I'd be upset, too. It shouldn't be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it's probably going to be Millennial Beige
post
replies:
I feel like this post and highlighted quote requires more context. The parking lot is next to a church, most of the voices of dissent in the article are from people who go to that church and someone involved with another hotel being constructed not far away. The City Council voted 7-1 to approve the replacement of the parking lot with a hotel. Councilmember Nicole Speer, the one quoted above, is a member of the church who voted IN FAVOR of removing the parking lot.
replies:
The sacret parking lot
replies:
A fuckcars sub is arguing against removal of a parking lot?
replies:
Lol, this is wild. I've parked there several times. Parking in that area does kinda suck, but so does getting a hotel for a reasonable rate too, which is generally more important.
has this image gone through some AI filter or am i paranoid?
59 parking spaces. $5.8 million. That's kind of mind-boggling to me.
From an urbanist/anti-car perspective, it's not a terrible location for a hotel, though. It's like a block away from the Pearl Street Mall, one of the most successful car-to-pedestrian street conversions I've seen, coming up on its 50th anniversary. That could cut down on some of the car trips you'd expect a hotel to add, as visitors can go out to eat or shop without getting into the rental car.
I was wondering if the impact of the lost parking capacity was a legitimate concern, and according to the article, "Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, a consultant hired by the city, found that nearby garages have enough capacity to absorb parking demand from the hotel and loss of those spaces." So if the hotel design doesn't include on-site parking, I guess you unload your suitcases and then go park in a nearby garage. 🤷 At least according to the consultants it won't be a problem.
all 44 comments