(09-23-2022, 08:03 AM)BruceAshe Wrote: No obvious opposing voices. Just concerns about the unit breakdowns (71 one bedroom or one bedroom plus den, 29 two bedroom, no three bedroom). The other concern is that it currently has no planned visitors parking. The city planner said they have already raised this concern and it will be brought up at the site planning stage and should likely change. I think that it's a good idea to have visitors parking. Yes, there is the garage at the market but no one will use it when they can park on Madison for free.
Without strongly disagreeing with the notion of providing some visitors’ parking, I do have to point out that the logic implied by what you said is questionable. You say “there is the garage at the market but no one will use it when they can park on Madison for free”. OK, but why do they need visitor parking if they can park on Madison? And if they can’t park on Madison (presumably because it’s full), what’s wrong with paying for parking in the garage at the market?
My concern with the garage at the market (and many other places) is inappropriate pricing policies. In the evening when hardly anybody wants to park, they still charge. On the other hand, some street parking is still free in the middle of the day when everybody wants to use it. As a result, it’s unavailable for people who need to stop briefly.
What we need is demand-responsive pricing, similar to SFpark.