Parking Hyperbole?

Those figures seem high to me too, but it could also lead to alternative modes of transporation to downtown. I take the red line to work at the 801 Tower everyday from Ktown, and I've since convinced two of my co-workers to consider public transit. Both now take the train everyday, and one lives in Woodland Hills! He actually takes the metro rapid to the red line... saves him 20 mins a day.

Two down, 400,000 more to go!

I would not be surprised if in the next two years parking rates do rise to $300 - $500.

The dramatic rise in parking rates do indicate a demand for residential or commercial conversion of parking lots. In the real estate market parking lots are not a high return property. A loft can fetch $2,000 - $4,500 a month. And they can be built much taller than average parking garages. Yeah, this price surge can trigger a construction boom in new parking.

But it should instead, demand more Mass transit projects, better urban planning, and infrastructure improvements.

In my short year-and-a-half living downtown, I've watched parking rates at a number of garages in the financial district start creeping up as much as 30-40%. I vote for walking 2 blocks to my $100/space garage across from the gas company lofts. But keep that under wraps....

Downtown developers are also benefiting from variances and being granted parking reductions because of their relationship to transit. This is a great deal for devevlopers. The question arises who is going to pay for mass transit development and once it is built the cost to maintain and operate the transit system. Shouldn't we assess the number of trips that will be generated on mass transit and have developers be responsible for mitigating those impacts instead of letting them walk away?

Over here in City West the monthly parking rates are much cheaper, for now, 6th & Bixel $45.00 per month for a surface spot, Wilshire & St.Paul $70.00 for a covered lot, or here at the Samaritan Medical Tower parking rates (for a non-reserved surface lot space) just went from $75 to $90. Many from the financial district offices park on this side and walk over the bridge.

Ooooh... I smell a rat!!! Well, this to me is a clear-cut case of the media "talking up prices"... it is quite transparent. When oil prices were low a few years ago (remember $25.00 per barrel?) there was a marked increase in stories about how the price of oil "would soon be rising"... and sure enough, after much prodding and cajoling by nearly every major media outlet, it did... to $70.00/bbl. Then, the economy, which was roaring along, was in danger of "a collapse, or at least a recession" according to the almighty media. Sure enough, in 1999 - 2001 "the economy" slowed down. Remember the stories about the housing slump? Well... that hasn't really happened yet, but it has slowed waaaay down. Still, the news stories abound and increase in volume. Closer to home, the almighty media has been sounding a shrill alarm about Downtown's residential boom going bust. The longer it doesn't happen, the shriller the so-called news stories become. Now we have stories about $300 - 500 per month parking... I suppose it won't be long before my $90/month space goes up... thanks a lot, LA Times, etc. I used to think you were a pretty cool organization. Then again, since Chicago spirited you away in the night it has been a pretty sorry state of affairs on Spring Street. I can't wait to see what you guys latch onto next... the homeless being driven out of Downtown becoming a burden on the suburbs, even cities as far away as San Diego? Naaaah, I can't imagine you'd stoop to that level. But wait.... !

What looks better....a parking garage or a high-rise residential building w/ retail below? We need to stop building garages, surface lots, etc...I don't mind underground lots (a la San Francisco) where cars are hidden from view. Adding garages make driving more convenient....if we want to make people take public transportation, don't make driving more convenient!

As much as I agree with Sodha, it is unrealistic to "make" people take public transit. This has been tried unsuccessfully in this area for a long time now... the transit lines that are successful are the ones that create viable, convenient options for people. Approaching the issue from the standpoint of forcing people to take transit by decreasing the ability of having them drive will continue to push those people with capital and mobility out of the city - the people who remain will be those who cannot afford to drive. I use public transit often in LA, and I definitely drive a lot as well. My business requires me to go to many places that simply do not have transit options, and most professionals face the same issues. However, when the transit option is there, I prefer to use it.

Building garages in a sensitive way, especially with traditional uses at street level, will facilitate the continued growth and investment LA needs. Sowly, peoplewho relocate or already live Downtown will start using transit as it gets better... but to expect them to be "made" to use transit will bring out the resistance factor and make the problem even worse. Jacking up parking rates, eliminating parking options and building developments without adequate parking will not "make" people take transit - it will result in empty buildings, a diminished communtiy life and fewer people willing to deal with what they percieve as the "hassle" of being Downtown.

I do think that the current policy of building large garages around the Downtown core in selected areas, and building tem in such a way that they blend in with the existing city-scape, is a good idea. Eventually we should strive to create more of a "car-free" zone Downtown, maybe limiting cars to selected streets and restricting truck and delivery hours as well.

Downtown has, bar none, the best public transportation in Southern California. Period.

Besides the ubiquitous Metro, DASH is the primary workhorse within downtown. It is part of what was supposed to be a people-mover system built in the 1960s or 1970s, and it is a demand-management tool by LADOT, primarily to reduce in-and-out parking during the lunch hour. This is why buses run every 5 minutes.

Also, several municipal carriers run services downtown. Santa Monica, Torrance and Gardena run freeway express buses, and Montebello runs locals and peak-hour expresses. And commuter buses come from all over Southern California.

We shouldn't have to worry about ridership. L.A. already has the second-highest bus ridership in the country, but a few more riders wouldn't hurt.

Parking will be a necessity in downtown L.A., and maybe the best strategy would be to build a few mega-garages and encourage people to leave their cars and explore downtown. This works fabulously well in Santa Monica, and wonderfully in San Luis Obispo. It might be worth it to try that approach here.

Or, set up a public-private parking authority for not only downtown, but other districts in Los Angeles. The private parking lot owners would be required to form a cooperative to basically have a uniform rate throughout a district, and set up a nonreserved weekly and monthly pricing schedule.

Architecturally, it might be possible to have both parking garages and buildings within the same lot. For instance, imagine if the ground floor was given to retail, and the building's exterior could house offices while the center of the entire structure is given to parking.

(I've never posted before, so hope I'm following "proper protocol") I'd be happy to get your thoughts on this--I have a unit reserved at the Roosevelt Bldg. (not locked into a contract yet), but am concerned about parking. The units do not come with "deeded" parking. Instead, your purchase price includes the parking for five years, after which you will be charged "market rate" to rent the space. I guess I'm concerned about two things--(i) the impact of this arrangement on potential resale; and (ii) the fact that after 5 yrs, I'll have to pay some undetermined amount for parking. Maybe this is standard for an adaptive reuse building, I'm not sure. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks-Tim

thanks e; I had not heard of Flexcar until I read your post. I checked it out and it is certainly something worth considering.

Flexcar is a concept whose time has come and I understand they are looking to enter in high-profile areas on LA's Westside. The problem the company is having relates to the high cost of parking in heavily travelled areas. The problem remains that people in LA won't want to walk to return the vehicles in a garage, but rather store them on public streets. It's a difficult decision to allocate public funds to a private enterprise.