City looks to reduce surface lots while leaving room for commuters

27 thoughts on “City looks to reduce surface lots while leaving room for commuters”

1. I’d love to see more apartment and condo owners provide free bus passes for residents. That would not be a huge expense for them, and it might even help them reduce their own number of needed parking spaces.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I’m not sure that IndyGo has either the know-how or ambition to develop and promote a marketing plan to get not just apartment/condo buildings to provide bus passes to their residents but also get employers near bus routes to do the same. It seems to me they are missing a huge opportunity to fill seats and increase revenue.

   2. Kevin, I like your idea for apartment owners. However, just an FYI, as opposed to apartment owners and residents, condo owners and residents are the same people.

   3. Nancy- whoops, good point.

   4. This is an excellent idea.

   5. If the renter demand is there for it, it is something they would consider. If it is an expense (even if not huge) that does not drive additional rent/occupancy, it is just a burden carried vs. operating margin from ownership’s eyes.

      The problem is that many downtown renters do not walk to work and existing bus routes do not run on a convenient enough schedule to take them where they need to go.

      Even if a developer wants to use this as a tool to create more rentable space from the ground up, there has to be proof of concept or it can create a long term drag on the operability of the site.

   6. If they did consider that, somehow I feel like the statehouse would find a way to nix that deal.

2. Another site to eliminate parking lots would be to the north of the State Capitol. The lot adjacent to the capitol should be turned into a green space matching the southside. Not sure why the state legislators can not cross the street to the adjacent parking lot across Ohio Street.

   Log in to Reply

   1. That lot has been there for so many years, but yes. It is an unfortunate eyesore. People traveling down Capitol Avenue are greeted with a block and a half of surface parking that is owned by the state of Indiana before they get to the Capitol building. Who knows if that will ever change.

   2. This is a crusade that I usually go on, but the other Robert H. got to it first.

   3. The State owns that lot and isn’t subject to any city rules. I suspect that the state house is so hostile toward Indiana cites, that if anybody in the city suggested green space would look better, they would respond by seal coating the lot and repainting the lines.

3. We have to enlarge pedestrian space and transit infrastructure at the same time. Density without those is untenable.

   Log in to Reply

   1. It isn’t ideal but it’s certainly not untenable. That’s a bit dramatic.

   2. I don’t think that John was being dramatic. You have to reduce the amount of space given to cars to sustainably increase density.

   3. The city has been enlarging pedestrian space and increasing transit infrastructure for many years. And, the move to modestly increase density is being done in tandem with continuing pedestrian and transit infrastructure improvements.

      Frankly, Indianapolis is one of the most suburban cities in the country. It would have to increase its density by many magnitudes before it became “untenable.” It has about the same population density as its suburb Carmel.

4. That isn’t a new concept or even a new policy. Extensive work has been done to reduce the amount of surface parking for decades.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I suppose most of that’s true, but it certainly hasn’t been a priority in Indianapolis for “decades”. From what I remember, it didn’t really become a major priority until Ballard pushed through the CityWay development. Before that it seemed to be more about individual projects (like the JW Marriott) vs increasing density in general.

   2. It was expressly identified as an issue as far back as the Lugar administration. The Regional Center has waived minimum parking requirements for most of its districts since it’s inception. Those two on their own merits are decades worth of policy.

      Ironically, the parking lot photographed is the biggest affront to this policy as when that whole block caught fire, and that building destrooyed – one use specifically identified as inappropriate was a long term stand alone surface lot. Of course it was pitched as temporary but anyone with half a functioning brain at the time knew it was a ehse.

5. I’ve always wondered about the perverse incentives that the property tax system generates to encourage the continued use as surface lots.

   It makes no sense that the ugliest lowest density use gets the lowest tax rates.

   Log in to Reply

6. With all the challenges downtown Indy is facing, many of which are the result of horrible political leadership, this initiative should be close to the bottom of the priority list.

   Log in to Reply

7. FYI folks, the surface parking lot has always been a ‘temporary’ land use in wait for a future and better development. In the mean time owners tried to make money on them or to just serve their adjacent buildings with parking. NO urban design plan proposed them as a permanent land use.

   Log in to Reply

   1. It’s been a listed permanent/primary land use since the 60s, and was never expressly prohibited before that. With that logic, all existing structures are waiting for future and better development – which in and of itself is I suppose inherently true.

   2. Good point Kevin.

8. As someone from the northern part of Indiana who travels to Indianapolis for both entertainment and statehouse business, I’m all for a more aesthically pleasing look and reducing waste and wasted spaces, but I wonder what this will mean for those of us coming in from the outside. I will be interested to watch how this unfolds and hope the city can truly benefit in making greener spaces as well as providing better solutions for downtown transportation.

   Log in to Reply

9. So, is the reduction in ground parking space going to increase the need for other transportation?

   Or, is the reduced number of commuters via automobile going result in less need for parking space?

   Which is most likely to happen?

   For Indianapolis area commuters, IMHO, neither of the options are likely to have a cause and effect.
   1) We are too used to driving our own vehicles. and 2) reducing ground space is unlikely to have an effect on that.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Slow process Michael, as the value and need for developing the surface lots evolves, the feasibility of parking garages becomes more financially viable. The large cities have already done this. There will always be parking, just the costs and locations will change over time. The big seasonal or specialized venues like the State Fair, Indy 500, the Zoo, and even Lucas Oil Stadium will continue to maintain surface parking, and the downtown core will evolve with more garages.

10. Before this goes to far I would think a mass transit plan needs to be in place and implemented. I live in the suburbs and make it downtown several times a month for various reasons. I would think the restaurant owners and owners of businesses that don’t have dedicated garages/parking could be in trouble if the surrounding parking lots were developed creating even more competition for parking that currently serve them.

    Log in to Reply