urbanMSP

The City always has more needs than can be addressed by its budget and shouldn't be tearing down revenue-generating buildings unless justified by a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Is it naive to assume this has already happened?

The ramp is 40+ years old. Presumably the city would make a bundle from selling off fire station number 1 site and can bond the cost of this building at insanely low rates. It's a good idea.

The city could, presumably, include public parking in this building and stack their offices on top.

Downtown has lost 000s of parking spaces due to development of light rail and loss of vacant surface lots - which is a very good thing. We want to see vacant lots developed into vibrant spaces for residents, workers, etc. But I am concerned that loss of 1,300 spaces will put a great deal of pressure on the parking supply. While there are lots of folks who think this is a good thing, and that people should be biking/walking/taking mass transit, there will be another group of people who will not use those modes of transit and be frustrated by the difficulty and expense of parking downtown. It will be another reason for firms to resist moving downtown - and others who decide to leave downtown (I know of one small consulting firm who moved to the suburbs in 2015 because their staff, including mostly millennials, wanted free parking) as well as frustrating people going to restaurants or attending sporting events. This ramp is full or nearly so weekdays most of the time, as is the Court ramp next door. Where will these workers park in the future? Perhaps the suburbs. I believe we should encourage alternative modes of transit, but also accommodate the desires of the majority of folks who choose to drive downtown. As we continue to lose parking, we risk making downtown less desireable for many people.

Downtown has lost 000s of parking spaces due to development of light rail and loss of vacant surface lots - which is a very good thing. We want to see vacant lots developed into vibrant spaces for residents, workers, etc. But I am concerned that loss of 1,300 spaces will put a great deal of pressure on the parking supply. While there are lots of folks who think this is a good thing, and that people should be biking/walking/taking mass transit, there will be another group of people who will not use those modes of transit and be frustrated by the difficulty and expense of parking downtown. It will be another reason for firms to resist moving downtown - and others who decide to leave downtown (I know of one small consulting firm who moved to the suburbs in 2015 because their staff, including mostly millennials, wanted free parking) as well as frustrating people going to restaurants or attending sporting events. This ramp is full or nearly so weekdays most of the time, as is the Court ramp next door. Where will these workers park in the future? Perhaps the suburbs. I believe we should encourage alternative modes of transit, but also accommodate the desires of the majority of folks who choose to drive downtown. As we continue to lose parking, we risk making downtown less desireable for many people.

I think the fear of lost parking is way more of a perception problem than an actual problem. If you hate yourself read the Star Tribune comments section after any story about new development. You'll see dozens of comments from people that there is nowhere to park and that they will never come downtown because it's impossible or expensive to park their car.

The reality is that we have an abundance of parking. Street parking is free on evenings a weekends. Almost every new development is a net gain for parking. Look at the Kraus Anderson redevelopment. There were less than 100 parking spaces with most of the block being a surface lot. When this is done there will be almost 600 parking spaces in underground structured parking. For the Downtown East developments we went from having several hundred parking spaces in surface lots to about 2000 new parking spaces. The Thresher Square development will have about 400 parking spaces when it's complete up from less than 20. Marq4 has over 200 structured spaces. The Nic on 5th has so much extra parking that they sell monthly contracts to the public. The new buildings on Nicollet will have many many parking spaces too.

I think we need to change the perception that parking is hard and that new developments mean there is nowhere to park. We are doing ourselves a disservice by letting that perception continue. We can have walkable, vibrant streets and have sufficient parking. New buildings bring us more of both.

Downtown has lost 000s of parking spaces due to development of light rail and loss of vacant surface lots - which is a very good thing. We want to see vacant lots developed into vibrant spaces for residents, workers, etc. But I am concerned that loss of 1,300 spaces will put a great deal of pressure on the parking supply. While there are lots of folks who think this is a good thing, and that people should be biking/walking/taking mass transit, there will be another group of people who will not use those modes of transit and be frustrated by the difficulty and expense of parking downtown. It will be another reason for firms to resist moving downtown - and others who decide to leave downtown (I know of one small consulting firm who moved to the suburbs in 2015 because their staff, including mostly millennials, wanted free parking) as well as frustrating people going to restaurants or attending sporting events. This ramp is full or nearly so weekdays most of the time, as is the Court ramp next door. Where will these workers park in the future? Perhaps the suburbs. I believe we should encourage alternative modes of transit, but also accommodate the desires of the majority of folks who choose to drive downtown. As we continue to lose parking, we risk making downtown less desireable for many people.

I think the fear of lost parking is way more of a perception problem than an actual problem. If you hate yourself read the Star Tribune comments section after any story about new development. You'll see dozens of comments from people that there is nowhere to park and that they will never come downtown because it's impossible or expensive to park their car.

The reality is that we have an abundance of parking. Street parking is free on evenings a weekends. Almost every new development is a net gain for parking. Look at the Kraus Anderson redevelopment. There were less than 100 parking spaces with most of the block being a surface lot. When this is done there will be almost 600 parking spaces in underground structured parking. For the Downtown East developments we went from having several hundred parking spaces in surface lots to about 2000 new parking spaces. The Thresher Square development will have about 400 parking spaces when it's complete up from less than 20. Marq4 has over 200 structured spaces. The Nic on 5th has so much extra parking that they sell monthly contracts to the public. The new buildings on Nicollet will have many many parking spaces too.

I think we need to change the perception that parking is hard and that new developments mean there is nowhere to park. We are doing ourselves a disservice by letting that perception continue. We can have walkable, vibrant streets and have sufficient parking. New buildings bring us more of both.

<mic drop>

Street parking is free on evenings a weekends.

I agree with the argument you're making, but I want to point out that street parking in Downtown Minneapolis is metered until 11pm seven days a week.

Street parking is free on evenings a weekends.

I agree with the argument you're making, but I want to point out that street parking in Downtown Minneapolis is metered until 11pm seven days a week.

I would like to respectfully say you're wrong.

I'd invite you to look at the meter rates and hours map.

http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 58bf46a2f5

Street parking is free on evenings a weekends.

I agree with the argument you're making, but I want to point out that street parking in Downtown Minneapolis is metered until 11pm seven days a week.

I would like to respectfully say you're wrong.

I'd invite you to look at the meter rates and hours map.

http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 58bf46a2f5

Thanks for the link!

It looks to me that about half the meters are Monday-Friday 8-6 and half are daily 8-10 or 11. So I guess we were each half right!

I'm not saying there is a shortage of parking NOW or that new development will cause a parking shortage, I am commenting only on the removal of 1,300 spaces as a result of the City tearing down the ramp to consolidate office space. Regarding the new spaces added to downtown, these are to serve the developments that are being built on the former parking lots, they are not meant to add to the general-use parking supply. Downtown East, for example... there will be 5,000 employees in the Wells Fargo towers, and additional employees in the two Ryan office buildings (one under construction, one planned) in that same area. Assuming that one-third of them will drive to work (which is a low assumption), that translates to a need for 1,667 spaces from the Wells Fargo towers alone.

I dunno. In my own very simplistic point of view, 1300 less spaces = 1300 less car commuters = 1300 less cars that can be pointed to when we try to make downtown streets more attractive by reducing lanes and adding greenery = more inviting downtown = Good overall

As they say in Economics 101, "A shortage is temporary but scarcity is forever."

People say "parking shortage" when they really mean "parking scarcity."

If there truly ever is a "shortage" of parking, the market will step in and offer it at the clearing price.

If the parking fees from this ramp are a significant source of revenue, the city could pretty easily include public parking as a component of the building. Maybe not 1300 spaces, but even three parking levels would provide some 500 spaces on a lot this size.

But I am concerned that loss of 1,300 spaces will put a great deal of pressure on the parking supply.

We just added 1,610 new ramp spots a few blocks away too. So that'd be a net gain of 300?

frustrating people going to restaurants or attending sporting events.

The only time parking capacity is near full is during weekdays (and even then, I've never had trouble finding no-contract parking when I occasionally drive). We don't need to keep any extra parking for people going out for dinner. The ramps are empty then.

I Assuming that one-third of them will drive to work (which is a low assumption), that translates to a need for 1,667 spaces from the Wells Fargo towers alone.

And there are more new spaces than that, so...

Yes, but my estimated do not include the need from the two new Ryan office buildings. And in any case, the addition is not enough to replace 1,300 lost spaces.

Ya but the bulk of people working in those towers already worked in other towers downtown.

Also, if WF subsidizes Metropasses, I would guess a 1/3rd driving modeshare is high. Among my coworkers, maybe 1 in 5 drives to work on a regular basis. If they don't subsidize Metropasses... maybe they should?

Ya but the bulk of people working in those towers already worked in other towers downtown.

They consolidated more than just downtown offices - so that's not entirely factual.

If they don't subsidize Metropasses... maybe they should?

To the best of my knowledge, based on a friend who works at WF, they subsidize metropasses 100%.

...Look at the Kraus Anderson redevelopment. There were less than 100 parking spaces with most of the block being a surface lot. When this is done there will be almost 600 parking spaces in underground structured parking.

I'm not taking a side on the argument but I'd just like to correct these numbers. There were 250 spots in the K/A lot. 100 belonging to K/A employees and 150ish for public parking. Of the new buildings 566 spaces, at least 300 will be taken by the 300 apartments (unless they're going below 1 spot/unit). I would imagine K/A is going to retain the same number of reserved spots for their employees. In addition now there are 140 hotel rooms on the property. Practically this is at most a wash in the number of public parking spots for this block.