Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog
This is often the argument I read about in a city like LA, which is much more densly populated and congested. LA to this day will build large residential projects with an abundance of parking. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would purchase a property in an auto-dependent region without convenient parking.
This will always be the case in Phoenix too, which is a much smaller, less dense of an urban area.
|
It may be the case that nearly every apartment building provides parking in LA, but my gripe really concerns the exposure of the parking relative to the actual building. IME, the apartment buildings that I have visited in LA have had subterranean parking. There usually isn't some multi-story parking garage exposed to the street, or worse, some giant surface parking lot surrounding the entire structure. Here in Phoenix, there seems to be some rule that parking must be exposed. I understand that subterranean parking may add to construction costs, but to me it is necessary to achieve true urbanism. Just as residents may not want to live in a complex without nearby parking, people walking downtown don't want to pass parking garage after parking garage dedicated to every little apartment and office complex. These garages create dead zones and I certainly don't think having dead zones next to each and every apartment complex in Phoenix is necessary in the name of being an auto dependent city.
Literally, the ONLY large scale apartment buildings in the city of Phoenix that seem to incorporate parking relatively well into the design of the structure are 44 Monroe, Skyline Lofts, and the new CityScape apartments. These apartments on Buchanan will feature yet another exposed parking garage, the proposed apartments near the Walgreens on Central and Osborn will, of course, provide surface parking and a new adjacent parking garage, and I'm sure 95 percent of all future developments will have this structure as well.
I'm well aware of this city's auto dependent nature. As much as I may not like the idea, I can agree that nearby, accessible parking is requisite to attract people in a city like Phoenix. However, I am of the belief that once land is developed, it's gone until that structure is torn down. It bugs me that developers and the city don't seem to realize that every inch of land is valuable, allowing both parties to work together on how to incorporate necessary parking in a way that is not intrusive and at least gives a slight nod to urbanity. The reality though is that land here is cheap and available, the city and many urban boosters are clearly so desperate to see land filled in with anything that they dismiss quality and thoughts about how every approved structure contributes to the overall fabric of downtown, the city is run by a bunch of people from small towns who clearly have no idea what urbanity is, and this is the type of state that has truly never told a developer no because our economy is extremely heavily reliant on development.
I live in Downtown Phoenix and I still think downtown has a lot of potential, but it bugs me to see so many mistakes still being made to this day.