Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
Donald Shoup is a 'hack'? That's rich. The guy has only gotten thousands of cities around the world to start thinking strategically about their parking in a way that:
- Doesn't undermine transit
- Brings in new revenue for neighborhood improvements
- Makes more street spaces available so drivers spend less time hunting for spots
- Prices parking according to its real market value rather than externalizing that cost the city
The man is quite literally, the world's foremost expert on parking. The High Cost of Free Parking is practically required reading in urban planning schools (It was literally required reading in mine.)
Performance parking, the concept he pioneered, is in place in Pasadena, Downtown LA (soon), Ventura, Redwood City, not to mention the whole of San Francisco with their new SF Park system.
Which part of his arguments do you find "intentionally deceptive"? They seem refreshingly lucid to me. |
Don't get involved in a cult of personality. Read everything as if you were being paid to find holes in the logic.
The comment I was criticizing was his implication that Davies Hall in SF did not have underground parking. In fact, there are 3 other enormous lots in the Civic Center. Thousands of underground parking places (and thousands of FREE on-street parking places in the evenings). And then he attacks LA because the DT LA lot was not doing well BEFORE the Disney was completed. Duh. No mention of how it is doing AFTER the Disney opened.
That's what I mean by making no effort to get an argument right. Unfortunately fairly typical of polemicists and people with books to sell.
Threaded Mode