Quote:
Originally Posted by Just-In-Cali
My point is, as much as we would love to believe the "if you build it, they will come" mentality, the fact is, 17 some million people are spread across thousands of square miles without an extensive public transport to reach them, hence, they will drive. I know how my friends from the burbs are. They dont wanna go through a huge "search and seek" everytime they go somewhere, so having dedicated parking at the facility is not a bad thing.
|
it's like all the ppl who try to be green friendly & nice to the environment but who insist on driving large vehicles, or who spend way too much time circling around a parking lot trying to find a parking space that is as close as possible to a store's front door. I know too many ppl in LA who behave that very way. And they & many others still think of DT as a scary hood in the middle of other scary hoods, & who therefore have to be really coaxed & prodded to visit DT.
Ppl have to remember that the reputation of dt has been bad for over 50 yrs & that breaking down ppl's resistance to the hood will take every trick in the book. So worrying about too much parking under the museum is important only if it makes such projs too $$ to build, or if it doesn't mean that nearby deadzone parking lots finally will be closed permanently & replaced with something decent.
as for parking requirements for new housing projs, I've read that funders won't give money to a proj if they think it doesn't contain enough parking space for tenants & their guests. So it's not just the city but it's also banks & other lending institutions that force devlprs to include X number of spaces for parking.