Every day I ride my bike past the sea of parking out in front of the INB. What little hope I had for development, sparked by those misleading “hotel property” signs last summer, was trounced when a friend explained that all the construction was for another surface lot. The nail in the coffin for my enthusiasm came when they demolished The Blvd. and chopped down its lone majestic willow tree. Like a digital mirage, the two can still be seen standing in Google street view to this day:
The swanky new parking comes with a price tag to match. At the peak of the Lion King frenzy, the lot appeared to be only 2/3 full at a going rate of $10 per spot. A blurb in the DSP’s Street Talk newsletter pointed me towards the master plan that was written for the Public Facilities District expansion.
Parking with Style
The new lot features sheltered, automated parking pay stations, new classic style light poles with wrought iron details on Main, 115 new trees, and solar powered lighting. Not bad for a parking lot!
While nobody can deny that the new lot is a vast improvement on the asphalt desert that preceded it, I have to wonder if this move effectively delays breaking ground on a planned multi-level structure. The Vision 20/20 plan fails to explain the rationale behind the timing of the current upgrade, stating only that the new lot will be around for about 10 years before Phase Two.
Downtown with a portion of current surface parking highlighted.
It was painfully ironic how Vision 20/20 carries on about the cultural and authentic place-seeking inclinations of Gen Y (see pages 24-25) only to result in the wrecking ball for one of their favorite local venues. They note a perceived disconnect between the convention center and the emerging East End, and then eliminate the nearest feature of that sought-after urban fabric.
In good faith I assume there are solid answers to all of these questions, and the plan suggests several exciting elements that will greatly enhance the downtown landscape if they are pursued. But what should the role of the public be in such a planning process? I was surprised to see that citizens were not listed as stakeholders, and only one public input meeting was cited in the report. The results of that meeting were not outlined, and so after 97 pages it is unclear how the proposal incorporates the perspective of local consumers.
We should use the assets we have, such as our visually appealing and unique historic buildings, to invest in permanent businesses and living spaces. Unnecessary parking lots flatline the heartbeat of downtown, no matter how they are used, and send the wrong message about the vision and direction we want for our city.
-Crystal Gartner
7 responses so far ↓
i always love it when they displace an existing surface parking lot, and, ahem, a really great venue, with a brand spanking new surface parking lot in full compliance with the downtown design guidelines which naturally create a space with less parking spaces than previously were available. For greater cost.
But at least there are new landscaping trees that may or may not be able to survive being in a sea of asphalt.
No disrespect intended towards LMN who put together our guidelines for us, since like most “big” things architectural in Spokane, we don’t seem to hire local, but i’m pretty sure their understanding of a “good” surface lot is still just, well, a surface lot. With a landscaping budget.
God forbid anybody wait to develop until there is a project to actually develop.
Random tidbits related to this parking lot:
– in the spring the lot will have bike lockers. rented by the day/hour
– 100 years ago this lot was Spokane’s China Town
– the parking lot spread out into main street a few feet. Main is designated as a bike lane route on the Master Bike Plan. Because this property was allowed to spread onto Main, when the future question of bike lanes come up, they will have to be in place of street parking, which is not a popular trade off for most businesses. Therefore, future bike lanes there were once just a question of funding are now burdened with convincing businesses that bike lanes are better than metered parking.
– the city council just last night voted 4-3 to maintain the parking lot moratorium so no more buildings in the downtown core can be torn out to make parking lots. it should not have been that close of a vote.
– smart cities tax parking fees and parking lots at a higher rate than buildings. in spokane, we tax more for vacant buildings (property value + land) than we do for parking lots.
Where do we start with ugly? The new convention center is ugly from Division and ugly in general. How do these things happen in Spokane. Are we really just a hooterville town or are we becoming a City with Culture
I am glad that you picked up on the whole citizens-are-not-stakeholders position adopted by almost all developers in this country! Yet, when something like proposition 4 comes along and “threatens” the developers unlimited right to plan according to profit and not people, everyone freaks out, flashes back to the 1950′s and the red scare and votes it down. We (citizens) have no say in how our city is developed, partly because we are seen only as consumers, not citizens. Democracy scares the stakeholders because they are the go to power structure and defacto decision makers currently; democracy means sharing and they want nothing to do with it.
Dear Mr. Williamson,
Thank you for trumpeting the virtues of Democracy! All you citizens are stakeholders in your city and we love your youthful exuberance. Please don’t let what happened with Spokane County Raceway affect your thinking behind what happens when local government tries to operate a business. We are a city with a Strong Mayor, some county bumpkin commissioners. Don’t forget about my government tithing program. Any extra you want to add to your property taxes will go towards forming a citizen advisory board to investigate how to do the greatest good for the most people.
Thank you and God Bless Spokane
Joel you are so right on it is disturbing. Are you a college professor or something even more practical like a panhandler? Developers do truly hate to share. I once tried to get a room at the Davenport but when I told the receptionist that I thought Mr. Wells did a great job on the project they said my money was no good to them. And in my own business I don’t even answer the phone unless I know it’s one of my drinkin’ buddies or a high powered politician. Thank god you are out there fighting to level the playing field. Trickle down economics is a bunch of BS, trickle up poverty is the wave of the future!
Joel Williamson wrote,
“We (citizens) have no say in how our city is developed, partly because we are seen only as consumers, not citizens.”
Of course you do, Joel. You have a say in how your portion of the city — the part you own — is developed. Or at least you used to, before the lefties began claiming it as part of their “collective property.”
But you should have no objection, since you also have bought into their collectivist fallacy. That fallacy involves confusing the possessive sense of “our” with the merely referential sense. It leads you to think that because you are present in a certain place, that you own it.
As a citizen you get a “say” in how public buildings (such as the parking lot which prompted this discussion) are designed. That’s because you a joint owner of those buildings. But you don’t get a “say” in how other people’s buildings, which you don’t own, are designed. If you don’t like the way your neighbors develop their property, or the way they dress or wear their hair, or the gods they worship, or their preferences in occupations, entertainment, and so on, then you are probably not suited for social life. You might consider removing yourself to an isolated cabin somewhere, where you will be less likely to be offended by others’ choices and lifestyles.