Is there not enough parking, or is there not enough parking with a stones throw of the bars? Is the parking garage always full?australopithecus robustus said:woodiewood said:
Either leave it as a parking lot or convert it or half of it to a grassed park with a covered performance stage on one end where budding artists could play on football and other weekend. Put in a lot of wood/concrete table and benches where persons could sit and have a drink and just enjoy themselves.
Everything does not have to be developed into the maximum commercial possibility and the maximum revenues generated.
Where will everyone park? There's already not enough parking.
Northgate City Parking Lot Repurposing?
6,136 Views |
90 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by 2wealfth Man
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,611
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The overall parking for the area at large has been degraded over the years and consequently underserves on weekends and large events.
The parking in close proximity to the center of northgate is vital. Think of if Century Square had no surface parking that gave the chance of convenient parking. The 'teaser" parking is very, very important. If Century Square had zero surface parking and only garage, it would not work. See Rice Village, or hundreds of other developments across the state. These dense areas work much better with a mix of both.
The parking in close proximity to the center of northgate is vital. Think of if Century Square had no surface parking that gave the chance of convenient parking. The 'teaser" parking is very, very important. If Century Square had zero surface parking and only garage, it would not work. See Rice Village, or hundreds of other developments across the state. These dense areas work much better with a mix of both.
I typically will Uber when I go to NG, but the handful of times in recent years that I've driven, the parking garage has had plenty of availability.
Got some more input from city staff. Data is clunky to deal with and they didn't want to send me something unusable (but it doesn't sound bad compared to what I do with my job).
But the upshot is that they are seeing that except for those two weekends/gamedays (t.u., LSU), things are generally at 40-60%. Even during peak evening hours it seems to stay between 80-90%.
I am going to keep trying to get access to the data for 2024 to see what I can see. But it looks like parking shortages are not such a big issue. Though they might need to bump up prices a bit during those big gamedays.
But the upshot is that they are seeing that except for those two weekends/gamedays (t.u., LSU), things are generally at 40-60%. Even during peak evening hours it seems to stay between 80-90%.
I am going to keep trying to get access to the data for 2024 to see what I can see. But it looks like parking shortages are not such a big issue. Though they might need to bump up prices a bit during those big gamedays.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
I imagine a big chunk of northgate patronage is from people that walk from campus and northgate apartments (whether theirs or a friends) and from people that Uber. Since it is a bar district, that's a positive to avoid people driving drunk.
If the desire is to turn NG into more of an entertainment district with all-day dining and retail, then parking will be more of an issue.
If the desire is to turn NG into more of an entertainment district with all-day dining and retail, then parking will be more of an issue.
I would be fine with some limited street parking in certain areas, as long as it follows the practice of being more expensive than the garage. There has been a lot of research and studies that concluded higher cost street parking in prime locations and lower cost garage pricing greatly reduces traffic and congestion in the area. If the garage costs more than street parking, people will circle forever looking for spots. If the garage is cheaper, people will take the extra steps to save a few bucks. I know some will disagree, but there should be no "free" parking anywhere in the Northgate district unless it is in a garage and time limited (think CVS spots at The Rise).
woodiewood said:
Either leave it as a parking lot or convert it or half of it to a grassed park with a covered performance stage on one end where budding artists could play on football and other weekend. Put in a lot of wood/concrete table and benches where persons could sit and have a drink and just enjoy themselves.
Everything does not have to be developed into the maximum commercial possibility and the maximum revenues generated.
This, with two or three levels of parking garage underground. Lots of examples around the country of successful central city green space on top of buried garages.
I can't believe that in all these discussions over Northgate not once has the idea of College Main reopening has come across.
PS3D said:
I can't believe that in all these discussions over Northgate not once has the idea of College Main reopening has come across.
It was closed specifically to improve pedestrian safety. There was a lot of discussion about it and multiple news stories.
I figure it is just known that it's not an option.
maroon barchetta said:PS3D said:
I can't believe that in all these discussions over Northgate not once has the idea of College Main reopening has come across.
It was closed specifically to improve pedestrian safety. There was a lot of discussion about it and multiple news stories.
I figure it is just known that it's not an option.
You can see people in this thread discussing changing the open container ordinance when it comes to redeveloping the parking lot. I'm not sure if that's being seriously considered but that was also instituted specifically to problems in Northgate (which was heavily discussed).
PS3D said:maroon barchetta said:PS3D said:
I can't believe that in all these discussions over Northgate not once has the idea of College Main reopening has come across.
It was closed specifically to improve pedestrian safety. There was a lot of discussion about it and multiple news stories.
I figure it is just known that it's not an option.
You can see people in this thread discussing changing the open container ordinance when it comes to redeveloping the parking lot. I'm not sure if that's being seriously considered but that was also instituted specifically to problems in Northgate (which was heavily discussed).
Open container ordinance can be changed on paper and by removing a few signs.
Opening College Main again requires a construction project. Quite a difference in scale there.
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,611
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Neither of these will happen because police will not agree to them. Open container is an enforcement nightmare that will cause a cascade of issues and opening college main is now a safety concern.
australopithecus robustus said:
Neither of these will happen because police will not agree to them. Open container is an enforcement nightmare that will cause a cascade of issues and opening college main is now a safety concern.
Is there a problem with College Main being closed? Seems like a pretty cool pedestrian area that just needs some renovation TLC to me. Am I wrong? Please advise.
Since we are talking about parking in Northgate. When was it approved to remove all the on the street parking next to St. Mary's? Why did they feel the need to add bike lanes? The street was pretty wide enough for parking and the traffic flow (cars and bikes). And if bicycle safety is mentioned: when was the last reported bicycle accident on Nagle Street?
We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate.
We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate.
mason12 said:
Since we are talking about parking in Northgate. When was it approved to remove all the on the street parking next to St. Mary's? Why did they feel the need to add bike lanes? The street was pretty wide enough for parking and the traffic flow (cars and bikes). And if bicycle safety is mentioned: when was the last reported bicycle accident on Nagle Street?
We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate.
Thanks for the feedback.
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
mason12 said:
Since we are talking about parking in Northgate. When was it approved to remove all the on the street parking next to St. Mary's? Why did they feel the need to add bike lanes? The street was pretty wide enough for parking and the traffic flow (cars and bikes). And if bicycle safety is mentioned: when was the last reported bicycle accident on Nagle Street?
We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate.
It's ok to proactive and not wait until there is an accident to think about safety.
Really, it is.
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,611
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps my wording was confusing. I am saying that if opened, college main would become a safety concern in the eyes of the police. That's what they petitioned to close it in the first place.
australopithecus robustus said:
Perhaps my wording was confusing. I am saying that if opened, college main would become a safety concern in the eyes of the police. That's what they petitioned to close it in the first place.
Thanks for the clarification - I had read it wrong.
Respectfully
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,611
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate."
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER
australopithecus robustus said:
"We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate."
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER
Probably not what the city wants to hear.
maroon barchetta said:australopithecus robustus said:
"We shouldn't be removing parking in Northgate."
BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER
Probably not what the city wants to hear.
As one member of council and just one Aggie, it's hard for me to believe there's nothing better we can do to solidify Northgate and make it even more special than it is, beyond doing nothing. You all own the city surface lot. It's right in the middle of Northgate proper. A student tower is going up across the street on Boyett and one across Church from it. We are at that moment in development history where Northgate is going to be solidified as something incredibly unique forever more, or it's going to get developed over. It's hard to believe leaving it a parking lot is going to help ensure the former.
Am I wrong? If not, y'all need to think on it harder. I need your help and that's why I started the thread. In 2040, what should that surface lot be?
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
We need to think on it harder?
Read what you just wrote.
Good grief, man.
It's not going to get developed over unless the city sells it to a developer. Probably one with a former city employee on board.
How about y'all "think harder"; but in this case, also "think smarter".
The city doesn't have a good track record with land deals. Or fiscal responsibility.
Maybe consider being a leader instead of telling message board members to "think harder".
Read what you just wrote.
Good grief, man.
It's not going to get developed over unless the city sells it to a developer. Probably one with a former city employee on board.
How about y'all "think harder"; but in this case, also "think smarter".
The city doesn't have a good track record with land deals. Or fiscal responsibility.
Maybe consider being a leader instead of telling message board members to "think harder".
Aside from using a bunch of taxpayer money to manifest some goofy project that government folks think would be cool (which would be a very bad idea)... having it sit as a government-run parking lot is pretty close to the top spot of worst conceivable outcomes.
Northgate land is way to valuable to squander like that.
Ideally, the city just sells it to the highest bidder. Private owners will be way more likely to figure out something cool to do with it. Committees of bureaucrats or councilfolk or concerned citizens are not good at making these calls. And if the 'more parking' people are right, the buyer might build a garage and make a fortune.
But the idea that the best thing to do with an acre in the middle of Northgate is leave it as a government-run surface lot indefinitely - that is bananas.
Northgate land is way to valuable to squander like that.
Ideally, the city just sells it to the highest bidder. Private owners will be way more likely to figure out something cool to do with it. Committees of bureaucrats or councilfolk or concerned citizens are not good at making these calls. And if the 'more parking' people are right, the buyer might build a garage and make a fortune.
But the idea that the best thing to do with an acre in the middle of Northgate is leave it as a government-run surface lot indefinitely - that is bananas.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
More bars
australopithecus robustus
Joined:
Oct 23, 2009
Posts:
2,611
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is exactly because of that lot's unique location and value that it should be handled with the most care. The city can only sell it one time, that is all. After that is gone forever. There's plenty of space going a mile behind northgate for more high rises. It has been mentioned that the city ground lease it or part of it so that it could be monetized in perpetuity, much like the Century Square project. We must think deeper and more clearly than just the black and white thinking of "sell to the highest bidder".
Brian Alg said:
Aside from using a bunch of taxpayer money to manifest some goofy project that government folks think would be cool (which would be a very bad idea)... having it sit as a government-run parking lot is pretty close to the top spot of worst conceivable outcomes.
Northgate land is way to valuable to squander like that.
Ideally, the city just sells it to the highest bidder. Private owners will be way more likely to figure out something cool to do with it. Committees of bureaucrats or councilfolk or concerned citizens are not good at making these calls. And if the 'more parking' people are right, the buyer might build a garage and make a fortune.
But the idea that the best thing to do with an acre in the middle of Northgate is leave it as a government-run surface lot indefinitely - that is bananas.
We need to sell our Central park, Thomas Park, and Lick Creek park to developers so as they can put in subdivisions which increases our property tax base. Sell them.
Brison park next to A&M could have a large student housing development. Lots of tax money being lost. Sell it.
What was wrong with OG proposal? Especially if it could be extended to include the extra 0.57 acres? Parking, greenspace, some retail if it ever matters and student housing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/813400525/Oldham-Goodwin-conceptual-site-plans-and-renderings
https://www.scribd.com/document/813400525/Oldham-Goodwin-conceptual-site-plans-and-renderings
It got the same treatment as the Jim Lewis proposal for Macy's. Placed in the circular file.
australopithecus robustus said:
It is exactly because of that lot's unique location and value that it should be handled with the most care. The city can only sell it one time, that is all. After that is gone forever. There's plenty of space going a mile behind northgate for more high rises. It has been mentioned that the city ground lease it or part of it so that it could be monetized in perpetuity, much like the Century Square project. We must think deeper and more clearly than just the black and white thinking of "sell to the highest bidder".
Could not have been said better. 1000%
Respectfully
Yancy
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Stucco said:
What was wrong with OG proposal? Especially if it could be extended to include the extra 0.57 acres? Parking, greenspace, some retail if it ever matters and student housing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/813400525/Oldham-Goodwin-conceptual-site-plans-and-renderings
It was the best proposal by far. Bar none. Density was a little high but a very nice layout. It was special. The value offered for the land was the lowest. That allowed me to initially be convinced to turn away from it.
The city has a poor record of discretionary land deals and I was/am keen about changing that.
I made a mistake and course corrected thereafter, but couldn't get my colleagues on board after the initial decision.
It's difficult to make a good snap decision on such an important issue. We used to get that quite a bit. Things staff worked on wherein no or little detail was given as context, only to be faced with a binary choice later based on limited facts. That's how Macy's happened before my time. That has changed quite a bit since. Y'all made that happen at the ballot box last go round.
We must get Northgate right. That's why I'm asking.
So yes, Barchetta- think harder please. You're the biggest city skeptic it seems. Here's a politician asking for your reasoned assessment.
Respectfully and transparently yours,
Yancy '95
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
Stucco said:
What was wrong with OG proposal? Especially if it could be extended to include the extra 0.57 acres? Parking, greenspace, some retail if it ever matters and student housing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/813400525/Oldham-Goodwin-conceptual-site-plans-and-renderings
It was far superior to the project recommended by staff. And it was a local company. Unfortunately, they didn't have the city's former economic development person being paid to advocate for the project to staff and council.
After seeing the OG proposal, I was extremely disappointed in the recommendations of city staff.
It feels like OG would have also worked with stakeholders, including current bar owners, to make it a great project for the community. They live here too, after all.
Can there be some kind of compromise?
If the city government gets to do the centrally planning stuff with that acre, maybe the citizens could get something in return? For example, in exchange the city government could liberate some acres in the area from their regulations. It could be like an experiment; central planning vs free market. Hopefully we could come up with a non-astronomical spending cap for the central planning portion. But the free market side wouldn't need any subsidies, TIFs or anything; just an opportunity to be left alone.
If we could find owners of something like a contiguous 4 acres that would be willing to be freed from the usage, design, and dimensional regulations. Is that something y'all would be willing to grant?
I am imagining Northpoint Crossing or the Taco Bell, Chipotle, etc. corner. But if they don't want it, it could be anywhere.
If the city government gets to do the centrally planning stuff with that acre, maybe the citizens could get something in return? For example, in exchange the city government could liberate some acres in the area from their regulations. It could be like an experiment; central planning vs free market. Hopefully we could come up with a non-astronomical spending cap for the central planning portion. But the free market side wouldn't need any subsidies, TIFs or anything; just an opportunity to be left alone.
If we could find owners of something like a contiguous 4 acres that would be willing to be freed from the usage, design, and dimensional regulations. Is that something y'all would be willing to grant?
I am imagining Northpoint Crossing or the Taco Bell, Chipotle, etc. corner. But if they don't want it, it could be anywhere.
Brian Alg
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
My words are not intended to be disrespectful to any of the staid and venerable members of College Station City Council
I thought the issue with the sale was the fact that the bid process wasn't fair and that people liked OG's significantly more than the others. If that is the case, just start the bid process over, and make it fair.
Stucco said:
I thought the issue with the sale was the fact that the bid process wasn't fair and that people liked OG's significantly more than the others. If that is the case, just start the bid process over, and make it fair.
That was my recommendation. I owned a company that managed RFPs for 18 years. Even the perception of an unbalanced approach often results in starting over.
My opinions are mine and should not be construed as those of city council or staff. I welcome robust debate but will cease communication on any thread in which colleagues or staff are personally criticized. I must refrain from comment on posted agenda items until after meetings are concluded. Bob Yancy 95
The more I think about it, saying it "wasn't fair" is perhaps being far too nice. Has anyone done an open records request for this project? Some of the same players as the Macy's boondoggle are at play here. One of the city's former employees just so happens to have now been advocating for the project that staff recommended (over the superior and comprehensive project submitted by a local company that would have kept dollars local).
But, I agree with your sentiment. Reopen the process, let OG rebid and have the city and stakeholders work with them on scope and design.
City staff failed the citizens of College Station in making the recommendation that they did. Council did ultimately reject that recommendation, but they also failed the citizens in not asking more questions about why the OG proposal was not treated with more seriousness and what role the former city employee that advocated for the other project played in its selection by staff.
But, I agree with your sentiment. Reopen the process, let OG rebid and have the city and stakeholders work with them on scope and design.
City staff failed the citizens of College Station in making the recommendation that they did. Council did ultimately reject that recommendation, but they also failed the citizens in not asking more questions about why the OG proposal was not treated with more seriousness and what role the former city employee that advocated for the other project played in its selection by staff.