But the $760,000 parking project — which includes purchasing a piece of downtown property near the city’s library, demolishing a structure on the site and surfacing the proposed lot — brought little return on the expected investment. According to the task force, the city would gain 10 spaces, a figure that astonished the council…

The parking project is on hold pending further discussion by the task force and review of what was termed an “old” parking study. The study and others over the last 25 years, task force member Dan Bergeson said, have recommended additional parking on the north end of the historic district.

This is really something for a shopping area…

TinyURL.com/2dxjmoz

cut and paste the above URL in and then click on ‘proceed to the site’.

The pianos we saw had covers on the ground next to them. I think that it was a Kiwanis project, but my guess is that someone nearby each piano has offered to cover it at night and when it looks stormy.

It was my understanding that these were pianos that were on their way out of this life anyway. They must have been tuned a bit, though, and perhaps they have added one summer to their expected life, but no more.

If the NDDC or the Arts Commission are interested in this, I would be happy to find out who organized it in Valpo and they can get all of the details.

See here.

Perhaps we could collaborate with the Historical Society for evening storage, and it could be placed right on Bridge Square next to the popcorn cart, where it can be monitored.

(The shade from The Rare Pair building also keeps/kept my non-air-conditioned car nice and cool.)

…every single time I go by, I cannot get near the place. Because of this fact, I have been patronizing the wonderful Bittersweet Eatery. It is much easier to park near Second and Division than it is near GBM.

But, I still believe it is best to plan ahead….otherwise you simply react…

No magic in three hours, but I think the trick is to mix in enough stop and shop time (30 minutes) with spaces that allow people to not worry about the time when they come to town and visit.

Maybe someone comes for coffee and conversation, then decides to walk along Division to do some shopping. We’d hate to have them say no to that because they worried their two hours were up. (fear of loss)

Same scenario might apply for a lunch meeting.

I think that all in all, very few people would need three hours. But, it would be nice if they never had the worry about overstaying their time and getting a ticket.

The stop and shop spaces would be like most of those in front of Blue Monday which seem to turnover quickly. They provide more opportunities for someone to pop-in at a store for one item without having to park more than 1/2 block away, which as has been rightly noted in this discussion, is a psychological barrier despite it being less distance than most walk in a large store parking lot.

Why 3 hours, and not 2 hours? (not that it matters that much, I am just trying to understand your point of view).

Downtown is not that big, and frankly, I cannot think of that many things that would keep me in one parking spot for three hours, dinner included.

Evening events, such as those at the Grand would begin in the early evening, but parking restrictions would lift before the three hour limit would expire.

We don’t want to rush the customers… I understand that. I am just trying to understand why you came up with the number 3.

Great ideas by the way!

I would advocate for the following steps:

1. Change the mix of parking spaces (30 min and 3 hr), educate/communicate and enforce now.

2. Simultaneously, gain control of the land between 3rd and 4th on Washington ($400K or so to buy, option on the land might be less than $10,000 for a cap on the price)

3. If the changes in step 1 result in a noticeable, but not sufficient, improvement, or if parking demand grows (Library is expanded, Carleton Arts Union activity levels are high) then build out the one-level parking area ($750,000). This might be 1-3 years from now.

4. Simultaneously plan the concept for a multi-level ramp as well as its costs (building costs and ongoing maintenance costs) so that if there is a clear need for such, the plan can be executed in a timely fashion. This might be 2-10 years from now.

Couldn’t we do the 30 minute spots, the 3 hour spots, and the education program without building a parking ramp? Shouldn’t we try the obvious solutions before we spend $800,000?

(I had also suggested that we could paint white stripes down Water and Seventh Street before we spent $250,000 on the bikeped trail.)

It can be challenging to explain, and even if you do an adequate job explaining, people may still not support it.

You are correct, these are different buckets of money. All of the money in the Streetscape Fund comes from the taxes paid by the property owners in the TIF District. Theoretically, you would be taking the taxes paid by these property owners to create parking which would support the businesses occupying their properties.

As for the tax-increase-to-balance-the-budget bucket of money, you would be increasing the taxes on the commercial property owners throughout Northfield to pay for Government Buildings, Recreation, Public Works, Public Safety, and General Government: http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/CityOfNfldGenlFundBudgetAnalysisJune2010.pdf

Lots of auto traffic looking for parking places! (Thread connection)