miles for a ppsm of 8,087. Dallas' ppsm is 3,111 which is the population 1,197,816 divided by a land area of 385 square miles.

This works on a macro scale. Generally speaking, the higher the ppsm, the greater the urbanity. A look at the list of top five densest major cities reveals: 1) New York, 2) San Francisco, 3) Boston, 4) Chicago and 5) Philadelphia. If I were to make a list of most urban places, those five would certainly be in the upper tier.

The main caution in using this measurement is the boundary of the area in question. Some sprawl proponents will point out that L.A. is denser than New York. While that is true from a regional perspective (New York State has done a good job of preserving large portions of its countryside), the city is far more dense, and therefore far more urban than L.A. Transit use alone shows that to be the case (New York carries 12.8 million trips a day, L.A. has less than 1.5). As with any stat, a grain of salt and some perspective must be exercised.

A common measurement amongst developers and their development is the unit per acre. This is generally more suited for suburban, low density developments, like a single-family subdivision. Add the number of houses, divide by the number of acres and you get your number. A small development of ten acres with ten houses yields one. 40 quarter acre lots in the same development yields a four. It is also important to note, that unlike ppsm, units/acre does not consider infrastructure. That is a separate column for planners to deal with in their plans.

It can also work for urban developments, but often developers don't like those numbers to come out because NIMBY's will see it and automatically oppose it. Most downtown buildings would see that number well over the 100's.

This is also the most common measurement that NIMBY's use in opposing projects. They see the higher the number, the higher the externalities. In some instances that may be true. An apartment complex with a relatively high units/acre usually will generate a higher crime rate, traffic trips, pollution, but that is usually in the context of an auto-oriented area. Those cities in the top five densest generally have lower negative externality rates than their suburban designed counterparts per capita and in sime case straight up. Design and use can make a huge difference.

This measurement is in the middle on an area scale. It doesn't effectively apply to regions, but can and mostly is used above the individual property, like master-planned communities.

From an urban design standpoint, one of my favorite if the Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR). It is also the most property specific. Reference the illustration as I explain this if you are unfamiliar.

From the property lines, if a developer builds a one-floor structure across the entire property, it's FAR would be 1.0, as the picture on the left shows. In the middle, the developer built the structure on only 50% on the property, but built two stories. This is also a FAR of 1.0. Now if the developer built three stories, it would be a FAR of 1.5 (.5 x 3 = 1.5).

For an urban area, it is optimal to have a FAR as close as equal to the number of floors as possible. This generally ensures better urban design and limits setbacks, which are a detriment to the street level and pedestrian experience.

Now there are several drawbacks to this measure, as with any other tool. It doesn't ensure that the streetscape will be pedestrian-friendly. It doesn't ensure it will have multiple uses. It doesn't ensure the users will engage in urban activity. The Empire State Building is a great urban building, but its FAR is far smaller than its floors because of the setbacks. Conversely, Harwood Center in Dallas has a near equal ration, yet is a sub-par urban structure.

When I look at downtown Dallas as a whole, I see a lot of buildings with a FAR that is half or less of the number of floors. Bank of America Plaza, Comerica Bank Tower, Chase Tower, Trammell Crow, Thanksgiving Tower and Energy Plaza are all in the top ten in height, but have drastically lower FAR's.

On the flip side, that isn't to say that a setback, and therefore lower FAR compared to floor height, are inherently negative. Lincoln Plaza has a pretty big setback, but at the street level, the space is used for greater sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. Conversely, they wouldn't need to do that if the sidewalks were wide enough and the city hadn't converted some of the space to give to cars for more traffic lanes.

Bottom line, Dallas has a downtown that looks dense from a distance, but when you get there, it seems empty. The big reason is the FAR is nowhere near as close at the heights appear. In essence, it is a false density. When critics say cities like Dallas can't support tall skyscrapers, this is what they mean. In an auto-based city, density doesn't work because cars need too much space for storage when you park. The more space in a building, the more parking you need. Many of those are surface parking lots, which have a FAR of zero, which is also their contribution to a vibrant street scene.

A revisit on parking

Have have visited the topic of parking before (and before and before), so allow me to post another's blog post on parking. It comes off a little preachy, but otherwise is fairly solid.

http://www.originalgreen.org/blog/the-importance-of-on-street.html

It makes a lot of the same points I have, but goes a bit more in depth and is illustrated quite well to visualize the points made.

Suburbs Exploring Transit and Who Pays to Park

There were some interesting tidbits in the Dallas Morning News recently pertaining to a few area suburbs exploring the options of transit service, though in a completely unusual way.

Mesquite is perhaps the furthest along of any city to actually contracting with DART for an express bus route. You can read the DART Board minutes here, page 19 of the pdf. If you can get behind the paywall of the DMN, the story is here.

In essence, Mesquite will use their economic development taxes to fund an express bus route, while simultaneously seeking to gather local, regional and federal funds to build a rail line. They are seeking a public-private partnership to get the job done. On July 5th, the city council authorized the funds to begin the express bus route, with DART providing the ride.

Then it comes out that the northern exurbs of Allen and McKinney in Collin County are in the preliminary stages of doing the same thing.  McKinney is looking to shuttle passengers from a park-n-ride lot to DART's Parker Road Station. Allen is hoping to lure shoppers from the DART service area to places like their outlet mall. In essence, McKinney wants a two stop express bus route, Allen wants a partial express, non-stop from Parker Road to a stop in Allen, where it begins a typical local route with multiple stops.

Allen hasn't decided yet who would run it, while McKinney seems to be preferring DART to run the buses. I would bet that Allen will choose DART, simply because it will connect to a rail station. Either way, DART will get revenue from this.

If I had to pick a loser, it would be Allen's. Most (I'm talking 99%) shoppers in this area don't use transit. Compare weekend trips at Park Lane Station to the parking garages at North Park Mall. Since a great percentage of shopping is on the weekend, I don't hold out a high hope that this three-year pilot project will be extended, despite the fact that I would use it more than the other two routes.

I am undecided about this generic idea overall. Obviously increased transit options are a plus. If the McKinney proposal mirrors Mesquite, I won't use their routes, since this would only be rush hour services. However, it would still increase transit usage, albeit in the hundreds, a very small percentage of total ridership.

So if this increases ridership, surely I can't be against it, right? Well, it is the funding that worries me. Since 1984, DART member cities have been allocating a full cent sales tax for the service. Mesquite turned down the offer in 1983 by 20 votes. Instead, they would later approve an economic development tax as an attempt to improve their tax base. I did preliminary research in graduate school using area numbers and correlated increased economic activity with transit and an actual decrease in economic activity with the ED taxes. In short, they are ineffective at best. In essence, these three cities are proving that point. Why use your ED taxes on transit unless they aren't working in the traditional way? I said it then before the paper and I repeat, transit is an economic development tool.

If this is replicated on a much larger scale, there could literally be a dozen cities buying the Pinto package of transit service, rather than the Ford (New York would be the Lexus). It will also primarily be a commuter system, that is ineffective in long term transportation changes. I certainly have made more trips to Plano in my 4+ years of living in downtown Dallas than Mesquite. That won't change with this proposal, but it could (and almost certainly would given its proximity to me) if they flat out joined DART.

But the timing may be fortuitous for the northern burbs. DART has announced a pilot program for the two northern terminus stations where folks who live outside the service area will have to pay two dollars to park at those stations. While folks who use the Green Line have the DCTA as an option, the Red Line currently doesn't. This may give those folks an option.

This policy is one I can actually get behind. While some have suggested DART is a villain for this, I believe it is fair, if only in the current financing scheme. I have always been leery of individual cities deciding who gets to have a transit service. TxDoT doesn't ask cities if they want a highway. They plan it as a regional need. Why does transit get a different approach? Yes freeways are interstate infrastructure with national implications, but the vast, vast, vast majority of users are regional.

Given that restraint, I support DART's approach to recouping revenue that the resident's aren't paying when they make purchases in non-member cities and then drive to a DART station and use the system. Yes they pay a fare, but it pales to the sales tax, which is the primary revenue source for DART. It will drive some away, but not much. Some will travel one mile down and park, some won't, but some will switch to the DCTA A-Train and the new routes from Allen and McKinney, and that isn't that bad of an option, if not perfect.

More on Parking

In an older post, I mentioned the ills about off-street parking and curb cuts in an urban environment.

After this ice storm, let me add another. When walking on the sidewalk, as long as it is level, pedestrians are all right. However, the grade of a curb cut is steeper than sidewalks. I was slipping every time I walked by one yesterday. And Dallas has no shortage of slipping opportunities.

This is just another example of Dallas being unintentionally pedestrian-unfriendly.

Dowtown Dallas Parking, a Pictorial Tour

To highlight my points from the second to last post, I took several pictures around downtown.

First, this is Ceasar Chavez Parkway. It is eight lanes in both directions. Yet, not one of those lanes are dedicated to on-street parking.

The second is a stretch of Jackson between Harwood and Pearl. There are 11 curb cuts, greatly diminishing the on-street parking quantity.

The next is one of the 11 curb cuts, though it is no longer in use. Though there are meters in this picture, it is far more common for an unused curb cut to be meter-less.

This is a garage curb cut just outside my residential building. The curb cut takes the space of 4.5 on-street spaces. Also in the picture is a truck. It is notable because the picture was taken before 9 am. It is illegally parked.

Here is a stretch of Elm. It is just a block away from the heart of downtown and between almost 3 million square feet of office space. Yet, the view from the street is one of desolation. Note the lack of any parking meters.

The following series is the retail section of my argument. The first is Chase, CVS and Jason's Deli on Main Street. A prime place for metered, convenient parking, yet you'll see the no parking signs all up and down this section.

Next up is a 7-11 on Commerce. However, it is more important for people to turn left than park and spend money.

If you forgot your anniversary and you want to stop by the Flagship Neiman Marcus to get your significant other a gift, well you'll have to drive into the garage, pay, take the elevator down, cross the street and go in, because you can't drive up to the meter, drop in some change and go in.

Are you on your way home, but want to stop by and get a bite to eat? Unless you do it outside of rush hour, you are out of luck. Go to your home outside the downtown area and spend money on Italian.

What about the downtown grocery store? Nope, even on little-used Jackson Street, you can not stop on the street and get what you need. The ironic thing is that the city at the behest of downtown stakeholders subsidized the grocer at the tune of $1 million over two years.

Continuing the theme of don't stop by during rush hour, the donut shop on Elm Street might be particularly keen on attracting the morning customer. Sadly, the parking meters out front are not. The clothing shops hours might be dictated by the availability of convenient parking, meaning shorter than they might otherwise be.

And finally, downtown is chock full of "no parking from here to corner" signs. I guess the idea is that having the corner available makes it easier on traffic. I can certainly understand outbound, ie easier turning right, but in bound makes no sense, like the one in the picture. Either way though, I feel it is at least one wasted space on each corner.

Also, compare the last picture with the fifth picture. Even though they have the same amount of pedestrians (0), this one looks like there's more activity, thanks to the parked cars.

Finally, a look back at the Stockyards, which does allow cars until the corner.

Downtown Dallas parking

Inevitably, every five years or so, the City of Dallas commissions a downtown master plan study. Always, it focuses on the latest in planning at that time, more office, greater car access, more residential units, more street scenes, etc. Also just as inevitable, the study ignores the effects of parking, perhaps the most important aspect of any urban study. Arguably, no other aspect has a greater impact on urban form than parking.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, I have done my own parking inventory. To the defense of those prior plans, doing a parking inventory is difficult. I have been doing since the start of summer. It is not complete, and likely will never be complete. Counting public spaces is the easiest for access. Many public buildings have their own spaces, some of which are easier to enter than others. Even more difficult, a lot of government buildings are shut to all but those who have access cards. And since downtown is in constant flux, surface numbers are constantly changing.

Even the count itself might be off, but only by a little. Counting spaces over and over again is monotonous and ripe for miscounting. However, any errors I have made are minimal.

I chronicled everything onto Google maps. Since it isn't quite a GIS capable application, I had to separate them into different land uses. While the information contains more than just parking, it isn't anything that isn't already known somewhere else. At least the parking information is likely to be unique. If anyone has it, it is unknown to me and to several others who would know where to find that info.

First, here's surface parking, which contain over 22,000 spaces.
Surface 1
Surface 2
Surface 3
Surface 4
Next up, garage spaces, which contain the most spaces in downtown at just shy of 30,000.

Garages

Office spaces is the third highest space holder at just shy of 10,000.

Class A

Class B & C

Government and similar institutions comprise 5,500 spaces.

Government

Cultural, education and other attractions

With new residential development comes new residential parking, or roughly 4,000 spaces.

Residential

And finally a grouping of the other land uses add another 4,000 spaces. And yes, in Dallas, even the parks have parking, or more accurately, they are underground garages with green space on top.

Hotel
Parks and Plazas
Vacant
Retail and Misc.
And perhaps the most overlooked part of any parking system, and arguably the most important is on-street parking. Since it isn't Google Maps friendly, I have nothing to post. It is in Excel format. There are less than 2,500 spaces in the 1.3 sq mile downtown area. When you analyze the locations, you see that the major streets have surprisingly little. More on that later.

Now to the commentary. There is an over abundance of surface parking, the antithesis of an urban area. The dead zones created by surface parking is incredible. In many ways, they create a de facto boundary, clearly delineating one zone from another. It is no accident that the vibrant areas tend to be without surface parking in large numbers. But make no mistake, even small amounts can have bad effects. Large amounts are disastrous.

In order to get to healthy proportions in downtown, that number needs to be one-third of its current total. The positive news from such an over supply is that redevelopment is easy on a surface lot. However, given the tract record of urban development in Dallas, it doesn't mean it will be a good addition to the urban environment. Without any comprehensive guidelines on what is good versus bad, downtown will see just as many bad addition like Hunt Towers and the Commerce side of the Merc as we will of the good development like Third Rail Lofts and One Arts Plaza. Seeing the poor development of the south side of Uptown around Lower McKinney, I won't hold my breath.

Garages, like development, can be hit or miss. Depending upon design, they can be conducive to the urban area or just as easily rip it apart. The garage catty corner from the new Main Street Garden park is a great example of a bad one. At the street level, it is pitiful. There is nothing that engages the pedestrian and makes the entire block feel longer to traverse than should be in a good urban area. There is no mix of uses, unless you count the car wash in the interior or the dry cleaners at the skywalk level (I don't). Like surface parking, this garage creates an artificial boundary, signifying the end of the Main Street District.

Meanwhile, at Main and Akard, just a few blocks away sits another public garage, although you'd never know it. At the ground level is a CVS, Jason's Deli and the vehicular entrance, the only indication there is a garage there. Above the car park are residential units. If you were to look up at the garage section, you'd see the design was coherent with the rest of the buildings. In other words, it looks like a building, not a monolithic garage.

The final component of a public parking plan are the on-street spaces. No other parking in the automobile age is as vital to an urban are than on-street for many reasons. The convenience of quickly finding a space is important for retailers and shoppers. Stopping, heading in the store, purchasing you product and leaving is the bread and butter of on-street parking that simply isn't there for off-street except in the most immediate spaces. Even still is hard to beat the pulling up to the curb when you have to pull into the lot and pay.

The second benefit is extended to pedestrians. On-street parking provides a buffer between cars and sidewalk-users. It isn't comfortable walking next to several one-ton machines going on at 40 miles-an-hour.

A final primary benefit comes in the aesthetic. A street full of parked cars appear to have more activity than streets without. And in a common theme of urban areas, activity begets more activity.

In downtown Dallas, on-street parking is too scarce. Were I in charge, I could easily double the amount of street parking. They are rare for two main reasons. For every property that wants vehicular access, a curb cut is needed. When you add a curb cut, you have to eliminate at least two meters. And that's just for one entry point. It is more common to have multiple entry points, which eliminates several spaces. In the eastern end of downtown, there are several small property owners who have surface lots, even adjacent to another small surface lot. Each has its own curb cut which means on-street parking is rare in that part of town.

Heck, were I a surface parking lot operator, I would try to have as many curb cuts as possible. That way you are more likely to park and give me money in my lot than park on the street. There are many lots that have entrances every few feet. In some instances, these entrances are no longer in use and have spaces on the private side, but the street still has no meter. Sadly these practices just encourages nobody to park at all downtown, leaving the area empty.

The other big player in a lack of street parking is the traffic engineer. Their ilk are primarily concerned with one thing, moving as many cars as possible in as little time as possible. There are several streets where on-street parking has been removed from one side. And, at a time when there are the most car users, the remaining on-street parking is outlawed.

Think about that for a minute. In rush hour, where there are the most cars and some drivers need a convenient place to quickly park, the spaces don't allow parking. The City actually has a policy that encourages people to NOT spend money downtown. Need a gallon of milk? Well don't stop at the convenient 7-11 on Commerce Street on your way home to the suburbs. Spend your money there, not in downtown Dallas.

These traffic engineers want to keep adding lanes, while simultaneously leaving these lanes free from anything but moving cars. Very few retailers are going to go anywhere without some convenient parking spaces for prospective customers. Streets like Pearl or Griffin, which have six to seven lanes have very little meters.

Until this relationship between encouraging off-street parking and discouraging on-street is fixed, the urban area will continue to suffer. While other people, like Donald Shoup, can effectively worry about pricing, Dallas is not there yet because there is not an ample supply of it. You can't price something right until you have an ample amount of it.

Which brings us back to the plans. None of the downtown Dallas plans have really addressed this issue, including the current plan. You want to encourage retail, you need to give them convenient parking. In an urban area, you can't depend solely upon pedestrian traffic, just as you can't depend solely on auto traffic. You need a mix. It is hard to get that without on-street parking. You want to encourage more street activity, more residential and more visitors, on-street is an added component of that. Any plan that wants those occurrences, but doesn't address the parking issue will ultimately come up short in accomplishing those goals.