Parking, the need for it and the problems it causes, is a common
subject in Buffalo development circles.
Parking was allegedly a central issue in delays to development
of an important and prominent empty parcel on Court Street. Developer
Carl Paladino has asked for and received repeated extensions to agreements that
promised development of an 8 to 11-story office building on the site.
Reportedly, law suits by the management of the adjacent Liberty Building and
Main Place Mall were filed in an attempt to wrestle the site away form Paladino
for use as a massive new parking garage, a garage that would most certainly
provide a parking resource for those large properties.
Recent statements by Paladino suggest that the office project is
now being mothballed for the
foreseeable future due to the economy. This site, on an important street
will apparently remain in its current form as an ignoble surface parking lot
for the time being. Remember that parking was also central in the long
running Panos Restaurant controversy. In that case a historic house was
sacrificed after several years delay, to provide for building expansion and a
handful of new parking spaces. And then there has been this ongoing
debate among the downtown set, documented here.
Current planning practices promote large amounts of parking as
an absolute necessity when considering new development plans. Huge parking
quantities are often codified by municipalities, even in the face of a large
body of evidence showing that parking is destructive to the vitality of urban
streets. On-street parking is not considered when developing regulations
for parking quantities that new buildings are required to provide. City
regulations vary for building type and location, but often result in a site
plan that is overwhelmed by parking, most often provided in the form of a
massive gray parking lot. This can be seen in plans for 2 new East Side
projects here and here. Both of these projects
surround island buildings in seas of parking. Does the city ultimately
gain by suburban-style parking oriented development such as this?
All of this brings me to a possible parking outrage in the
making. Tuesday’s Business First reported that the
city planning board tabled approval of the proposed renovation to this
wonderful West Village building formerly known as the Huron Hotel. Developer,
Kissling Interests, says that they are ready to start work on the $1.1M renovation
in the fall, resulting in 8 new apartments and one less derelict city building
sometime next year. Sounds like a big win for the neighborhood, except
that the city says that neighbors have not had enough opportunity to respond to
the proposal. Allegedly some neighbors have concerns over–you guessed it–lack
of P A R K I N G !
To be fair, parking for people of the West Village is very
tight. Street parking gets used up fast by people going to nearby office
buildings and businesses, as well as the fact that many houses and neighborhood
apartment buildings have no parking of their own. But, let’s look at it
this way–this is a dense 19th century neighborhood. The neighborhood gets
much of its charm because there is very little off-street parking. Do we really
want a city filled with buildings surrounded by parking lots? Perhaps we
could tear down every other house in the West Village so that every resident
has a dedicated parking space? Does that seem reasonable? This is an existing
building that has never had parking. It has sat derelict for many, many
years, serving as a damaging neighborhood eyesore. Is parking in a dense
historic neighborhood really an issue that should hold up development of this
key piece of the West Village. Would the neighborhood really benefit from
a big new surface lot next to this building? The proposal has already gone to
the preservation board and gotten approval. It now sits waiting for
planning board approval, reportedly because neighbors are concerned that it
provides no parking. Perhaps we should just tear it down and provide more
parking!
Some
area residents have been seeking resident-permit parking for a percentage of
street space to ease parking for the locals. They state that they would
simply like Kissling to help them promote this idea with the city. Kissling
claims it wants to be a good neighbor but is this really their responsibility?
Would this be a fair compromise? Should neighbors have so much say on an
obviously valuable project?
I
say approve this project now, and get it done. Renovation of a historic
building like this without having to provide any new surface parking is a no-brainer!
Oh, did I mention the gigantic and massively ugly parking garage across the
street form the Huron?