Updating Parking Garage Lighting
Yesterday I posted about a parking garage attempting, poorly, to look like numerous buildings. In researching the garage I discovered in June Cheyenne WY approved spending a little more than $130,000 to upgrade the lighting from metal halide fixtures to LED.
Bob Bradshaw, the city’s special projects director, said the current metal halide bulbs are “burning out at a rate of a couple a day” and can cost up to $260 each to replace.
Not only are the LED bulbs more energy efficient, they last longer and require less maintenance, Bradshaw said. That means the city would save money on both energy bills and maintenance costs with the new lights. (source)
The new lighting is estimated to save $253,077 over the next decade, with the break even point “in just over four years.” While in Colorado & Wyoming electricians finished replacing the old halogen lights in our condo parking garage, located underneath both buildings. The lights are on 24 hours a day, between electricity and replacements representing over 16% of our annual budget.
A rebate from Ameren reduced our upfront costs about 30%, but it was still a substantial investment. With a payoff of just 18 months the majority of us voted to proceed.
Once our inventory of compact fluorescents (CFL) has been depleted, we’ll begin using LED bulbs in our stairwells and hallways.
— Steve Patterson
Five years ago, Sporting News Lofts (2020 Washington) removed their garage halogen fixtures and replaced them with 2 and 4-tube F5 strip fluorescents. A friend lived in the building at the time, and he and I worked together on the project. Halogen fixtures had been installed (by the developer) only 4 years earlier, but frequent lamp replacements and high energy costs convinced their board to do something. We did photometrics and determined the building could reduce their fixture count by 40%, yet increase their lighting levels by 75%, just by switching to strip fluourescents.Their budgeted monthly electrical line item dropped by nearly 50%! Their winter heating costs, however, increased because the halogen fixtures burned so warm that the light fixtures had become the major source of garage heat! Heating was critical in the garages because the domestic and fire protection supply lines had been routed through the garages. Until the lighting fixtures had been switched out, the gas-fired unit heaters in the garage had never been turned on!!! So, while the lighting costs decreased (dramatically), their heating costs increased (not so dramatically, though). The net was still a major savings. LED lights weren’t as commonplace then, which is why fluorescents were selected.. (It’s a shame the original developers didn’t think more creatively!!!) Did your building’s lighting committee do a LED vs fluorescents cost analysis? It would be interesting to know what the payoff differential is.
Out fixtures had been in place for 9 years, the failure rate was getting increasingly worse. In my 3 year term on the board I wanted to get to this but didn’t.
I don’t know if a conparison to flourescent fixtures was done. For our stairs & halls LEDs just now make sense va CFLs, though I’d pay more because of the higher quality of the light.
Interesting, I know it doesn’t seem to apply here, but it shows how the design of the garage in relation to sunlight is important. I’m guessing retrofitting for sunlight is out of the question in this case. I also wonder of some type of solar collection system to run electric is feasible yet? I know it is close. While this garage might not work with solar, typically garages have a large exposure to the sun.
Garages should be designed and built to maximize exterior wall openings, and then there’s typically no need for solar panels and other active energy-capturing/generating gizmos, which are costly to purchase, initially install, maintain and replace. Perimeter lights can then be placed on photo-sensing circuits that turn off lighting during the day. And typically the larger exterior wall openings will provide for the required volume of free air recommended, and so there’s no need to run the fans to keep the air clean! If the openings get too large and tend to offend purists among the public, a creative architect can design a screen to disguise the opening–like was used at the Justice Center Garage in downtown STL, all over Chicago, NY, LA, Paris, Tel Aviv, Frankford, etc…. Simple is good–just like a well-designed barn intended to house hay. Simple.
Disagree, parking garages are a necessary evil but they shouldn’t be visible. Our garage is below grade — out of sight. The justice center screens are a joke!
Maybe if the iron workers had used a level and a plumb line those screens would have been erected properly and they’d be more appealing to you? In the case of the Justice Center garage, at least in ten years the City won’t be faced with replacing solar collectors and associated gadgetry and exhaust/ventilation fans.They won’t have spent thousands of unnecessary dollars on utility bills. Certainly, there should be some respect shown by designers for the environment, as well as for the citizens whose hard earned tax dollars build these “necessary evils”. Why waste $ on solar gagetry when “natural” is fail-safe?
One man’s trash is another man’s…….! Personally, I’m sort of fond of those screens. There’s an architect in Santa Monica who prefers corrugated panels in his designs. He’s done fairly well for himself over the years! With my experience on a southern farm, I’m sorta used to and fond of corrugated as well. Maybe Desman should have specified “corrugated” in lieu of “angular, perforated and crooked.”
Actually the solar panels and other gizmo’s are quickly becoming competitive. Germany is kicking the ass of the United States in this area, moving towards a renewable future. There have been recent gains in storage of power also. When that happens fully solar will become a preferred solution when feasible and often. So I would be careful before you cavalierly discount it. In fact if it was not for the opposition of the fossil fuel industry and their paid politicians, America would be much further along and likely more innovative than Germany.
As far as the design of garages, I was talking about using light wells or other shapes, such as rectangles rather than square garages for natural light and ventilation purposes where possible.
Even with screens, I have not seen many garages that I find appealing,
I know in cities like Helsinki, that have excellent transit everyone uses, there is less need for parking garages.
And if a garage is built they manage the urban planning environment aspects so that the garage does not impact main pedestrian and human use areas in a negative way.
Thus parking garages do not exist in Helsinki within critical human use areas. Compare this to how we build parking garages in the St. Louis area or in the Cheyenne example. It is an anything goes urban planning. Almost completely discounting the lives of the people living in the city in the process.
Doing without the garages at all would really be simple, wouldn’t it?
Yes, it would be “really simple”, along with banning surface parking lots and prohibiting on-street parking, IF your goal is to kill downtown as a viable commercial core! The vast majority of Americans want to drive, they don’t want to walk long distances or take transit. If they can’t drive downtown, they will drive to the suburbs, because they can!
Downtown Helsinki is like downtown San Francisco, Vancouver and Stockholm (and not like downtown St. Louis or downtown Cheyenne). It’s located on a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by water. The supply of land is finite, land prices are high, and you can’t afford to do surface parking, so structured parking is expensive and the only option.
You and I have a fundamental different take on how humans think. You think that most people prefer and want public transit. I think that most people prefer and want the freedom of their own vehicles. And we both believe that theses preferences / choices shape our built environment. I lived out west for half my life. Few people in Cheyenne have any interest in public transit, so if your goal is to “save” their downtown, you better figure out how to have convenient parking!
I never said most people prefer and want public transit. I said that good urban design, including transit, creates alternatives for individuals. A good urban design framework creates value and can encourage development. That is why Helsinki keeps surface parking and garages out of critical human use areas.
Apparently you have some sort of anti design, pro fossil fuel agenda. Certainly you are not interested developing environments that enhance the quality of life for citizens.
Your mantra continues to be that human beings are helpless and we should do nothing at all. You ignore any suggestions how to improve the daily life in St. Louis and you cling hopelessly to the status quo. It is your sort of thinking that has decimated St. Louis in the first place.
If people want to use something, they will figure out how to do so. If they don’t want to, they won’t. Call me pragmatic or call me a cynic, but what I’d like to see people do (live more efficiently and consume less) isn’t borne out in the real world – Metro struggles to put out more services while people snap up big SUV’s and crew cab pickup trucks. McMansions in the suburbs sell while solid housing in north city and north county loses its value. I agree, “A good urban design framework creates value and can encourage development”, but it takes more than a framework, it takes actual buy-in.
My point isn’t that “we should do nothing at all”, my point is that it’s not as simple as just creating a “plan” in a vacuum, it takes planning, it takes funding, it takes engagement, it takes compromise and it takes leadership and buy-in, at multiple levels. It also takes success stories – success builds on success. Metrolink has been around for 20 years – why hasn’t transit-oriented development taken off around here (as it has in other cities)?
I also disagree that my “sort of thinking ahs decimated St. Louis in the first place”. What role did urban planning play in the city in the 50 years between 1880 and 1930, when the city grew from 350,000 residents to 822,000? Zoning was rudimentary, at best, and the streetcars were owned by private companaies, and not by the government. When you’re adding 40,000 (or more) people every decade, then YES, you can direct growth, you can see significant change. But when you’re losing 40,000 (or more) people a decade, as St. Louis has been doing every decade since 1950, there’s much, much less that you can “plan” for, other than demolition.
It’s not that “we should do nothing at all”, it’s that it’s really, really hard to do something, anything, if people don’t want to join in on the fun! People really don’t want to see overly-optomistic plans and to hear hollow promises, they want to see tangible results. And people don’t want to engage in the necessary planning processes if they expect the results will “end up on a shelf, somewhere”, never to be implemented.
You are missing the point. Urban Planning, say like the Strategic Goals of the City of London, are just that, a set of goals of city development the government uses to in day to day operations. The developers use the same goals. It is organized so citizens are part of the process to determine those goals, I think it is every 10 years.
This has absolutely nothing to do with sticking plans on a shelf.
Yes the debate might be whether the concept of Strategic Goals is organic and flexible enough to meet the needs of society.
I realize fully there is an organic aspect to city life, in fact it is an important aspect.
However I don’t have to remind you, an architect in planning and designing a building will go down to the very spacing of subfloor nails or whether to use glue or not, if so what kind? This is true of every aspect of the building. A worker is not told to stick the plumbing where ever they feel like.
Yet that is how St. Louis City and Regional Planning is conducted.
It is irresponsible to not apply some structure or framework to urban planning. For example the failure to support public investment in transit.
What should that framework be like is a question? I would much rather try to figure that out that get distracted by costs.
Trust me, I have dealt with hundreds of budgets, including in a development capacity. I know there are real costs for what is proposed. Everyone knows this to a greater or lesser degree.
For example you dissed Steve for suggesting commercial shops in that Cheyenne garage. You gave a litany of financial reasons why it is not possible.
This is a blog, a place for discussion, and in fact the question in Cheyenne to me was along Steve’s line of thought. Is it possible to design that garage into a must hang out place? Placing parking in a secondary position, maybe include the vacant lot across the street. May work or may not, it’s a theoretical conversation, but one that a person can learn something from.
It seems to me a more interesting exercise of thought, trying to solve problems or look at things in a different way.
Urban Review is never going to finance a project. That is not to say it isn’t valid to bring up costs, but trying to find solutions seems to me a better use of time. Not to mention urban planning in St Louis is poorly done and needs some critical thinking applied.
One last note: I have been looking at the old streetcar systems and how they were privately owned. Trying to figure out how that worked, how they made a profit.
I have mentioned previously on Urban Review that Hong Kong has a mixed transit system of private and public ownership. It is also interesting how they handle land deals.
Of all places Oulu, Finland has a privately owned bus system, actually different companies own different lines. As I get time I was going to try to figure out how it all works.
We have different perspectives on what constitutes discussion – I’m not all that interested in debating the merits of plans that have a miniscule chance, at best, of ever happening, while it appears that you and Steve are more willing to delve into “what if’s” that rely on hypothetical funding – we all need our hobbies. And the problems that need to be looked at in a different way, around here, have less to do with urban planning and more to do with racism, white flight, gun crimes, failing schools and a stagnant economy.
As for privately-financed public transit systems, you may also want to explore what Denver’s RTD is doing, now, using public-private partnerships to finance some of their current FasTracks program. You may also want to explore what the American Public Transit Association (APTA) has to say on the topic., as well as http://www.governing.com. . I haven’t been following it very closely, but it seems to be something where a lot of government entities are jumping on the bandwagon.
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-public-private-popular.html
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-keys-successful-public-private-partnerships.html
http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-moodys-public-private-partnerships.html
For the creative process, I find it is not until the end you understand the ramifications, so whether something has a miniscule chance of happening and you are not interested I think misses opportunities.
The garage in Cheyenne is not going to change anytime soon, yet both design and financial considerations were discussed. Population considerations, economic considerations of all sorts are important, but ultimately the developer is after a winning concept that will generate success at the chosen site.
I like the line of thought thinking about looking at garages in a different way. Steve mentioned the garage with apartments built around it. On the Cheyenne garage, Steve mentioned adding more commercial. That’s right, maybe rethink the garage as a public space, maybe a u shaped building with a plaza with a space for transit or markets as well as commercial and a garage in back or where necessary. That certainly would change the meaning of this part of the Cheyenne. Considering that the garage with the faux front will be there 20, 30 or even 40 years increases the stakes for a right decision.
The role of the developer is to find a winning solution.
By the way it’s not a hobby, it’s life. Some of the ills you mention can be blunted or alleviated by a better city and a better life for its inhabitants.
You are selling Urban Review short if you think it is a hobby. Only a few aldermen have posted here, but generally political types don’t want transparency and are deathly afraid of public interaction. Truthfully I find it sort of odd there isn’t a government point of view expressed sometimes.
These are issues that often relate to policy decisions in government. A debate is held no where else except here and a maybe a few other blogs.
Given the dysfunctional nature of City and Regional planning is real and almost completely out of control, how can what is happening not be questioned? That is in part what Steve and other blog sites address. It is not a hobby.
Surely you don’t think a well thought out city supported by citizen participation is the result of a hobby, do you?
Thanks for the transportation link, it describes a corporate approach to transportation control. (not as well done as Hong Kong)
I’m talking something like private jitney’s in India all over the place. Personally I think something like that could be interesting in St. Louis and see what happens. Of course the taxi’s and metro would complain that it would be messy capitalism and they wouldn’t be assured of their standard cut.
Especially given how tore up St. Louis is, small scale, flexible jitneys might be an answer. Of course the taxi’s and metro would make more money in that scenario, but they don’t understand why, hence their disapproval.
But yeah, thanks for the link.
Light wells interrupt parking layouts. A garage layout really can’t be modified as you might do with an apartment/condo/office layout, where a light well might work. Gotta get the cars in, parked, and then out the door with minimal obstructions and circuitous pathways. Ever visit Mansion House garage? Gotta keep the layout simple–otherwise, you’re spending more money than it’s worth. Minimal and shared ramps make for an economical design–difficult with light wells. Light wells would complicate the PT cable layout. In construction, complication = higher costs. Beam/girder cambers, floor drain placements, finisher costs would skyrocket…and then some! Visibility might even be obstructed. Additional crash walls/guardrails would have to be constructed–more $. Gotta have lots of non-earmarked big bags of money sitting around to cover the costs of those extra crash wall/guardrails. To be effective in a 10-story garage (even at the lowest levels), the light well would probably have to be at least 10′ wide x the length of the garage. This would HOG too much valuable footage and often would render the project undo-able. A smart developer likes to maximize his building parcel. My family and I live in Germany, where parking garages are becoming more popular as the economy improves. And I don’t see a lot of solar panels being used in garage construction anywhere in Europe or the US because garage owners tend to neglect their investments, and solar panels require frequent cleaning and adjustments.
In STL and most US cities, people tend to favor use of their vehicle over public transportation. So the responsible thing is to accommodate those residents (taxpayers). What better way to accommodate them than to build a 10-story concrete parking garage with chain-link and corrugated panel screens to conceal the exterior wall voids?
The only place that I’m aware of that has structured parking with light wells is Denver International Airport, but those are massive garages, so the incremental costs are fairly minimal, especially since it eliminates the need for mechanical ventilation: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8493174,-104.6739526,359m/data=!3m1!1e3
If you read what I wrote I said light wells and other shapes of garages are possible when appropriate. As far as solar on garages, the fact that owners tend to neglect their investments does not mean solar panels are not a alternative.
Can you give me intersections and cities where these garages have proven more popular in Germany?
Finally, it is the poor urban design of St. Louis that forces people into auto’s, leaving no viable alternatives. Thus the need for what is basically the albatross hung across the neck of society: large surface parking and parking garages.
First, there are parking garages all over Europe, including in Germany. Go to any large German city (Munich, Wolfburg, Stuttgart, Cologne, Offenburg, Dusseldorf, et al.) and you’ll find NEW parking garage (parking towers as they’re typically called in Germany especially). They’re running out of room there too! They need to go somewhere with the cars!
Now: PARKING GARAGE DESIGN 401: Unless automated, parking garages don’t typically come in several shapes and sizes. Rectangles typically work well! Triangles, circles, squares, even trapezoids may look great to an interior designer, but a parking garage engineer/architect doesn’t consider them seriously. Why? In order to maximize use of the investment (land, foundations, structure, ramps, deck, utilities, etc), the garage layout and parking pattern have to be kept simple and repetitive. Desirable/recommended width of a well-designed (single helix) garage is 160′-162′ (double helix is typically 237-239. Those dimensions in a single helix garage generally provides for (2) 18′ deep parking spaces and one 22′ common drive lane and 1′ for each of 2 crash walls on either side of a 22′ wide ramp. Add 77-78′ or so feet for a double helix garage. PT cables are most economical when sized to fit those repetitive dimensions. Column dimensions and locations, girder and beam sizes work best in that layout, too, without restricting head clearances, which would likely be necessary in order to provide for larger spans . If you go to the trouble of building a 162′ wide garage, then you’re going to want to make it as long as you can in order to justify the expense. Longer is better because you can fit more cars in to the garage!!!!!
Triangles and circles, 1/2 moon shapes, star shapes (EVEN squares if for some bizarre reason the reason for using the square is for architectural interest only) and MOST trapezoids waste space. And to build a trapezoid, your foundations layout becomes more complicated, forming materials and reinforcing become specialized, and other than for aesthetics, it not worth the effort–especially to a developer who wants (of course) to maximize his investment. Those odd shapes are pretty (I suppose), but they just doesn’t make sense in a parking garage.
I was responding to Steve’s concern that energy costs were excessive in his garage, I’m saying perhaps other building forms might address those concerns, not sure why you want cones, pyramids or other shapes for a parking garage or what it has to do with anything. What it the old saying? you can’t put lipstick on a pig, same with a garage, nothing you do is going to make it look like anything but a garage.
As far as the question about naming an intersection where a new garage was built in Germany, I’m interested in researching the location to see how the garage was integrated with the environment, no doubt there are parking garages all around Germany, Europe and the world. With an address or intersection I can at least look at that garage and its location in relation to the rest of the urban plan.
What German city are you in?
Had to choose between Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt. We finally chose Frankfurt because it offered excellent educational opportunities for the boys. I know of few parking garages that fully integrate into an “urban plan.” Typically when the need arises, the garage soon follows, regardless of the building types around the land parcel. And surely you have the ability to go on-line and do your own research, for god’s sake!
You were so certain mentioning new garages that I thought you knew some locations, hey if you don’t no problem, no reason to get snarky!
Typically I take the location and go to Google maps from there I can use street view and walk around to get a feel for what is going on. That along with the ability to look at the whole city map allows me to decide how far to pursue my interest in the subject.
In this case I was especially interested in new garages to see how they are integrated, not only with the urban plan, but also with the architectural approach.
Since you indicate you are in Germany, I guess you see how backwards and primitive America has become in regards to quality of life and other issues.
No, I don’t agree with your last statement. Many Europeans do feel that American culture is vapid, flaccid, uninspired. I am not among them. I actually love America, I am living in Europe only because of the educational, cultural and job-related opportunities that Europe offers me and my family. I grew up in a tiny city (town) in Alabama carved out of the backwoods, and I am proud of my upbringing. We didn’t have a lot, and opportunities of all kinds were very limited, but we respected family, our elders, one another, and law enforcement. And we earned what we had! Both my parents are elderly, and so I visit them in Alabama at least once a month when I am in the US on business. I cherish the time I have here in the states, especially in Alabama. Quality of life? You’ve got it here in the USA. The major problem America has to deal with is how to become less socialistic, how to demand responsible and commonly-regarded decent behavior among certain groups, and how to convince individuals that they have to work for a living and that society and government just don’t owe them everything. IMO, so many of USA’s shortcomings would be resolved if only politicians had the guts to stand up to society’s sponges.
The real sponges are much of the wealthy class. They sit on their ass and steal money from everyone else. They have bought the government to do their bidding. I don’t want to get into politics, but you must be absolutely blind to what is going on. And you say “you are only living in Europe because of the educational, cultural and job-related opportunities the Europe offers”
What’s wrong, Alabama doesn’t offer any of that? Damn right, that’s what the hell I’m talking about.
Give me a break.
You hit the nail on one point–only. Alabama fails to offer the cultural. educational and (certainly) job-related opportunities that I am seeking for my family and myself. But Alabamans tend to have a work ethic that I haven’t found in other parts of the US. Not saying it doesn’t exist elsewhere–just that I haven’t found it to be as prevalent.. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because we don’t push a liberal agenda. Have a nice day. I’m going home in three hours, hoping it make it in time to see my youngest son’s strings concert.