Why does Chicago have so much parking in its center? (Lincoln: how much, houses)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This is a classic C-D response. You actually admit my point is 100% true, but then search desperately for instances to the contrary, knowing full well there is no city on earth with zero parking lots, just to try and muddy the waters and somehow confuse the issue.

Venice, Italy has parking lots and Schaumburg, IL has parking lots. Therefore they're the same, according to the C-D homers. Tokyo has people and Bumblefunk, Mississippi has people. Obviously they're the same! Classic C-D!

The real story is that yes, Chicago has a lot of surface parking, and no, NYC doesn't have a lot of surface parking. The question is why, and that has already been adequately answered.

If I actually disagreed with you, I would have specifically stated it, but I didn't - I don't disagree with you. I never did. Not even showing near Hudson Yards and how many surface lots are around there means I disagree with you, but at the same time it should be shown that there is an area of Manhattan where there's actually a high density of them compared to the rest of the borough. And showing the other ones, like the one around 23rd/6th was to support my point that even when there is a surface lot in the more prime areas of Manhattan, it's not as awkward and creepy as when there is one in Chicago. I guess you completely missed that too.

And how do you even figure I desperately searched for these? My office is right near all of these I pasted that are around 34th/9th or 10th. I pass by a lot of these every single day either between the office and the 7 or when I'm out getting lunch. It literally took zero effort in IDing any of these since they've been a part of my daily live for a month now. As far as the other ones go, I have passed by the 23rd/6th lot so many times on foot it's not even funny, and same as everytime I go to see a Broadway show in Times Square.


Getting back to the main point, everyone can agree that Chicago obviously has them and needs to get rid of most of them. At the same time, it's come a long way since 20-30+ years ago in areas like River North and parts of Gold Coast. Anybody can see that both of these are true.

[nei]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Venice, Italy has parking lots and Schaumburg, IL has parking lots. Therefore they're the same, according to the C-D homers. Tokyo has people and Bumblefunk, Mississippi has people. Obviously they're the same! Classic C-D!

Did you read the post you responded to? He never said it was the same. He was pointing out an odd exception.

[nei]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I don't even understand the purpose of this thread in all honesty. Some surface parking does exist within the downtown area, but there really aren't that many. ESPECIALLY compared to the urban areas further west or south. Chicago is more of a middle ground between old school, more European style cities (east coast) and sprawling American style cities (west coast and southern U.S.), although Chicago features a built environment much more similar to NYC/Boston/Philadelphia/DC. It's also worth adding that many of the surface parking lots in the south and west loops are succumbing to legitimate development.

Except it has a large, busy downtown; larger than Boston or Philadelphia. It feels weird that it would have so much surface parking adjacent to downtown. San Francisco has somewhat less by its downtown and its downtown is somewhat smaller. The sunbelt cities that have much surface parking and vacant spots near downtown all small, not very pedestrian oriented downtowns.

[nei]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Back in the real world, NYC is probably the only U.S. city where parking is extremely limited, and is generally confined to private underground garages and short-term metered street parking. Boston and SF are parking-restricted too, not to the extent as NYC, but much moreso than in Chicago.

He specifically mentioned non-majored cross-streets. In the real world, those aren't metered. It may take forever to find an empty space, but it's free as the poster said.

[nei]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Chicago has it's fair share of surface parking lots, but they are far from the norm. The south loop and west ends of River North have a bit more surface parking than I'd like to see, but they'll come down with time. Chicago is an AMERICAN city. AMERICAN cities were vacated at unprecedented rates in the 20th century. As reinvestment continues in these neighborhoods, you'll inevitably see less and less surface parking.

I doubt Boston or Philadelphia were vacated in or near their downtown to get more than a few surface lots. Ditto with New York City, though parts of East Village had abandonment that was too far from downtown:

http://i.imgur.com/wQcvwxh.jpg

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by nei

Did you read the post you responded to? He never said it was the same. He was pointing out an odd exception.

I'm glad someone realizes that pointing out an exception (and in this case - an interesting exception) doesn't mean admitting it's the rule.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by chet everett

By selling the rights to the parking Chicago has LOCKED in a situation that will only thwart efforts to expand things like transit or autonomous vehicles -- the firm that profits from parking has a vested interest in continuing to reap profits from PARKING and will actively make alternatives impossible. Big (sarcastic) thumbs up for the foresight ...

I don't like the deal myself, but it is one that I find much more tolerable than the parking meter deal due to the fact that Millennium Park was gained. A biter pill in the form of a shortsighted deal to be sure, but at least there was some benefit.

That being said, the parking deal under the park, as shortsighted as it was and even with a new company that has a mind on parking, cuts both ways. It may stop a source of income the city could have used to put towards the CTA, but it has also stopped the addition of any additional public parking in the eastern portion of the Loop. The city lost in arbitration against the company when public parking was to be included with the Aqua building, for example.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's not a lot, but on the west side, especially near areas like Hudson Yards, there are enough to be noticeable. My office moved basically to Hudson Yards a month ago. I never spent a lot of time there until then and was surprised at how many surface lots there are around 9th and 10th. DEFINITELY not free though. With the exception of the west side, which in 10 years will probably get rid of a lot of these lots, surface lots in the rest of Manhattan feel much different. Even when there is one, it's not weird like it can be in Chicago. There are more people around on the streets in Manhattan where it's not awkward.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7541...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7553...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7545...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7552...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530...7i13312!8i6656

In the OTHER parts of Manhattan though - at least prime Manhattan, I can only think of a few. One would be near 23rd and 6th (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7434...8i6656!6m1!1e1) and some around Times Square (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7600...8i6656!6m1!1e1 and https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7604...8i6656!6m1!1e1 and https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7595...8i6656!6m1!1e1).

Random others like: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7476...7i13312!8i6656

Most of these surface parking lots, especially in and around Hudson Yards that you mentioned are there for a reason. They are owned by the big real estate skyscraper developers. They are basically dormant construction sites that they paved over to be temporary lots.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's not a lot, but on the west side, especially near areas like Hudson Yards, there are enough to be noticeable. My office moved basically to Hudson Yards a month ago. I never spent a lot of time there until then and was surprised at how many surface lots there are around 9th and 10th. DEFINITELY not free though. With the exception of the west side, which in 10 years will probably get rid of a lot of these lots, surface lots in the rest of Manhattan feel much different. Even when there is one, it's not weird like it can be in Chicago. There are more people around on the streets in Manhattan where it's not awkward.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7541...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7553...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7545...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7552...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530...7i13312!8i6656

In the OTHER parts of Manhattan though - at least prime Manhattan, I can only think of a few. One would be near 23rd and 6th (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7434...8i6656!6m1!1e1) and some around Times Square (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7600...8i6656!6m1!1e1 and https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7604...8i6656!6m1!1e1 and https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7595...8i6656!6m1!1e1).

Random others like: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7476...7i13312!8i6656

Plus this one: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7186...7i13312!8i6656

That's probably most of the surface lots in Manhattan though save for those in the projects.

[jdiddy]

Aren't we exaggerating the amount of surface parking? Theres basically one large lot left (Randolph/franklin) in the loop, and that's soon to be developed into another office tower.