LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 4.0

[pesto]

"Thus, it's key to note that the increase/need for parking is absolutely false to make a vibrant center. Parking is our # 1 urban killer in Los Angeles. The reason Pasadena, Santa Monica, Venice, Hollywood, Spring Street, 7th street, etc... are vibrant are due to late night restaurants, bars, etc.. You can put all the parking in the world (i.e. Santa Clarita and the Valley), but if you are lacking the restaurants, bars, clubs..prime destinations, it's just a deadzone. Forget spending money on parking, like they want to spend $52 million to tear down more buildings for parking for Broadway, which is totally irrational, use it to build a new station portal for the new 2nd/Broadway station on the Downtown Regional Connector. Spend money on people, no more on the private automobile. Hasn't our downtown been destroyed enough?"

You make half of a good argument. Just like transit, parking does not in itself attract visitors where there is no other reason to visit. But it does make it easier to visit once there are reasons to go there. How would SM or Pasadena (or Beverly Center or Disneyland) be doing if there were no parking available or if it cost $50? How could every city and developer be so confused as to think that parking was vital to getting people to these places?

You seem to believe that "late night" clubbing equates to vibrancy and popularity. Late night activity usually implies young people, especially locals. These people are willing to take it to go home or can just walk. This is not true of the average person going to entertainment other than movies, to nicer restaurants or to shopping. These people are going to want to use a car and are going to want to know that it is going to be secure and available and cost $3 or $20 or whatever (see Davies, SF Opera, Union Sq., Lincoln Center, etc., for how much parking demand there is). If you are not interested in DT as a true center for shoppers and entertainment, then don't worry about rationalized parking.