January 23, 2008
Parking Solution Sought for Stadium Neighborhood
Short of making opening day at the new baseball stadium "Ride Metro Here and We'll Give You $100 Day," city officials and team owners are still trying to find a way to deal with what is likely to be a traffic and parking crush come March 29.
According to the Post, the team is estimating that they will need 5,000 parking spaces for season ticket holders. Of those, 1,200 are being handled by the city, with the remaining 3,800 left to team officials. And since neither a 25-story parking deck nor just throwing a whole lot of pavement over the immediate square-mile radius are feasible options, the team is still considering having fans park at RFK and shuttle over.
Hoping to prevent fans from parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) is looking to implement a pilot parking plan that would limit where non-Ward 6 cars could park, while using market pricing for curbside parking along retail corridors and adjacent side streets. The plan, which was recently introduced as legislation before the D.C. Council, would extend the hours during which non-Ward 6 drivers could only park for two hours on residential streets. Currently, the two-hour parking limit ends in the early evening. The plan would also call for the installation of multi-space meters -- which are currently used in Georgetown and Adams Morgan -- along retail corridors and extend the hours of meter enforcement into the evenings and on weekends, thus ensuring a higher turnover of parking spots.
Photo by slack13
Wells has announced three townhall meetings to discuss the plan, the first of which took place yesterday (JDLand was there to cover it), a second which will occur tonight at Brent Elementary School (301 North Carolina Ave., SE) at 6 p.m. and a third which is set for January 30 at the John Wilson Building at 6 p.m.
The final contours of this plan and its implementation could well serve as a model for other parts of the city that regularly suffer from hotly contested on-street parking. While drivers, both from the District and beyond, love exploiting the city's on-street parking regulations (especially the lack of enforcement during evening hours), we're still far behind other cities in implementing rules that limit how long certain drivers can park in certain areas, how the city can collect revenue from its most profitable parking areas, and how best to push people towards mass transit. Wells' plan for Ward 6 -- especially the area around the new ballpark -- might be a good place to start.
|
As the new stadium will be adjacent to Metro, could Washington not take an approach of strongly encouraging public transportation? Season tickets should have parking priced separately to provide economic incentive for not driving to every single game. We have a new stadium, perhaps a new way of thinking about encouraging not driving there would be in order for this capital city. The surrounding area could be less crowded with cars and their pollution if thousands of parking spaces were not created. It seems somewhat ironic, the large majority of people driving to an athletic event and being un-athletic in how they get there by not walking. For those who are unable to walk, of course there should be handicap parking. More parking is not the answer.
Apparently Jimbo Graham is holding hearings about this and parking near the new Target one evening coming up soon (sorry, don't have one of the 27 million emails he sent out about this).
This is big of him. Folks in Adams Morgan have been bellowing for help from him for years for parking and the most he's ever done is gotten MPD to issue tickets to folks who don't have their tires turned into the curb...thanks Jim. Keep up the good work.
"Season tickets should have parking priced separately to provide economic incentive for not driving to every single game."
Parking is, and always has been, separate from game tickets.
We've had a partial season plan since they got here. At RFK, the parking add-on was reasonable, and since we live on the green line, driving was much more convenient, so we had parking. At the new stadium, it will cost too much and be a lot less convenient than metrorail/70 bus. So, this year we're not getting the parking package.
For the umpteenth time, the parking issue at Nationals Park is WAY overblown. There are lots of inner-city ballparks that have dealt with similar transportation issues in the past, and no, the world didn't end when tens of thousands of parking spaces didn't instantaneously sprout up on gamedays. What did you expect, another suburban-style ballpark like RFK, surrounded by a sea of parking lots, and not much else? Let us not forget that the Green Line is just steps from the ballpark, and the Capitol South station on the Orange Line is an easy 10-15 minute walk for most reasonably healthy folks.
Frankly, DCist's shortsighted anti-ballpark/anti-baseball rhetoric, spearheaded by one editor in particular, is REALLY growing tiresome. Please, for the sake of your readership, find a more relevant cause to rally 'round.
And since neither a 25-story parking deck nor just throwing a whole lot of pavement over the immediate square-mile radius aren't feasible options
Um, so, both of those are feasible options?
adamsmorgan: It's on January 30th, in Room 412 of the Wilson Building (1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW).
Yep. I have to concur. DCist ain't exactly hiding it's disdain for the ballpark. I'd be fine with that, but I'd at least like them to present facts, rather than the misleading stuff they sometimes post as fact. I'd be nice to see them actually admit that the average DC taxpayer ain't paying for this stadium. And it'd be nice for them to admit that tax revenue from the massive developments around the stadium are part of the equation.
And since they are advocating a particular point of view won't come right out and admit that, it'd be nice to hear exactly why they hate the ballpark. Of course, it's a bit late to be having this discussion.
And since they are advocating a particular point of view won't come right out and admit that, it'd be nice to hear exactly why they hate the ballpark. Of course, it's a bit late to be having this discussion.
My guess is that they feel the city should be investing that effort in non-business-related issues: affordable housing, education, the usual big ticket urban planner wet dream items. Problem is, I don't see downtown businesses agreeing to a tax hike in order to pay for more craptacular school services and non-existent affordable housing that takes decades to come online.
Bread and circuses FTW!
HCE,
The parking situation is very important, and that's not something coming from me -- it's coming from city and team officials.
The simple fact is that the city wants to find a way to maximize the development potential of the area around the stadium, while having to deal with the simple reality that people will likely drive to and from games. I wish everyone would just up and take Metro, but they probably won't. And since we don't want to turn this stadium into a new RFK, Wells is smart looking into finding ways to prevent non-residents from parking throughout surrounding neighborhoods during games.
As for your complaint about DCist's "shortsighted anti-ballpark/anti-baseball rhetoric," let's be clear -- we don't focus that much attention on this issue. None of us have a problem with baseball, and many of us don't care about the stadium. I do, though, and as a concerned D.C. resident, find it important to highlight the less-than-positive news about it. In the end, the stadium will look great, but given the experiences of many other cities that paid for stadiums, could well prove to be less a wise investment than it was sold to us as.
I don't understand why some baseball fans are so quick to equate any reporting of bad news about the stadium with being "anti-baseball." I love baseball personally; I just don't think the city should have paid close to $700 million for it.
Hillman,
Go ahead and read over many of my posts related to the stadium over the last three or so years. If you don't want to, here's my personal take on why I don't like the stadium.
I think the city got taken, and taken big. The Nats were never going anywhere else, and MLB knew that. Regardless, Mayor Williams and some members of the D.C. Council just lay down and let baseball make every demand. From a simple political standpoint, Williams did not negotiate -- he conceeded.
As for the stadium, I simply do not agree with the public financing of single-use stadiums. There are plenty of examples out there of cities that used new stadiums as linchpins for development, many of which did not yield the promised riches and increased tax base. The city is taking a big risk here. Sure, the $611+ million isn't being paid directly by D.C. taxpayers, but it's still on the city to keep up with the yearly financing. If things go badly (or not as well as planned), the city may have to use public financing to pay down the debt on the stadium. And let's not deny what is a plain fact -- those $611 million in bonds are $611 million less that D.C. will ever be able to get for other projects, especially with the city's already high debt burden.
Do I think the area will improve? Of course. Anything is better than what was there before. But will it be the best we can get, and will it prove to the payoff we were told it would be? That's where my doubts are.
And am I one to say that we should have instead put this money into schools or libraries? No, because I don't think that throwing more money at those two institutions will solve their problems. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have approached the new stadium more carefully and weighed all our options.
I'm sorry if you think this "anti-stadium rhetoric" is overblown. Ultimately, those of us that write for the site and are D.C. residents try to balance our desire to write and our civic duty to be skeptical of government as much as is merited. For me, it's the stadium. I will march down there and marvel once it's ready, but I will always wonder if it will prove to be the benefit that we were told it would be. Asking those questions and voicing those concerns shouldn't be taken so personally. I don't hate baseball, America or puppies -- I just don't think the city should have paid for the stadium.
Martin,
Thank you for clearing things up.
The stadium has already started showing benefits. Just look at that area now. It is a hundred times better then it was.
Look at is happening on 14th street around the Studio Theater, on U Street and up in Columbia heights. If these three areas are any indication of what will happen when people come into an area and spend money that I think we are going to see the area around the stadium boom.
I have been going to baseball ever since I was kid. First the Senators, then the Orioles at Memorial, Now there was a parking nightmare!!!, and now the Nationals. I always take the subway to Nat's games. I would suggest that everyone do so also.
The stadium has already started showing benefits. Just look at that area now. It is a hundred times better then it was.
Look at is happening on 14th street around the Studio Theater, on U Street and up in Columbia heights. If these three areas are any indication of what will happen when people come into an area and spend money that I think we are going to see the area around the stadium boom.
I have been going to baseball ever since I was kid. First the Senators, then the Orioles at Memorial, Now there was a parking nightmare!!!, and now the Nationals. I always take the subway to Nat's games. I would suggest that everyone do so also.
Will585,
I hope you're right about the boom. The big difference I see with the areas you mention and the area around the stadium is that the latter may only be used on those 81 days when there are games. Columbia Heights and U Street are all residential areas, so there will always be human presence. And the Verizon Center, long used as an example of how arenas and stadiums can be used to spur development, is used for lots of different types of events. If folks only ever go to the stadium area for games, it might not take off the way we all hope it will.
There are scores of residential units planned for the area. Hopefully retail and services will follow, since those folks will be there year-round. I will be most impressed if development in this area is able to overcome the isolation from the rest of Capitol Hill, both perceived and real, that this area has experienced as a result of the SE/SW Freeway.
Problem is, the fact still remains that almost in no city has a new baseball stadium brought the development promissed by its supporters.
As far as what we can expect here, great more ugly-a$$ cookie cutter condo towers, half of which will remain un-sold by the developer, a fourth of the purchased ones will go into forclosure, and the owners of the rest will be pissed that they live in a nearly vacant building with nothing to show for it but a lovely view of the Navy Yard. Where are the new restaurants? Where are the grocery stores for people there to buy food at? i somehow about that the gentrifiers will be pleased with the waterfront safeway (gag-way). Where are the new entertainment venues?
Personally, I thought Navy Yard was much better when Ella Fitzgerald and go-go boys were shaking their junk at Ziegfelds.
"There are plenty of examples out there of cities that used new stadiums as linchpins for development, many of which did not yield the promised riches and increased tax base."
Please provide those examples.
And in respect to parking, any smart developer/owner will be charging for parking spaces in an office garage (not used at night - good for evening days) or condo garage (not used as much during the day - good for daytime games). This makes more sense than building a whole lot of new parking garages.
Additionally, you could combine a commercial parking facility with an affordable housing project and probably pay for a substantial chunk of the housing with the parking income.
I think it is incredibly shortsighted to think the ballpark can solve all of the economic problems of the neighborhood, but it is providing opportunities for others to create economic growth.
We will obviously have a ballpark. It's going up very rapidly, that won't change, so quit kicking at it and offer creative ideas, solutions.
GreenA,
Read the following:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf
Plenty of sports economists have argued that stadiums do not provide the economic boost that boosters claim they do. And while some have said that D.C. might be different -- since a huge chunk of the Nats fan base comes from Va. and Md. -- it remains to be seen whether the District will buck the trend.
As for parking, you're right about a number of creative parking solutions existing. Of course, many of those are at least two years down the line, since most of the development won't be ready this year or next. And hopefully by then people will finally have realized that Metro is the way to go.
The original point of this post is that there is concern in city and team circles as to parking during the first year. I never said that the parking challenge would never be resolved.
Martin:
See, now, was that so hard?
It's worth noting, for jillionth time, that there's literally a new city rising around the baseball stadium. Your argument fails to mention that, yet again.
It's not the revenue from hot dog sales. It's a massive new city created where a skank-ass slum was before.
Sure, it's ugly architecture. But it's tax revenue. Assloads of it. For decades to come.
And it wouldn't have been there without the stadium.
It's thousands of residential units, and buttloads of commercial office space. That's bigtime tax revenue.
I'm no finance guy, but a quick look at the shitloads of development down there and it seems clear that the tax revenue from that revenue will almost certainly outpace any financing on bonds, probably several times over, even in the worst of times.
For those that haven't been down there to see, at least check out the website jdland.com . It'll give you some idea of the giant size of what all's going on down there. And it only details maybe 1/3 of the overall area being directly affected by the ballpark.
These things aren't there 81 days of the year. They are there every damn day.
Hillman,
You're right, and I will never deny that what's going up is better than what was there. And I do hope that the tax revenues from the development pan out. But city finances are a complicated matter, and just because something is built does not mean it will turn out well, much less make money. Hell, all of Southwest is a great example of that -- it was bulldozed in 1954 to make room for something better than what was there to begin with.
I'm hoping for the District to buck the trend of other cities that have used stadiums as the centerpieces of their development strategies. But until the numbers prove it, I'll remain skeptical that this was a good use of the money spent on the stadium.
As far as what we can expect here, great more ugly-a$$ cookie cutter condo towers, half of which will remain un-sold by the developer, a fourth of the purchased ones will go into forclosure, and the owners of the rest will be pissed that they live in a nearly vacant building with nothing to show for it but a lovely view of the Navy Yard.
I used to think the same thing until I started reading local real estate blogs. Unsold units are either going on the rental market (which BADLY needs units) or getting auctioned off. Even though supply is outstripping demand, demand is still there for downtown units, unlike, say, Prince William County. You'd think there was a cholera outbreak the way people are bailing on that joint.
Where are the new restaurants?
They're here. Click on the "Retail/Recreation" tab.
Hillman, there won't be any tax revenue if nobody moves into those new units, or if they were bought as investment properties and went into forclosure.
Also, what exactly is wrong with part of the city being skankville? There simply are not enough people with high incomes to gentrify every square inch of the city-and doing so would not be desirable anyway.
Oh..and I wanted to live in complete sanitized gentrifiedville, I would bust out my cans of taupe, beige, kahki, camel, and eggshell paint and move to some hideous complex out in Loudon County. I, for one, am living in the city because I like a little bit of grit in my life.
loganmo,
There will be tax revenue if nobody moves into those new units, or if they were bought as investment properties and went into foreclosure; because someone will owns it (homebuyer, developer, investor or bank) and they must pay property taxes on it. I assume you are talking about sales tax, but nonetheless those condo clones are brining in tax income.
Martin, I am shocked, SHOCKED that the Cato Institute would release a report criticising public investment in stadiums. You know, since they're such big fans of public investment of all kinds.
Fair enough, RJ
"Also, what exactly is wrong with part of the city being skankville?"
This idea that there should be rundown areas of a city is truly mind boggling to me.. it's frequently expressed on Gothamist, as well. Obviously not every neighborhood should be Gallery Place, but that area before the construction was really a waste.
But city finances are a complicated matter, and just because something is built does not mean it will turn out well, much less make money.
Case in point: the new Convention Center, the bonds of which I believe DC taxpayers are saddled with for the next few decades. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure they're still paying off the bonds on the OLD Convention Center that was dynamited last year.
There simply are not enough people with high incomes to gentrify every square inch of the city-and doing so would not be desirable anyway.
I'm pretty sure the Mayor and Council have staked their careers on accomplishing just that. Just try balancing a budget on the backs of three buys peeing in an alley in Eckington. They barely make enough to afford a case of Steel Reserve.
I, for one, am living in the city because I like a little bit of grit in my life.
I really hope you're not posting this from Logan Circle. If so, then dude, you missed the bus by about 20 YEARS. The junkies left Logan in Bush 1.0's first term and took most of the 14th Street whores with them. Joint's about as "gritty" as the Hamptons on Free Drinks for Jersey Guidos Night.
Politburo, there was a very lively LGBT entertainment scene in that area which cannot e replaced, primarily due to zoning regulations.
And Monkey, I live more in Shlogan, technically in the Logan ANC, but it is really more like Shaw. The 2-3 block radius from my apt. has plenty of gun shots, used condoms in the alley, and half of my block is still basically boarded up. No, it is not quite Benning Road, but it ain't the Palisades either.
Speaking of condoms in the alley, WTF happened with the zoning legislation that was supposed to clear the way for the gay clubs to move to Ivy City? Are the churchies/nimbys blocking it? Is it stalled in committee?
Then that's a problem with the zoning regulations, not the redevelopment.
I think they should just turn Shilo Baptist into one giant gay bar/drag show/bathhouse/porno theater and resolve the issue once and for all, Monkey.
As someone who lives and works in the Navy Yard area, it seems to me like all the new office spaces, primarily the DOT headquarters, are more responsible for the recent growth than the stadium is. Do you really think people are going to move here just so they can be closer to the baseball games? No, but a lot of people would move here to be close to work, and that's why there are new condos going up. It reminds me a lot of what happened in Alexandria when the new Patent Office was built there.
All the stadium has done for the area, so far, is shut down the gay bars, liquor stores, and other non-family-friendly businesses, and it's not like these now-abandoned buldings are doing the area any good. I have yet to see any evidence that there will be restaurants and bars coming to the area because of the stadium. Other forces may shape the area, but I can't see a venue that people only go to a few days a year having that much influence.
While it does seem like people are constantly looking for that one magic bullet that will instantly revitalize an area (light rail, sports facilities, convention centers), it clearly isn't a case of "if you build it, they will come." However, wise siting of all these facilities can have economic development benefits. The ballpark is part of a plan for the area that includes other public investment, including the reconstruction of South Capitol Street and the relocation of federal offices to the Navy Yard.
The lack of large parking facilities immediately adjacent to the ballpark actually has an economic benefit -- you can have businesses right next to the ballpark, and you have a ton of pedestrians on the street before and after the game, whether they're riding Metro or parking in lots or garages a couple streets away. This creates an atmosphere where people might decide to meet up before a game at a restaurant or bar, or where they might decide to grab a drink after the game rather than fighting the crowds. It also creates a festive mood on the street which can attract people to the area even if they're not going to the game. Think Fenway Park.
I'm reminded of this rule of thumb: arenas belong in downtowns, baseball stadiums belong on the edge of downtowns, and football stadiums belong in the suburbs. This is because arenas get the most use and have relatively small footprints, baseball stadiums are seasonal but very active during the season (81 home games between April and October averages to something like 2-3/week, which is nothing to sneeze at), and football stadiums are rarely in use (what is it, 8 home games a year?) and require the biggest footprint.
One more thought on this "only 81 games" idea. Even if you assume low average attendance (say 20,000 per game -- the stadium seats 40,000, I believe), that's 20,000 thirsty people on the streets before and after a game.
There are 104 weekend nights in a year. How many people turn up in Adams Morgan on an average Friday or Saturday night?
Southwest:
You are right to a point. DOT may have moved there even without the stadium. But the powers that be at DOT fought the move hard, arguing that the area was a slum.
And lest we forget the Navy Yard employees a shitload of people, but for the past 40 years you couldn't convince anyone to build new housing or offices around the Navy Yard.
The ballpark gave the area an identity. And it showed real committment from the city. And it justified tearing down a lot of crime-ridden public housing.
Nearly every interview I've even seen with the big developers down there, they routinely say they decided to commit after the baseball stadium was a done deal.
Logan:
I'm happy that you like 'grit'.
But somebody has to pay for all that grit. You can't run a city on the revenue from liquor stores and nail salons. DC tried that, for 40 years. Turns out it doesn't work. Especially when all that 'grit' means a huge police and fire/EMT bill, tons of costs associated with trying and incarcerating the thugs responsible for your beloved 'grit', etc.
Simply put, the 'grit' costs a lot of money to maintain. And in the end it ruins your city, if for no other reason than the city goes broke.
At some point us boring non-grits have to step up and pay for your urban-as-grit-dreamscape.
And as someone that's been on the pistol-end of that delightful 'grit', let me tell you it ain't so much fun once you are the victim of violent crime.