Home » Downtown »Featured »Parking »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Sunday Poll: What Should Be The Long-Term Outcome of the Condemned Parking Garage at Tucker & Locust?

July 19, 2015 Downtown, Featured, Parking, Sunday Poll 8 Comments

On Tuesday I wrote about the condemned parking garage at Tucker & Locust, which led to discussion in the comments about what should/could happen. Perfect poll topic…

Please assume the list choices aren’t necessarily government imposed or funded, could be entirely private — you can wave a magic wand. You may pick two, one can be your own.

The answers above are presented in random order.

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "8 comments" on this Article:

  1. JZ71 says:

    What we want to / think should happen? Or what we think will actually happen? And what time frame? 2 years? 10? 20? 50? Ideally, there are many “better” uses than a vacant, deteriorating, parking structure. In reality, change takes $$$$$, and I don’t see a lot flowing into downtown, especially to demoish then rebuild. Personally, I’d expect any new projects to occur on currently-vacant parcels (surface parking lots), and that vacant structures, like this one, will continue their slow decline until either the city intervenes or the economy improves / shifts significantly, and demand increases for more urban office or residential space.

  2. Mark-AL says:

    I am also confused. I’m confused about one of the poll selections: to raze for new building w/zero parking. I wonder why anyone would even consider developing a NEW building that lacks parking accommodations for either its patrons/employees or its residents. I recall a building around 7th & Market (I think it was once the General American Life Insurance offices/dark bronze aluminum curtainwall, dark glass, lots of geometry.) I toured the building 6+ years ago when it was still vacant, and I think I remember very few lower-level parking spaces available to its occupants–certainly far short of enough to serve a building of that size. I wonder if lack of available parking had anything to do with its eventual demise, or certainly, its long-term post-abandonment vacancy. I know that the need for cars is an anathema among urban purists, but I wonder: Would anyone who voted accordingly invest HIS OWN money in a building that fails to meet the potential parking needs of its occupants? If so, why? And would a responsible city planning division even consider issuing a building permit for any structure that offered zero parking?

    • The question id clear, the provided answers need to cover the full spectrum of possible responses. In a downtown with an excess of parking the cost to build more inside a new structure might be questionable.

      Furthermore, if we’re going to get more people walking, biking, or using public transit, we shouldn’t have parking at every building.

      • Mark-AL says:

        In the real world of real estate development, we have to be certain that our buildings meet the current and future needs of our customers. If I have pulmonary edema, I wouldn’t want to visit the pulmonologist whose office is housed in that zero-parking building if I had to walk five blocks from the nearest available parking stall just to reach the front door of the building. And just because an existing parking lot down the street, or even the garage next door, is available TODAY to serve the needs of a new zero-parking building, doesn’t guarantee it will be available tomorrow for public parking. Look at the limited appeal that some of the downtown loft buildings without dedicated parking have? Residents in Lauderman (I think) lofts are forced to scrounge up out-of-building parking and pay hefty monthly rates, or risk parking on the street where their cars are subject to vandalism or worse. Lower level parking does complicate the design of a structure and therefore adds to its costs. But money well spent! Consider the nightmare that was avoided when the Treasurer joint-ventured with the private developer of Nine North lofts in the CWE. Can you imagine living in that area without dedicated parking? Right now, in Mobile where I’m camped out in a hotel room, it’s 98 degrees outside, and it’s raining. I wouldn’t care to shower, put on long pants and dress shirt, ride my bike to a 3:45 PM appointment downtown in a building that was INTENTIONALLY designed with zero-parking and happens to be four blocks from a PUBLIC lot or garage. And I certainly wouldn’t want to stand on the street corner, waiting for a bus to pick me up, ESPECIALLY if my rental car was parked downstairs in my hotel garage! When we design buildings, we try to cover all the bases to make them appealing to a broad market. To do so keeps developers/customers smiling. To deliberately omit parking is criminal!!

      • JZ71 says:

        In downtown, is there “an excess of parking” or a lack of tenants? Finding parking downtown is rarely an issue, paying for it, directly, certainly is! I know, I know, “free” parking, in suburban areas, is paid for indirectly, through rents, but for many people, if the choice comes down to paid prking or free parking, many (most?) will choose “free”.

  3. Sgt Stadanko says:

    We definitely DON”T NEED another parking structure/lot with what is existing around that corner. Across the street is that church I see more homeless and panhandlers/human cockroaches than actually people going to that church. BandBox Cleaners and Rooster have that open air lot at 11th. I never see a soul inside Asian Diner. Jefferson Arms is has been closed for a decade. USBANK has its own parking lot for their customers. Those lofts on Locust have their own parking lots. We just don’t need it. Restaurant? Too bad they ran PapaJohns out- that was a perfect location for us east of Tucker. Anything but MORE PARKING!! Thanks, Sarge


Comment on this Article: