Neighborhood Businesses Miss the Point on Parking


We’ve already heard that the Hawthorne district will reject Sam Adams call for metered parking.

But now the Business Journal is reporting that some neighborhood businesses are thinking that what they need is MORE parking, in the form of parking structures.

Do they really think that their customers will pay to park in a structure while on-street parking is free? We’re about to see that mistake get made on NW 23rd, where we already have several off-street lots that are usually less than half full because on-street parking is free.


24 responses to “Neighborhood Businesses Miss the Point on Parking”

  1. Someone needs to privatize the on street parking. Make the businesses responsible for paying for it… make them take care of that and I’ll be we see parking meters in no time flat.

    When it isn’t free, then parking garages make sense.

  2. That’s pretty much the deal Sam offered. The local district (businesses and neighbors) would have gotten to say how the meter revenue was spent.

    They rejected the deal.

  3. When people come into an area like Hawthorne with a car to shop and there is free on-street parking available that is good for business.

    When users of the street/village fill-up the available on Hawthorne they go to the immediate parking just off of Hawthorne and there could better circumstances but the stores are full and the cash registers are ringing.

    If the meters were put on the street and immediate off street areas many that come to street/Village experience that create a lot of the texture of it just would not come is the fear of the businesses.

    If private developers get permission and build off-street parking in a partnership with immediate businesses where their customers cna get their parking FREE with purchases, why not!

  4. Whatever happened to building bicycle parking areas in the neighborhood main streets? Are we instead going to plunk $100’s of millions in parking structures to promote more driving now?

    I think this is a piss-poor strategy for portland, we shouldn’t even be considering parking garages for anywhere but the central city.

  5. I digress on my previous topic. If a business or individual wants to build a garage, that will be empty most of the time under the theory that more parking is needed, then by all means please go ahead and build it.

    The city however should NOT provide parking garages (or whatever permutation of the monopoly exists downtown) to an area if they aren’t willing to allow the city to charge to pay for it.

    …but a private investor doing it. That’s kewl. I just don’t see where it’s real bright that someone thinks people will pay… most people are stupid and prudish enough to just drive around (burn some gas) until they find the “free” parking lot. Even though they probably just paid more in wear and tear and car than they would for that buck or two they’d spend in the garage…

    …but anyway. Hawthorne isn’t dense enough to need garages. Nor is 23rd really. 23rd just has a problem with external influxes of people coming to shop. Both would do well to control the parking for the local residents of both neighborhoods. Locals get choice pick, then the rest is either metered or sold to businesses to do with as they want. Free or not free.

    But at least the decision is based on real conscious decisions of cost.

  6. I hope everyone understands the “Free Enterprise” is not a bad thing, it creates more jobs then government and the revenue generated from it keeps government funded and working, WOW!

    Knowone wants government to build a off-street parking garages or parking spaces or invest $100M into anything like that.

    But if “Private Enterprise” went to planning with a business plan and support of the local small businesses that requests permission to build a off-street parking facility that makes the business climate healthier with more jobs and more taxes is that not good?

    Some where we have to get away from all of this “Social Engineering” of everything.

    I sure do not want my children with their doctorates and Ph.D.’s and Master degrees, telling go old dad and mom that we cannot live our lives in a manner that we think we have earned to right to do!

    The “Free Enterprise System” provided the opportunities where their old man and old woman were able to create the base, the spring board, like the generations before me did for my wife and I.

    Please do not kill the chicken that lays the golden egg, the real permanent creator of “Family Wage Jobs” small business, let market forces enable change.

    We should keep or efforts to Comprehensive Plans and global zoning and not too “Earmarks, tax give-a-ways and behind the door BS.

  7. I live on SE 23rd, 2 blocks in from Hawthorne, and between Hawthorne & Division. We ALREADY have out-of-area Tri-Met riders parking in the neighborhood. There’s a similar problem off Division. Yet PDOT approved a 27 unit condo, probably 3 retail shops, without any additional parking AND OK’d an adjustment that the developer didn’t have to provide one –arguably 2– loading spaces. There is already a shortage of parking…as well as loading spaces.

    The developer got a Transportation SDC CREDIT because the building’s off Division on 26th.

    What’s this got to do with parking…and meters?

    There’s a parking shortage. We can get all huffy and self-righteous and tell everybody they should be walking, bicycling and taking mass transit (I do all 3) but there’s an existing parking shortage…and it’s getting worse as we continue to densify. I’ve lived in this neighborhood nearly 20 years now.

    Parking meters didn’t really add parking CAPACITY. At best, it helped turnover. I see nothing wrong with adding a parking structure, or two…even with “free” on-street parking. Isn’t that the case, after all, with downtown after 7?

    Besides…we have parking structures already. Fred Meyer’s large parking lot –and roof-top parking. Safeway’s TWO big parking lots.

    If we want to support density –and I do– then we need to create more available parking. Hopefully mitigated by ALSO working to get people out of their cars…but JK’s absolutely right (boy, does that sound funny to me to say) that every time we densify –every time– we NEVER get 100% of the new trips being taken by “alternative” means. Which means our density goals and efforts are further stressing the capacity of our roads, and the existing parking shortage.

    And what’s innately wrong with garages anyway (as long as you don’t site them horribly, the way they intend to do in NW Portland)?

  8. If private developers get permission and build off-street parking in a partnership with immediate businesses where their customers cna get their parking FREE with purchases, why not!

    Even Richard Singer, the parking-obsessed developer and landlord building the parking structure off NW 23rd would not contemplate making the structured parking free. It’s simply too expensive to build.

  9. We ALREADY have out-of-area Tri-Met riders parking in the neighborhood. There’s a similar problem off Division.

    Theny why wouldn’t you adopt a permit system to bounce these folks before working to add more parking capacity?

  10. To answer your question, Chris, I’m sure we’ll eventually have a permit system. At this point, though, the more significant problem is adding residents and stores, without adding parking capacity for them. That should be a no-brainer, but, well, we’re actively working against that, under the idealistic illusion that everyone’s walking or taking the bus. The reality is they’re not.

    I love our New Seasons, and mostly walk there, but it’s w-a-y more popular than the parking provided for it, so what you end up with is instant spillover into the neighborhood. With Hawthorne and Division we’re going the route of 23rd…why not add capacity NOW, where and when it makes sense. One storeowner I was talking to before the meeting to discuss the parking maters asked why didn’t we require a parking structure where the Burger King was, instead of letting them put in shops and condos, with no place for their visitors to park but where parking was already in short supply?

    Instead of solving a parking problem, we exacerbated it. Why not have a building code that says that if you create a problem, you have some responsibility for solving it? What’s so radical about that? Maybe add a surcharge when people don’t provide parking, to build a fund for a parking garage. Instead, we give them a discount because they’re on an already over-crowded bus line. Not logical.

  11. Frank you’re right in theory. But you’re asking Portland to become what few (if any really) cities have; a high density urban environment with ample parking for all. The area is only 23 blocks from downtown. Go any where in San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, etc. and it’s unlikely that abundance of parking exists at all times of the day 23 block from their urban cores.

  12. Frank Dufay & Chris

    …permit system. That’s exactly what I was saying… when I stated residents get first pick/dibs on parking (they get permits, signs, and right to tow ASAP if their spots are taken up) and even then… free parking or not, parking garage or not, let the businesses THEN decide what they want.

  13. I know that this is counter to public sentiment, but as a Hawthorne resident I would welcome meters. It would have been great to use that income for the neighborhood and to deal with the impacts of good business- like trash- with that income.

    Parking structures? Give me a break. We are not that dense yet.

    It seems like many commenting on this blog have not lived in a truly urban environment before. Portland is changing (and for the good in my mind). Density will force choices without the need of intervention.

    Of course people will continue to drive and park while it is the best option. Frank, why should we continue to make this the best option? Maybe if more people had to deal with the difficulty of parking they would chose other options. Why should we make driving the most convenient choice?

  14. From Adron:

    …but anyway. Hawthorne isn’t dense enough to need garages. Nor is 23rd really. 23rd just has a problem with external influxes of people coming to shop. Both would do well to control the parking for the local residents of both neighborhoods. Locals get choice pick, then the rest is either metered or sold to businesses to do with as they want. Free or not free.

    Why is a business, which presumably owns property along a street, treated worse than a homeowner?

    If streets are for the common good of its residents, and for a city a business is virtually equivalent to a resident (both own property, pay property taxes, receive city services) – why are residents given priority over people who can’t afford to live in that area, and must drive in from other parts of town just to shop?

    If we are to restrict parking to just residents in an effort to reduce traffic congestion; we must also make every effort to allow businesses to exist where residents need the services with as few obstacles or delays.

    Good bye, zoning.

  15. It seems like many commenting on this blog have not lived in a truly urban environment before. Portland is changing (and for the good in my mind). Density will force choices without the need of intervention.

    For the record…I lived on 42nd street, a block from the Great White Way in Times Square before it was destroyed and Disneyfied. (When you could still catch a double-feature at 2:30 am after getting off work!) Didn’t own a car, walked to work at the main post office across from Madison Square Garden…just as I didn’t own a car later living in Brooklyn and Queens, before I moved to Oregon in 1972.

    Visited last year, Times Square is still a mess. There’s a massive private parking garage across from the nearby Port Authority bus terminal, for commuters…$350 a month to park and be part of gridlock. Dumps people onto 42nd without rhyme or reason.

    There’s no “organic,” “natural,” “market driven” solution. Paris built –as the government– an underground parking lot under the Champs Elysee that does a better job of getting people around congestion…amazing what a positive impact it’s had on what had been the usual illegal parking on the sidewalks…and illegal parking in the middle of the Champs Elysee!

    Density brings benefits and problems. You either deal with the problems, or the quality of life goes south. I think it best to anticipate those problems and deal with them upfront.

  16. Has anybody suggested a scenario wherein:

    -All neighborhood streets are permit only, so that residents and employees are able to park…but overspill is not a problem.

    -Parking on hawthorne is free and does not require a permit. Customers are able to park and shop if they choose to drive

    This concept puts the full burden of providing more parking on those that desire it, ie businesses and drivers willing to pay for it. So if a private garage is necessary, it gets built (and filled, since spillover is contained)…

    It makes sense to me. The increasing densification of the area is positive and inevetible, and providing off street parking may be necessary. However, its not the governments job it provide it.

  17. Nathan,

    Having been through every aspect of this in trying to devise a plan for NW Portland, here are a few of the challanges you have to solve in developing such a plan:

    – Businesses will tell you that the on-street parking on the commercial avenue is insufficient. You have to allow some parking on the side streets.

    – If you don’t regulate the commercial avenue, residents and employees will take up much of the space that is most useful to customers of the businesses.

    – You have to figure out where to put not just the customers of the businesses, but also the employees (at least a fraction of them – employees are probably the group that can most easily be given incentives to use transit and other alternative modes).

  18. A “Yet PDOT approved a 27 unit condo, probably 3 retail shops, without any additional parking AND OK’d an adjustment that the developer didn’t have to provide one –arguably 2– loading spaces. There is already a shortage of parking…as well as loading spaces.”

    B To say the least, this is poor, bad, ridiculous, and out of touch with reality planning. It also demonstrates PDOT thrives on socialist thinking by knowingly creating more congestion and negative impacts to both streets and neighborhoods. There is definitely a need to create zoning that requires adequate off street parking.

  19. “It…demonstrates PDOT thrives on socialist thinking by knowingly creating more congestion and negative impacts to both streets and neighborhoods”

    Terry, that statement might be in the running for *mindless comment of the year*

    Are u fucking kidding me?

  20. Gee, the CS (Storefront Commercial) zone has been in place on Hawthorne and NW 23rd for 20 years now. By not requiring parking (but permitting it to be built, as long as you don’t have a wall of parking garages), the city is letting the market decide. If a developer feels the parking is getting too scarce on, say, Hawthorne, he (or she) will build parking into his project. If he feels he can rent the business spaces, or sell the condos without it, that’s what he’ll do. The market is saying that there is adequate parking now on or near Hawthorne, at the right price (free). It’s saying many condo buyers don’t feel the need for their own guaranteed parking space, that they’ll take a chance on finding an on-street space, or, that they don’t have a car!

    This is not social engineering. The city is allowing the market to decide, at least near transit lines. I’m surprised that Terry Parker is in favor of the city mandating parking. Sounds like an onerous government regulation to me. The market right now says parking scarcity is okay. Now the city should let the market decide that everywhere, not just along transit lines. Probably housing far from transit will continue to be built with parking. I also notice that some rowhouses built along transit lines (44th and Division) still do have parking, even though they didn’t have to.

  21. Doug is right on.

    In NW Portland the political meltdown came when Richard Singer, who had a surface parking lot on NW 23rd with CS zoning (allowing a parking structure), insisted instead that Council rezone a parcel 100 feet off of 23rd on a residential side street for a parking structure. Council did so and Singer promptly turned his surface parking lot into a new retail building.

    In case anyone can’t figure that one out, the policy statement that it makes is, in a mixed used neighborhood area:

    1) Retail is the highest and best use of land
    2) Commercial parking is 2nd, even in residential zones
    3) Residential comes last

  22. Right on. If anything, zoning and parking requirements are dictatorial requirements put in place by the city. If you want a parking space, why don’t you pay for it yourself instead of having the big old nasty gub’mt telling you?

  23. One of the problems here is the lack of neighborhood transit. As I recall the city taxi codes they require citywide service 24 hours a day.
    It mighty be wise to consider allowing neighborhood based services using a variety of vehicles with limited hours.

    I be interested in seeing how the new Sprint vehicles we are seeing on the streets compare cost wise to Trimet’s buses and to allow small operators to establish businesses serving specific parts of the city.

    In the Hawthorne neighborhood I would think that most of the shopping is done by people living within that neighborhood, but it is somewhat difficult to take the bus from 39th and hawthorne up Division with a couple of bags of groceries.
    You have to change buses and who wants to do that with groceries, or much of anything else. Additionally there is little, or no late night service. It isn’t the bankers and brokers who work. Its the janitors and the nurse’s aides.

    If the city would allow private operators to establish transit businesses that served an area say from 82nd to the river and then between Burnside and Belmont we might find we can solve some of these problems at no or little cost to the taxpayer. Of course other parts of the city would want in on the action as well. So why not
    M.W.

  24. If the city would allow private operators to establish transit businesses…at no or little cost to the taxpayer.

    I keep threatening to buy a bus just so I can pick up Tri-Met’s #14 riders –like myself– who will discover, come January, that their bus no longer takes them into downtown beyond SW Second. And I’d take ’em home over the Hawthorne, not route them across the Morrison.

    How many days –or hours– before Tri-Met shuts me down? For the hubris of providing decent transit service?

Leave a Reply to Erik Halstead Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *