Sticking Up for Downtown and its Parking (Re: "Mayor Miner, tear down those buildings")

This is a tad overdue, but none the less, a response to Maureen Green's column, "Mayor Miner, tear down those buildings" [1], from the March 3rd, 2012 edition of the Post-Standard.

I won't try to summarize the column all too much, as I encourage you to read the whole thing first to get a sense for what's being suggested, but the gist of which is that the city should demolish its post-World War II buildings along Warren Street to build parking lots and garages.

Without getting right into it, I'll first unravel a truth about Syracuse that I've come to realize after living here for most of my life and specifically in and around Downtown over these last 5 years.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is one, and only one, true problem with all of Downtown Syracuse, the City of Syracuse, as well as Central New York. I call it "The Suburban and Urban Divide" (which has initial subcategories of education, housing, tax revenue, and crime; each of which have subcategories of quality of life, parking, personal space, and safety; and each of those have subcategories of elitism, defeatism, classism, racism, basic human psychology, and preconceived perceptions about reality).

It's as if you discuss any one of these subcategories with anyone, suddenly one feeds directly into a neighboring one or vice versa. They may not all be linked, but find a problem with one and there's a good chance that another one of them right beside it along the same spectrum. The thing is they all seem to come back to The Suburban and Urban Divide.

It's way too broad and time-consuming of a topic for me to fully dive into; especially because I don't get paid in beer or tacos to write blog posts. But I feel as if I could publish an entire book if I really had to. Mrs. Green's column specifically deals with parking so I'll do my best to stay within that realm as well as venture out into several other aspects that center around it.

For what it's worth, I did write a Letter to The Editor of the Post-Standard as a response, but it wasn't printed. Nor was any other response to her column (at least not to my knowledge). Instead, I'll post it here to get things started.

In regards to Maureen Green's column, "Mayor Miner, tear down those buildings":

While I share her enthusiasm about Downtown Syracuse, I strongly disagree with her view in sacrificing space for cars on Warren Street. To me, the real ugliness is not the facades of buildings, but when we put cars ahead of people.

As a Downtown resident, one of the joys over the past several years has been watching my neighborhood continue to grow in the right direction. Let's not kill this momentum by designating whole city blocks to parking for visitors. There's plenty of public garages already. You have to walk; just as you should in any city that's worth living in, caring about, and appreciating.

Building parking garages at Warren Street is the polar opposite of what should be happening to make it vibrant again. Bringing in things like "light" and "landscaping" sound good in theory, but these two things can also detract heavily in creating a place of any real value.

Warren Street has its own issues that don't have to do with parking. It's narrow, enclosed, and cramped. But you know what? It's supposed to feel that way. Therein lies its charm and uniqueness. It creates a vaulted wall around you (similar to New York City's Prince Street). It may not be activated like a street in lower Manhattan, but Warren Street has the same layout and possible potential.

Downtown is at a wonderful crossroads. My hope is that we don't capitalize on that momentum by over-compensating for unnecessary parking and dampen any hope for real development along Warren Street for the future.

Fairly straight-forward. I also hate writing under 250 words. It's tricky, especially when you're passionate about something. Anyway...

For starters, while I don't agree with most of what was mentioned in it, Mrs. Green's column is very well written and worded. You do get a sense of her passion, her appreciation for quality architecture, and love for Downtown and the greater Syracuse area as a whole. She can recognize the work that's been done and what's happened lately and is very enthusiastic about what's already there. Though what Ms. Green's column does do, both intentionally and unintentionally, is it gets to the root of what's really dysfunctional about one of the many relationships between Central New York and Downtown Syracuse and how far we still have to go to really solve any of the real problems that are actually going on here. So let's try to get the ball rolling with the topic at hand: parking.

Just so we're all clear here: Central New York and Downtown Syracuse are not the same thing. They are not supposed to be. One is a small urban neighborhood while the other is a collection of different people, towns, governments, counties, lakes, rivers, boundaries, and any other broad aspect you want to toss into the mix. Just because Central New York may contain something that's of use to certain people, doesn't necessarily mean that Downtown Syracuse should contain it as well. And vice versa. And by that I specifically mean ease of parking.

Forgive me for being the bearer of bad news, but Downtown is supposed to be the one area of Central New York where it's suppose to be difficult to park your car. Chances are, the more difficult a neighborhood is for you to park in, the more successful it is (i.e. it has density, it has character, people want to go there, people want to live there, etc...). Any place with a high amount of civic and public value is going to be difficult to park your car in because it's a desirable place to be. While Mrs. Green does cite that the two can coincide, they rarely mix and mix well if ever.

As a resident, when people talk to me (or sometimes at me) about the difficulties of parking in my neighborhood, it's hard for me to keep a straight face. It's like wanting to go to a baseball game and then complaining that there aren't any seats available near home plate. Well, OK. You're either going to have to pay more to be closer or suck-it-up and watch it from farther away, because the last suggestion on anyone's mind would be: "Hey, let's move all the people who already bought tickets around home plate, demolish a few seats here, put a canopy here, add five seats here, just so we can accommodate these select few people who didn't actually pay for a home plate ticket because they can't see the game from up-close. Oh and also, they're leaving the game after the 3rd inning.".

Bad analogy? Probably.

My point is that parking HAS to be a chore and a task as well as a civic responsibility. And you have to accept this and be well aware of it, especially if you don't already live in that neighborhood. It's almost as if you have to be able to accept defeat.

When I drive to New York*, I expect that I'm not going to find an on-street spot and I'm going to have pay through the nose for parking. I also expect that I'm going to do several blocks of walking to get where I want to go so long as I'm not using any mass transit or a taxi. When I go to Boston, I expect that a few garages may or may not be filled to capacity around where I want to go. The same walking expectations apply there. Even in Syracuse. Sure, it's smaller, but when I go to Westcott Street on a Friday night, as long as school is still in session I expect that it's going to be hard for me to find a decent spot.

Do I complain? No. Because it's my responsibility as a non-resident to find parking for myself. It's a luxury. And it needs to be handled and appreciated as one. The problem is, parking overall is so incredibly easy in Central New York, that everyone thinks parking everywhere has to be just as effortless whenever they decide to go somewhere. Frankly, we're spoiled. And most of us don't even realize it.

And what's come at the cost of being spoiled? Having less and less places of real value and creating more and more places that detract from them (i.e. surface parking lots, parking garages, one-way streets, elevated highways towering-over and dividing neighborhoods, etc...). And Downtown Syracuse in particular has taken the brunt of the load over this past half-century due to its small size and because it's so condensed with people; which, over time and much to its own demise, has evolved into a collection of people who each individually own a car. Then each person with a car expects certain entitlements, and well... you get the picture.

What irked me in particular about this column is that it implies that parking is not a luxury, but instead a right. It implies that in order for something to be enjoyed by anyone it has to come with a parking spot attached. And that just isn't true. If you've travelled the globe or even if you've only visited places in Upstate New York, you generally do not associate your favorite towns, streets, and neighborhoods with surface lots and parking garages. Those are usually the spots you look to get away from as quickly as possible. When I think of Boston's North End, or Greenwich Village, or Saratoga Springs, or Montreal, it's hard for me to remember where I parked my car. What I do know is that as long as these spots weren't reachable by train, I had to walk-in to get there.

While Warren Street is no Greenwich Village or Montreal, it shouldn't be given a death sentence just because it isn't. Sure, a few of its buildings have bad faces, but that shouldn't warrant demolition. If you were to suggest that the buildings should be demolished and then replaced with mixed-use, multi-storied, close-to-the-street, and beautifully-looking buildings, then yes, I'd agree 100%. But demolition should not occur to fix a short-term and fictional parking dilemma especially if 1) there isn't enough demand for parking to begin with and 2) when there wouldn't be a full-proof contingency plan in place if something were to go amiss.

To get a better feel from where I'm coming from with this, let's dive right into the article...

"I think we should demolish many of the buildings on South Warren Street in downtown Syracuse and replace them with parking lots and garages."

Actually, when I first read the opening paragraphs, I LOLed. I thought it was a joke. I had to reread it because I initially thought, "Wow, somebody can't actually be suggesting this.". But alas, asking for more parking lots in Downtown Syracuse was a legitimate one.

"[Many of the buildings] of South Warren Street are from this era, and if they are not, they look like they are. It's one of the saddest periods of building design that I can think of, slabs of uninspiring pre-fabricated concrete reminiscent of the former Eastern bloc countries..."

Actually, one of the saddest periods of building design I can think of is urban renewal, which coincidentally enough had its main focuses on space and parking.

I mean, if we're talking about demolishing very ugly buildings that make you feel cold, how about demolishing the mega elephant in the room known as The Post Standard building? I kid, I kid. Sort of.

Yes. Some of the buildings along Warren Street are ugly. Though, some are beautiful (like the former Western Union building). Further down, some of them contain beautiful elements of Art-Deco as well as Gothic style. It's an under-rated view of architecture and unfortunately it's over-shadowed by drab buildings within the 300 to 400 block range.

But let's keep in mind here that Warren Street is extremely narrow. It's one of Downtown's most condensed streets, along with Montgomery Street. I feel like some of the "cold" and "dark" vibes that are echoed here (and have also been echoed by a writer of the Post-Standard as well as a former mayor) are more perception-based. Sure, the Cold War-style buildings aren't helping, but that doesn't mean that opening up the street to "light" is going to solve anything. It could end up destroying any chance for uniqueness and character.

"South Warren Street flunks virtually every measure of a viable urban core."

I don't agree. It may not be activated yet, but it has the recipe for potential: dense fabric, windows that over-look the street, beautiful architecture, and plenty of locations for small shops on the ground floor with residential units above. The blueprint is already there. It's just not activated yet.

"I hear friends in the suburbs speak with excitement about what is happening downtown, but the conversation always turns to parking."

I understand that this statement was probably somewhat off-the-cuff, but it bothered more than anything else written in the entire column. I could not care less about what people in the suburbs think of my neighborhood. It's kind of a moot point. Like let's say that I think Liverpool smells. Does that mean the village needs to install air fresheners until I'll grant them with my presence?

Of course they think parking is difficult in Downtown. How could they not? Suburbia is filled with free and easy parking where people can park directly in front of the places where they want to go. And they expect that to be replicated anywhere they go in Central New York. They're spoiled. And suggesting more parking when there already is a hefty supply of it in an already small neighborhood is short-sighted and incredibly elitist.

"I've been to other communities, small vacation spots mostly, where all of the land behind the buildings on Main Street is devoted to free municipal parking lots and garages. That would be ideal."

I'm not going to disagree that Syracuse could benefit from a free, public garage or two on the weekends, but I definitely do not advocate killing off one urban street for the sake of another. They ALL need to have vitality, they ALL need to have charm, and they ALL need be places of real value. Parking lots work in small villages because the land is less of a commodity. In a bigger environment it creates these weird places of desolate abysses when they're not being used. Sure, they're populated when there's an event going on Downtown or maybe even during typical office hours, but weekday nights as well as any average weekend they're barren. And that goes for the 20 or so public ones that are scattered around Downtown.

"To bring people downtown where they could park for free and easily access their destination without walking 10 blocks, would give our downtown businesses a major economic boost."

10 blocks is a bit of an exaggeration and kind of petty way of making a point. I'm pretty sure that within 6 or 7 blocks you can walk from one end of Downtown to the other. And in the 5 years that I've been parking regularly Downtown, I don't think I've ever parked further away than 3 blocks from my destination. Spitting hairs aside, if the idea is to give businesses an economic boost, wouldn't the best option be to actually make people get out of their cars and walk around; thereby keeping them in the same area for a longer period of time, encouraging them to spend money, and helping them learn more about local businesses as they discover the neighborhood?

"If 'free' is too radical, install meters with a more generous allowance than two hours. Let's invite people to come to our city center and linger awhile without the threat of a parking ticket hanging over their heads."

This is why there are garages. This is also why people pay for things for an allowance of time and get penalized if they go past the allotted time. It's called society and without rules, it breaks down.

2-hour parking spots are designated for turn-over. They're designed this way because, for lack of a better definition, there's other people in the neighborhood besides yourself (and myself). 2-hour spots are geared for shorter trips, such as a stop at a business or two or a meal at a restaurant (bearing there's no waiting). They are not for hoarding all day long.

And not to make a mountain out of an ant hill here, but the words "invite people to come to our city center" when you don't live there implies that a neighborhood doesn't already exist here. It's designating a place that doesn't necessarily belong to you as something that should be enjoyed by everyone whenever they want to. While it's true that Downtown should be enjoyed by everyone, it should not give non-residents a free pass to have zero urban responsibility. Some of the buildings may be empty, but many of them have people in them 24-7. Just to show how absurd this is, let me rephrase this sentence in this way: "Let's invite people to come to [Cicero] and linger awhile without the threat of a parking ticket.". If I said that and you were a Cicero resident, wouldn't this piss you off?

"Open lots and the occasional garage on South Warren Street would be well-situated near Hanover Square, Columbus Circle, Clinton Square, and South Salina Street..."

These four districts aren't really that difficult to traverse on foot regardless of where you're walking Downtown. And for the most part, they all flow into one another fairly seamlessly. Even if we weren't talking about a minuscule sliver of Downtown and we were talking about the whole thing, do we need more garages to help people walk closer to where they need to go throughout the entire neighborhood? You be the judge...

Number of surface parking lots Downtown: ~43
Number of public surface lots Downtown: 21
Number of public garages Downtown: 15
Radius of Downtown: ~2,000 feet or 0.38 miles or the end to end length of Carousel Mall.

Funny that I don't hear anyone complaining that we need more parking spots inside the mall at the food court because it's such a difficult walk to get to Johnny Rockets.

"Once opened to the light, and with some attractive landscaping such as they've done around some Syracuse University area parking lots, we would have an open shot to nearby Bank Alley."

"Landscaping" and "light" are two terms that may have good intentions, but can be dangerous and also have severely negative consequences. We tend to cover most of our planning mistakes up with "greenery" or "shrubbery" or whatever kind of things we want to include that have leaves and sticks on them. It's kind of like admitting defeat. Like we already know a surface parking lot is incredibly ugly, so let's try to cover it up with nature and use that as some kind of band-aid to hide the ugliness that we just made. Just throw trees on it and shed some light on it and the problem will solve itself.

"With enough foot traffic in and around South Warren Street again, developers will take a second look at the real estate and perhaps do what the Marriott chain is doing in Armory Square, building on a parking lot."

Hyperbole aside, I'd normally be inclined to agree with this, but it's false hope (excuse the pessimism). There's countless examples just within Downtown of empty promises. Promises of development so long as we demolish such and such building first. We have to stop kidding ourselves about this way of doing things. It almost never works and the spot typically ends up in some sort of weird limbo state (see: the former Rite Aid building on Warren Street in what is now unofficially "M Lemp Park" as well as several other surface lots scattered around Downown that are still "waiting for development" and have maintained such a static state for decades).

"The cycle begins anew."

The only thing that's beginning anew here is reinforcing our auto-centric culture that we can park wherever we want to, whenever we want to, and for free without any conciquenes to the neighborhood's quality of life. It would be one thing if parking was actually difficult for Downtown Syracuse and the on-street spots as well as its parking garages were filled to capacity on a daily basis. It's something totally different when there are 21 public surface lots, 15 public parking garages, as well as a steady and constant stream of on-street spots available already within Downtown's 0.38 mile radius.

If the city can do anything right now, I'd advocate that they create better signage for visitors, highly consider eliminating its one-way streets to help visitors better navigate around Downtown, and continue to put proper buildings on under-utilized spots that contain surface parking lots. Until parking becomes a severe issue, I fail to see the need in allocating more availability for non-residents when there's no real demand for them, other than false perception. It's a small neighborhood that needs all the density it can get and demolishing buildings (whether they look great or ugly) for the sake of parking is not a smart solution for progressive development. It's actually quite the opposite.

*This blogger admits to driving to New York, but definitely prefers Amtrak.

[1] Green, Maureen. "Mayor Miner, tear down those buildings." The Post-Standard, 3 March 2012. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/mayor_miner_tear_down_those_bu.html : 2012.