If this project was wrapped in housing and/or had ground retail and/or was not as tall it almost certainly would have passed through the planning commission and possibly would have received a favorable staff report. The fact that it was none of those things put it well outside of the vision of the 2040 plan and city leadership.Couldn't there be some sort of compromise here? Like wrapping the ramp with apartments and including substantial ground floor retail? Or is this too valuable a piece of property to waste on parking at all? Honestly just curious on people's thoughts.
I don't have a problem with construction of new parking facilities in principle but I do think there should be a demonstrated need supported by facts. The Fed's own transportation consultant never counted fewer than 80 open spaces in the 300 stall lot that this facility would be constructed upon. Something just doesn't smell right there. Operational capacity of parking facilities is generally accepted to be 85% occupancy. It's true that surface lot parking is not that highest and best use of land in dense urban areas. This could have been a project with ground level retail, and housing with a shared parking model supporting the Fed's business day parking needs. Both could have been accommodated with a 300ish stall parking area.