Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zeratul98 t1_jd9oqyf wrote

Reply to comment by oneMadRssn in This idea of building outdoor malls with a parking area in the middle by Sayoria

It's a step up from lots of other development for sure, but I think it's a disappointing show for a new development. I'm fairly new to the area, so i wont claim to know its history, but It feels like something that started as a great mixed use project and then got absolutely kneecapped by more car nonsense. The parking structures could have been more shops, offices, and/or more (maybe even affordable) apartments. Grand Union Blvd is just way too wide. Crossing such a wide stroad and then a giant parking lot to get to the Trader Joe's isn't appealing or inviting to pedestrians. The area very much feels like several disconnected sections, only one of which seems designed for pedestrians

2

oneMadRssn t1_jd9wnja wrote

I agree about that 4 lane street. If you can believe it, the newer denser side of that street used to basically be just empty space and flat single-level parking lots.

I think long term the plan is to knock down that strip mall (Trader Joes, TJ Maxx, all of it) and build a similar-style development as on the other side. And at the same time, that street will be narrowed.

In terms of parking, as much as I would love to have less parking, look at the reality - those parking structures are almost always full despite the fact that the area has a subway stop and ample bus service. Evidence suggests that the amount of parking there is the minimum amount required, if not less than required. What more can they do? I suppose they could make it all tandem valet parking with car elevators instead of ramps to really maximize space, but that is clearly cost prohibitive. The multi-level and garage parking they build is pretty must as dense as we can go without drastic measures.

I think the biggest problem with Assembly is the fact that it's on a sort of accessibility island. There is water to the north and east. a very very wide almost freeway (Fellsway) to the west, and an elevated highway to the south (I93). So while I think they did about as much as anyone could ask by building a T stop, that whole section of town is not easy to get to quickly without a car unless you happen to coming from somewhere on the Orange Line or happen to be on one of the bus routes that goes to Assembly.

5

zeratul98 t1_jdanl5t wrote

I think it's a mistake to think that parking utilization is a strong indicator of parking need. (I'm also rather doubtful that parking gets anywhere close to 100% utilized, but that's a different topic)

The question really is, if we removed 25% of parking spaces in Assembly, what would happen? Would 25% of current drivers disappear entirely, or would some of that crowd just switch to buses, trains, or walking? Do they drive because they have to or because they want to? Would the decrease in cars encourage more foot and bike traffic in the area?

Maybe the bottleneck isn't the capacity of the parking lots, but the capacity of the businesses. After all, restaurants can only seat so many people, bowling alleys only have so many lanes, etc. In that case, fewer drivers just means a more attractive area for people to take the train to. Remember that lots of the parking in the area is for residents. They don't need cars to go to Assembly, they live there.

It's important to remember that cars aren't people. Just because we make an area less appealing to cars doesn't mean we've made the area less appealing.

And then there's the whole concept of what we would replace that parking with. If we're talking about the parking structures, that could be more ground floor retail creating demand and more upper floor housing giving the area plenty more people to frequent the shops and restaurants. Cars are big, like, really big. A typical parking space is around 130-150 sq ft., (plus garages have to have the lanes to drive in and out). So three or four parking spaces is the same size of a studio apartment

1