Parking Garage Attempts To Look Like Multiple Buildings
Parking, specifically parking garages, have been a regular topic here over the last decade, recently a musical garage in Chicago and two St. Louis apartment projects. While on my honeymoon last month we spotted another garage I want to share with you today, this one in Cheyenne Wyoming. We spent a few hours of our week-long Colorado honeymoon in neighboring Wyoming, having lunch in Cheyenne and dessert in Laramie.
Before the garage let me set show you what we saw on our Sunday visit.
Cheyenne has two municipal garages, each occupying a full city block. Cheyenne, the state capital of Wyoming, also has a large state garage. We drove past one municipal garage a few times, I only discovered the other two once home and researching this post.
I’m torn on this garage. On one hand the execution offends my sense of aesthetics, on the other is blends in better than the other two garages, admittedly I’ve only seen them on Google Streetview.
Is skinning a large structure to appear like multiple structures dishonest? Absolutely! I could get over that if the execution had active space at the sidewalk level, with space for a Walgreend/CVS, Subway, etc. The ides is right, not look like a massive singular block with horizontal lines. Details do matter though.
— Steve Patterson
Interesting solution to a tough design problem. Is it better than a surface parking lot? Even a well-landscaped one? Absolutely! And, from a distance, it does fit the urban farbric better than a more contemporary structure would. But’ it’s also architecturally dishonest and, as another website notes, “the lack of ground floor retail creates a dead zone for pedestrians. With lack of eyes on the street, it has also become an attractive location for vagrants.” . . . http://www.panoramio.com/photo/110609425
There realy are more questions than answers, for us outsiders. Is there enough demand for more ground-floor retail in downtown Casper? Much like downtown St. Louis, there is density along certain downtown streets, but it rapidly fades to multiple blocks that are very low density and a great deal of surface parking*. If they build it, will they come? Will it be leased? What was here before? If it was retail, why did it fail (if it did)? And why is there a need for a full-block municipal parking garage? Is there that much demand for parking, presumably pay parking, in downtown Casper? And, there also appears to be a similar garage, ten blocks north, across from the state capitol, likely built at the same time time, which would make more sense, based on demand and context.
And for another tangent, here’s an interesting article about Mayor Jack Spiker, Fred Phelps, the Ten Commandments and Matthew Shepard: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1017508/posts
*https://www.google.com/maps/@41.132998,-104.8176873,591m/data=!3m1!1e3
Casper? That’s nearly 200 miles from Cheyenne…
Okay, got my cities confused – Cheyenne – my bad, but my comments are still the same . . .
This is in the heart of Cheyenne, just blocks from the renovated train station and not far from the state capital. I didn’t see any vacant storefronts.
The population of the entire state of Wyoming is 582,000. The population of Cheyenne is 62,448. The population of the city of St Louis is 318,416. Denver is less than 2 hours away. Do the math – there is a very limited market for retail in Cheyenne. Just because they “can” doesn’t mean they “should”!
Street level retail is a quick way of saying occupied first floor. With an occupied space at the sidewalk level you have doors where people come & go, windows to look into. Without the entire side of the block is dead — the only activity is to look at parked cars through the openings.
Retail storax selling merchandise is just one exams of what might located on a ground floor. Restaurants (chain or local), small professional officws (insurance, lawyer, etc. are others. Cheyenne appeared to have few surface parking lots, giving their downtown a more intact appearance than St. Louis.
I thought that the focus of this post was that a parking garage attempts to look like multple structures, not a single large structure, and not another excursion into the need for ground floor retail. I agree, an occupied first floor is better than either a surface parking lot or a vehicles-only parking structure (or, for that matter, a blank wall). One of the better solutions would be to wrap this (or any) parking structure with multi-story residential, but that comes with multiple, additional costs for fire protection, mechanical ventilation, sound proofing and structural issues. Is it “possible”? Absolutely! But there needs to be people willing to pay those additional costs, they don’t just happen/disappear in a vacuum.
Look at the aerial photos – the blocks surrounding their downtown core look much like the blocks surrounding our downtown core – along Washington, here, and along Carey and Pioneer, there, yes, you have a fairly intact urban experiennce, for 8-10 blocks, but that quickly changes once you get off the “main drag”, no differently than pretty much any other midwestern city that has less than 500,000 people. Assuming that the city could not justify either ground floor retail or wrapping the parking structure with occupied uses, they (and we) were left with the option of articulating the facade, decorating the facade or building a generic, boring, precast structure, with a plain concrete facade.
With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, and with the luxury of an unlimited budget, yes, this could have been “better”. But what this is is better than many, cheaper, more boring options. Is the glass half full or half empty? Neither you or I were there when these were being sited, funded and designed. We don’t know what constraints were faced, what compromises were made. Is it better to focus on what doesn’t work or on what does? Like you, I’m conflicted on the purity of the aesthetics, but it seems to be a better-than-average municipal parking structure – let’s leave it at that!
You mention demand for retail space. Yet you don’t seem to believe good design can create demand. What kind of capitalist are you, I guess all of the ads on TV, in print media, on buses, billboards and signs don’t work in your world?
Everything doesn’t boil down to additional cost in a linear fashion. People will pay more for something if they decide they want it. Good design often on top of everything.
One question in part depends on whether the current garage design would support the easy substitution of storefronts if demand came about.
Of course this all begins to relate to urban planning also, and what actions for transit (I assume there is transit) and the surrounding area are projected?
Which gets to potential structural costs, vents and so on. I’m not convinced it is so difficult in practice as described by Mark. There is a parking garage in the Loop with a storefront below. There is a parking entrance and exit about the width of a storefront along Delmar. (Good Works is the business)
If the garage is not in an area of projected walkability and density, then it should likely just build it as a garage and be done with it.
It appears to be a full city block, is that right? The fact they captured a few corners is nice actually, and I think it is important that the scale and texture of the garage matches the surroundings, but in this location I’m not sure it shouldn’t have been designated as commercial infill, or apartments along with the parking, or some other solution.
There is a large surface parking lot across the street on one side. There seems to be commercial all around otherwise, although at least one large vacant storefront. With Capital Street a few blocks away and this central location, I do think a more imaginative project could have spurred development. It appears to be a fairly key area, with some nice old buildings not far from the capital.
It can be described as an economic opportunity missed.
But yeah I have mixed feelings about faux fronts, it becomes like Disneyland. This garage seems more honest in its approach.
By capturing a few corners with commercial and by maintaining the scale and texture of the surrounding buildings it is clear they understood what they were doing has an major impact on the city and this neighborhood. I just don’t believe they carried their thinking far enough.
I’ll repeat, the population of the entire state of Wyoming is half that of just St. Louis County. The population of Cheyenne is half the population of Columbia, MO. It takes people to consume and it takes consumers to justify building retail. And yes, Cheyenne has public transit – http://www.cheyennecity.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4438 – but most people on the high plains are driving big ass pickups, not waiting for the bus. The places, out west, with populations less than 100,000 that have thriving, walkable “downtowns” are either college towns or resort towns. Normal, working, western cities and towns have their retail lining the major highways, with gas station mini-marts, the obligatory Walmart, multiple stand-alone franchised businesses, maybe a fading enclosed mall, the auto dealers, the farm equipment dealers, the mobile home dealers, the ranch supply stores, the propane dealer, none of which would work well in the old downtown (which is why they’re not there!). What works in the CWE or Wrigleyville or downtown London or Stockholm simply does not work in an area where spaces are wide and people are few. The quaint downtowns are occupied by small, local, businesses that pay little in rent and generate little in revenue. There simply is no viable financial reason for buiding more new stuff when the current stuff more than meets the current needs. And as far as attracting tourists, it’s going to take way, way more than attractive retail, here, in downtown Cheyenne. The big draw in Cheyenne is Frontier Days; other than that, tourists are passing through, hurrying to get to Yellowstone or Jackson Hole, Rocky Mountain National Park or Denver, or to the west or the east coast. Heck, the biggest local attraction is a massive truck stop that has its own golf course: http://wyoming.littleamerica.com/fuel-center/fuel-prices . . One size simply does not fit all when it comes to urban design!
When you say “one size simply does not fit all when it comes to urban design”, do you mean your consistently negative demeanor, no matter if it is St. Louis or Cheyenne, Wyoming?
You must belong to the party of no.
I appreciate your analysis, and sometimes you do an excellent job, but your skills also seem to be primarily directed at undermining any positive discussion of alternatives.
It is best illustrated by saying Steve should buy the garage in question and write the checks is condescending. As he says he is a critic and observer. It is a valid occupation of time. Especially given the fact the urban environment we live in has no observers in the MSM on the level of a Paul Goldberger or Ada Louise Huxtable, not to mention Jane Jacobs. (and Steve). Should they all develop and have financial interests in property before they voice criticisms and observations?
For me, I would feel better about your comments if once in a while you said, “okay, here’s an idea, maybe this will work”.
My “one size simply does not fit all when it comes to urban design” observation is in direct response to Steve’s constant statements that we need more ground floor retail placed next to every urban sidewalk in every parking structure. Yes, there are active, urban retail districts where multi-story parking structures have successful ground-floor retail – here is one good example, in Denver: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7465607,-104.993895,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCM5c_qso_HcgjSxYoJUz5w!2e0 . . and here’s another one, that’s marginally successful: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7453481,-104.9972015,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWCb7MWGX4nBCmQnyrdoj-w!2e0
Here are a couple of good, local examples: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6433006,-90.2617275,3a,90y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syjLY6PQbNdoo5UJQb5QScg!2e0 . . . and this smaller one: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6558206,-90.3035485,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNHIqBSapegJemeCfKLZmsg!2e0
But there are other locations, like this one, also from Denver, where good intentions resulted in higher costs and ground floor retail space that has remained vacant for more than a decade: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6839247,-104.963588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfsl1EY9MS2MW7l52vH9DEg!2e0
Context is everything. Good design requires nuance, not a sledge hammer. And density happens naturally when land values are high, NOT because some bureaucrat or critic thinks that it would be a good idea. And there’s a difference between true criticism and outright wishful thinking. True criticism usually involves an analysis of the details of completed projects, not creating hypothetical situations solely for the sake of discussion.
This post started out as an analysis about creating a fragmented and/or articulated facade on a large parking garage – Steve has his thoughts, I have mine, you have yours – that’s one issue, and one worthy of discussion. The amount of ground-floor retail provided is a completely separate discussion – storefronts can be designed into a wide range of facades, both “honest” ones and “dishonest” ones, but it’s more of an economic analysis / discussion than a design discussion.
Here is one place you are wrong, “density happens naturally when land values are high, NOT because some bureaucrat or critic thinks that it would be a good idea.”
First of all, even though it is a primitive process, current government zoning regulations are density drivers in use right now, so your statement is already false.
From a design standpoint you are saying screw mass transit and transportation planning, screw public spaces, screw quality of life.
So who is calling the shots in your scenario? A few developers like Paul McKee? Is that your ideal world?
It is the role of government to ensure that the city is built in the interests of all, not just a few.
Yes managing density is in the urban vocabulary. I haven’t looked it up in the City of London Unity Plan, but I would think a summary of a strategic goal for St. Louis might read “encourage density along major transit routes”. Then the developer has the flexibility to follow these or other strategic goals. This is an example of a working policy framework for transit and public space success, as practiced by the City of London.
So you are calling for free for all urban planning in St. Louis and the region, using people whose main goal is lusting after money. That is what you are saying, correct?
No, not correct. Government sets maximum densities with zoning and steers development by spending (or not) on public infrastructure. Government cannot force the private sector to spend money on projects that they don’t see as being profitable. We could double the density in downtown St. Louis without changing ANY zoning regulations or spending any more money on public transit. All it would take would be multiple private developers convincing multiple private tenants to sign leases to move into their proposed projects. See Ball Park Village – where are the office towers, the new housing? See the numerous surface parking lots and vacant former industrial structures waiting to be convereted to lofts. It boils down to simple supply and demand – government can’t make people choose to live anywhere!
You didn’t answer the question, so you think developers should make the decisions? No people cannot be forced to live anywhere, but if you build a city along with a transit system that is desirable it is far more likely people will embrace the community.
Again you mention supply and demand, so you are saying the many products in society, advertised fully on TV, print media and so on are not trying to develop desirable products and create demand for their product?
It follows then what you saying that the City of St. Louis should not attempt to create a desirable product, but instead leave everything in the hands of a few whose self interest is the main motivation?
Again, is that what you are saying?
…..why the discussion about ground-floor retail….? Steve mentioned that inclusion of ground-floor retail might justify use of the phony (dishonest) facade. My thought is that nothing good comes from ground-floor retail in a parking garage….nothing! And phony facades aren’t bothersome if the window openings are large enough to allow for adequate free air, and the use of noisy and expensive exhaust fans isn’t necessary. …..all things for a purpose………..!
An entire city block – four sides – of no doors and pedestrians only seeing parked cars is very bothersome in any downtown. Done right you can park the cars AND make a decent human space. Does it cost more than a bare bones garage? Yes! Is it worth it? Absolutely!
So, why don’t you put together the financing and make it happen?! It’s really easy to sit back and tell other people that they need to spend more money when you’re not the one writing the checks!
Ah, the weak “do it yourself” retort. Classic. I’m a critic, my role isn’t to build but to illustrate problems and solutions in the built environment.
Ah, the “I’m a critic” disclaimer. Classic. There’s a difference between valid criticism and just taking pot shots. Drive-by analysis, lacking any other context, has very little validity. I agree, an entire city block, covered in a one large structure with no doors, can be “bothersome”, but there usually are multiple reasons why it has come to exist.
You’re a parking wonk. Check out the city’s website on parking: http://www.cheyennecity.org/index.aspx?NID=101 . . It’s pretty easy to infer much of the thinking behind the garage – the majority of the parking downtown has a 2 hour limit and the city sells daily parking permits for $4 and monthly permits for $45 (approximately $2.25/day). The monthly permits can be purchased either by individuals or by businesses and provided to their employees. The goal is to free up on-street parking by providing relatively-affordable off-street parking.
I’m no expert on garage financing, but check with Mark. I’m guessing that an average of $2 or $3 per day per space, if that, in revenue, barely covers the debt service and operating costs on what’s there, now, and would never cover the added cost needed to add ground-floor, occupied space. So it boils down to do you do a full-block, fake-facade, parking-only garage, to free up on-street parking for existing businesses in existing decades-old structures? Or, do you do nothing, and see structures demolished so businesses can provide their own parking for their employees, further destroying the existing urban fabric?
For nearly a decade I’ve shared my sometimes critical observations. It’s an opportunity to dialog on topics I find interesting. Doing so helps me personally, others seemingly value what I do.
I think you’re off on your assumptions by viewing street-level retail solely as an added cost. The equation needs to account for increased activity (pedestrians, sales tax, etc) A more active street (both sides) helps the value of the real estate in the area leading to increased occupancy.
It’s only an added cost if the money spent does not deliver the desired results. As with everything else in real estate, it boils down to three things, location, location and location. In the proper environment, ground floor retail does make a lot of sense – if you can generate more in rent from a (most likely retail) tenant than you would from the same square footage devoted to parking, then YES, do it! But given the rates Cheyenne is charging for parking, they’re likely generating less than an average of $2 per space per day, or approximately $21.00 per square foot annually ($2/day x 312 days/year / 30 sq. ft.). Compare that with a comparable project, Dinneen Downtown, that is quoting rates of $19-$22 square feet (that includes shared, off-street parking): http://www.dinneendowntown.com/leasing.asp
Like I said, I’m not familiar with the details in Cheyenne, but I am familiar with multiple garages in Denver that were constructed with street-level retail spaces. One took years to get leased, one remains vacant after 10 years, and one is doing well. The same goes here – the garage on the Delmar Loop appears to be doing well, other ones, not so much. If there’s existing, active, retail nearby, then yes, more retail makes sense. But just building retail next to a sidewalk does not guarantee that tenants will sign on the dotted line or that customers will patronize said tenants.
And my point on criticism has more to do with the degree of possibility, the connection to reality. There are always an infinite range of possible solutions to any design problem IF you have an infinite budget and no external regulations, but that’s not the world we live in. Like you, I’m a fan of dialogue. Unlike you, I’d like to see some concretre results (pardon the pun), not pipe dreams that have a miniscule chance, at best, of ever beimg impemented. I have no problem with much of the thoughtful analysis that you do on many different topics. Here, it just seems more like drive-by criticism, analysis absent any historical context or contemporary financial input.
I’m trying to look at the bigger picture, here, not just this one block. You’ve stated that the fabric of downtown Cheyenne is relatively intact (and I agree) – the biggest priority should be protecting that fabric, not bringing in new competition. The big unknown, for both you and me, would be is downtown Cheyenne able to absorb another 80,000 square feet, give or take, of brand-new Class A retail space? Without depressing the rest of the downtown retail market? Yes, “A more active street (both sides) helps the value of the real estate in the area”; the question is are there enough pedestrians to support more (another full block) of retail? Is Cheyenne poised to see its population increase by 10% or 20% in the relatively near future? Or, do the local leaders have a better handle on local needs and local market conditions?
I tend to agree, except in dense, urban environments. This site is one of those transitional ones, dense on the east side, not dense on the west side. I have no idea what demand there is for parking, here, so I don’t know if this garage was done to encourage more people to shop in a fading downtown, as part of some convention center / entertainment complex plan, or as part of an effort to attract more office users to downtown. If the private sector had seen a need (and a market) for structured parking, they would have built it. But when the city is involved, it’s usually chasing some sort of dream or trying to “fix” something that really isn’t fixable. Usually, the only time a new government-owned parking structure makes sense is when it’s built to serve government employees or consumers of government services.
In my (unpopular-with-you) opinion, “ground-floor retail” and “concrete parking garage” should OFTEN not be used the the same sentence. While just about anything can be accomplished in the construction industry provided the owner has lots of little and big bags of money sitting around to cover costs, I question if it’s always fiscally wise to place retail below parking decks, which are subject the blowing rain and decks covered with vehicles potentially covered with melting snow and ice. In climates subject to freeze-thaw conditions, IMO long-term benefits of concrete parking structures can best be achieved if the concrete is post-tensioned/poured-in-place, vs. less-costly precast. But precast garage design/construction makes for easier placement of ground level retail–but it can often be more costly to maintain! In a precast garage, engineers have the advantage of attaching the skin directly to the mildly-reinforced columns and beams (whether poured in place or precast), which minimizes and in some cases substantially eliminates the need for expensive (exposed) expansion control, which is known typically to have high failure rates, even if installed properly. (I repeat: even if installed properly!!!!!). In post-tensioned concrete structures, we isolate the decks from the building skin, and we intentionally design the decks so that they “move” (vs remain rigid) as vehicles pass over them. Doing so allows the structure to move freely from the facade, and to derive other substantial performance enhancements inherent to the design. But the costs associated with providing, installing and MAINTAINING expansion control can go through the roof! And they are not as fail-safe as hanging a picture on the wall today and expecting to see it there tomorrow when you get out of bed! So in a PT structure, when retail space is provided at ground level, it is expensive and difficult and sometimes cost-prohibitive (depending on the seismic demands of the structure posed by soil conditions) to provide (to guarantee) a DRY retail space in an area that by design is intended to “move” and is located below 2 and 3-inch wide overhead perimeter expansion joints and overhead scissor-wall expansion joints at the deck/ramp interfaces. So when an owner requires ground-floor retail in his garage, I would evaluate the seismic demands dictated by the soils conditions, then discuss with him the pros and cons of precast-vs post-tensioned. Sometimes, though, precast is cost-prohibitive when seismic conditions are extreme (as is the case in several areas of downtown STL), so PT is the fiscally-wise alternative–but where the challenges of providing a dry first level are greater.
So, the next time you look at ground-floor retail in a parking garage, ask yourself if the decision-makers made the most fiscally-sound decisions for their constituents when they decided to build the structure. And then, the next time you see a garage with a fascia design dotted with small window-like openings like the one you saw in Cheyanne, ask yourself again if the decision makers were fiscally responsible, because in that particular design, hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested in a special exhaust system designed to provide ventilation in the garage that BY DESIGN relies on expensive mechanical means to achieve code-complIance, that cannot be achieved through the (essentiaLY free!) open-air exterior wall openings found in typical garage design. Not only do the HUGE fans need to be initially purchased and installed, then maintained and eventually replaced as they wear out, but they also have to be electrically energized–which costs several more bags of money each month and also creates another challenge of noise-control——which can also be addressed ( of course using several more bags of money to design, purchase and install the attenuators). A. Rand just might have something more to say about the honesty of these and other issues if a 21st century update were to be published!
Oh, and the next time you enter your favorite boutique located on the first level of a parking garage in downtown LA, Santa Monica or San Francisco, downtown STL, Cape Girardeau, Washington State or in another area of potentially lively seismic movement, where PT design was obviously utilized, don’t be too surprised if you might find a drip or two of water absorbed in the cardigan sweater displayed on the rack located on the exterior wall. Happy parking.
I agree, retail space within a garage structure is less than ideal.
With an entire city block this garage could’ve been designed like the garage for the new apartments at Forest Park & Vandeventer — in the middle of the block with new construction around the perimeter. One of the four corners has a two-story space but four long sides.
Ground-level retail does’t necessarily mean tucking space under the garage deck!
With all due respect, if the garage is PT, it does mean tucking space under the deck….unless you’ve got lots and lots of big bags of money…..!
For the benefit of others, PT refers to post-tensioned structure — poured in place concrete. This is why designing for people must come first.
They obviously didn’t want to look at another typical parking garage in their downtown, otherwise they wouldn’t have skinned it like they did.
Next time I’m visiting STL, I’d like to take a look at the FP/Vandeventer development.
My post on that garage is linked in this post. The garage is finished, they;ll be building the apartments around it so it’ll be concealed.
….an interesting yet expensive concept, …but potential developers should be prepared to pay for redundant foundations (all the way to bedrock!!!), expensive exhaust systems, crates and cases of additional lighting fixtures and the costs associated with 24-hr lighting, major fire-rated wall and fire-rated connecting door upgrades, sound attenuation upgrades to absorb the exhaust fan noise and the racket from the garage…and the list is likely much longer once the plan is developed…….so a $250.00 SF project quickly becomes a $325 SF project. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!