The Future of Parking Studio: Team POP Phase 1

THE URBAN FUTURE OF PARKING FALL

2019

PLAN 7007 IN PARTNERSHIP +

Contents 0 introduction Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pulvinar viverra facilisis. Proin fringilla metus dui.

Pellentesque est dolor, sagittis quis vulputate et, dictum quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Sed molestie tellus in iaculis laoreet. Maecenas turpis nunc, suscipit nec nisl eu, fringilla lacinia ligula. Vivamus pulvinar egestas arcu fermentum fermentum. Etiam faucibus venenatis nunc nec sagittis.

1 chapter 01: History Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pulvinar viverra facilisis. Proin fringilla metus dui.

Pellentesque est dolor, sagittis quis vulputate et, dictum quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Sed molestie tellus in iaculis laoreet. Maecenas turpis nunc, suscipit nec nisl eu, fringilla lacinia ligula. Vivamus pulvinar egestas arcu fermentum fermentum. Etiam faucibus venenatis nunc nec sagittis.

Above: Etiam egestas, dui vel facilisis consequat,

2 chapter 02

massa nibh ultrices nisl, sed sollicitudin diam odio non ante

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pulvinar viverra facilisis. Proin fringilla metus dui.

Pellentesque est dolor, sagittis quis vulputate et, dictum quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Sed molestie tellus in iaculis laoreet. Maecenas turpis nunc, suscipit nec nisl eu, fringilla lacinia ligula. Vivamus pulvinar egestas arcu fermentum fermentum. Etiam faucibus venenatis nunc nec sagittis.

CONTRIBUTORS

3 chapter 03 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pulvinar viverra facilisis. Proin fringilla metus dui.

Pellentesque est dolor, sagittis quis vulputate et, dictum quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Sed molestie tellus in iaculis laoreet. Maecenas turpis nunc, suscipit nec nisl eu, fringilla lacinia ligula. Vivamus pulvinar egestas arcu fermentum fermentum. Etiam faucibus venenatis nunc nec sagittis.unc.

University of Cincinnati College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning School of Planning PLAN 7007 - FALL 2019 Professor: Conrad Kickert, Ph.D., Ryan Geismar, ASLA, Ryan Newman Students: Juytika Bhise, Jamie Kreindler, Laura Mendez Ortiz, Kyle Wilson

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pulvinar viverra facilisis. Proin fringilla metus dui.

Pellentesque est dolor, sagittis quis vulputate et, dictum quis turpis. Nulla facilisi. Sed molestie tellus in iaculis laoreet. Maecenas turpis nunc, suscipit nec nisl eu, fringilla lacinia ligula. Vivamus pulvinar egestas arcu fermentum fermentum. Etiam faucibus venenatis nunc nec sagittis.

2

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

3

1.0 CINCINNATI:

Fig. 1.0.A: Study area includes 3 Cincinnati neighborhoods4

A Microcosm of America’s Historical Relationship with Parking

Below: Panorama view from Mount Adams hilltops circa 1909

4 Cover photo: “Mount Adams Panorama: 1909,” Shorpy.com, accessed October 3, 2019, https://www.shorpy.com/node/8224.

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

5

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 DAWN OF PARKING (Before 1930)

On October 1, 1908, the first Model-T rolled off the

the City of Cincinnati, Ohio in four different time periods:

assembly line, rapidly plunging the United States into

before 1930, 1930-1950, 1950-1980, and 1980-early

automobile mania. Henry Ford’s innovation of the assembly

2000s. The primary consideration of this chapter is:

line drastically increased the speed and decreased the cost

How has parking shaped the urban fabric and what are

of producing automobiles. What was once a luxury item,

the lasting social, economic, and physical implications

only attainable for the well-to-do, became a mass produced

of the expansion of parking over the last century?

staple and symbol of the American lifestyle. In the midst of the frenzy to adopt private automobile ownership as a norm, places for storing cars were often overlooked and not considered in the planning process. The original thought was that the infrastructure previously in place for horses and buggies would be easily converted to space for vehicular use. The intention was that horse stables would hold the first protected parking garages and curbside parking would be sufficient to accommodate daily errands, travel needs, and other miscellaneous functions. This assumption was soon proved incorrect as 15 million Model-

Map year parking

T’s hit the streets by 1927, alongside many competitor cars that hit the market later through the 1910s and 1920s.1 The dramatic uptick in American car ownership quickly

Previous map year parking

Fig. 1.1.A: Horse-drawn buggies made efficient use of curbside parking prior to automobiles2

forced cities to confront the reality that they did not have adequate space to store all of the vehicles in existence.

Curbside spaces were haphazardly filled first. As a result, drivers made the bare minimum effort to move their vehicles out of the drive-lane into alternate locations. Cities were soon constructing enclosed garages in any buildings they could find to be converted into spaces for cars. Following the enclosed garages came the introduction of the open parking lot. Afterwards, parking decks and underground structures were established which are also common in the present-

N

day. Throughout the chapter, the evolution of parking based on national trends will be examined along with a break down of the phases of growth as experienced specifically in

Fig. 1.1.B: Model-T’s hit the streets in 1908

3

Fig. 1.2.A: 1922 map of parking with chart of the study area population and race4

1 2

4

“History,” History.com (A&E Television Networks), accessed October 2, 2019, https://www.history.com/.

Authors

Tim Rogers and Jason Heid, “Lost Dallas: The City’s Forgotten Past and Untold History,” D Magazine, accessed October 2, 2019, https://www.dmagazine.com/publica

tions/d-magazine/2018/march/lost-dallas-history-secrets/.

3 Hemmings.com, accessed October 2, 2019, https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/model-t-centennial/.

6

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

7

Long-term, outdoor parking was not an option when the

During the late-1800s, Cincinnati was connected by an

first cars were in their initial production stages. Originally,

intricate system of public transit. It was a City of streetcars.

companies formed with the sole purpose of weatherizing

Four inclines were constructed between 1871 and 1876,

cars for the rigors of the open sky. It was not until the 1920s

with a fifth incline added in 1892. These inclines better

that General Motors produced Duco Enamel, a paint which

connected the recessed urban basin with the growing

protected metal car frames from the harsh elements and

neighborhoods on the hills around the City. By the year

allowed them to be stored outside for much longer periods

1890, the combined incline and electric streetcar system

of time. Section two is an investigation into Cincinnati’s

was carrying 37 million passengers annually throughout 5

urban growth prior to the adoption of automobiles and how

Cincinnati’s many neighborhoods. The connectivity seen

the urban form changed to accommodate the new modes of

in the City encouraged the wealthier business owners to

transportation in the years leading up to the Great Depression.

move out of the inner-city core and into larger homes on the periphery of town. Transit systems were efficient

1.2.2 THE PEAK OF THE CITY Cincinnati, Ohio was first settled in 1788 and found itself to be one of the busiest cities in the United States by the mid-1800s. Due to its prime location on the Ohio River, Cincinnati became a major trade hub. Nicknamed the ‘Queen City of the West,’ the City worked closely with and mirrored the growth of New Orleans down river on the Gulf of Mexico. Cincinnati’s original industry was steamboat manufacturing.5 Nearly half of the country’s sternwheel river boats were produced within the East End neighborhood.

To capitalize on the Ohio River, the state of Ohio dug two canals: the Ohio/Erie canal in the year 1833 and the Miami/ Erie canal running straight through Cincinnati in the year 1828. The latter canal was not completely connected to Lake Erie until 1845 but was used to ship goods throughout Southwest Ohio over the course of its construction. The City’s close proximity to the two canals only increased the economic significance of the area as agricultural goods

and affordable at the time, and even the most isolated residents could commute to downtown in about 30 minutes.

Cincinnati continued to grow into the 20th century, though not nearly as fast compared to other America cities of similar sizes. It took fifty years from 1870 to 1920 for the population to double again, dropping Cincinnati to America’s sixteenth largest City. In a bid to carry on the City’s legacy of commitment to public transit, efforts to form a subway system emerged in the late 1910s. This was already ten years after cars began to pop up around the country. As a testament to the quickly changing sentiments of the time, this work fell out of public favor by 1921. The project was forced to shut down entirely in 1927 when the public denied additional funding to support it. Central Parkway was instead constructed, which further encouraged automobile access in downtown Cincinnati.6 With private transportation on the rise, Cincinnati began to plan for greater storage of vehicles.

were transported from the rest of the state of Ohio and the

1.2.3 INTRODUCTION OF PARKING LOTS By the 1920s, curbside parking was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of residents and their vehicles. Cars needed an off-street storage option, and vacant lots presented themselves as an ideal solution for this particular use. In fact, the first record of a vacant lot converted to parking dates back to the year 1914 when a newspaper in Duquesne, Pennsylvania published a story about a man leasing land abutting the Allegheny River for the use of parked automobiles. The widely accepted ‘first parking lot’ showed up a few years later in 1917 in Detroit, Michigan.8 Cincinnati began parking cars off the street first in large parking structures. Eight such buildings were constructed between 1910 and 1919. Curbside parking actually proved to be so problematic for traffic within the Central Business District that Cincinnati banned it during the day altogether in 1919. The City then established two parking lots at the periphery of downtown and a public shuttle system to carry those parkers throughout the district at a fare of 5 cents.9 This move was unprecedented but did

The City of Cincinnati instead put an emphasis on public space, art, and nature. The hesitation to fully embrace automobile-centric land uses set Cincinnati apart from other American cities at the time, representing the dubious sentiments of the era towards cars and parking.

Nonetheless, the City did begin to update its street system to accommodate automobiles. Traffic was quickly becoming an unavoidable problem. There were many safety concerns centered on private vehicles sharing streets with large public transportation trolleys and buses. The 1925 Cincinnati Plan recommended widening many streets and continued to refine the City’s parking restrictions to alleviate these concerns.11 Even while Cincinnati planners made moves to restrict curbside parking within the inner-city, they made no concrete plans for the further availability of off-street parking as an option. Cincinnati made good steps in the right direction, but in the end, their inadequacy left the door open for private investors to meet the need of offstreet parking that was lacking in the City of Cincinnati.

not accommodate the full extent of parking needs within the downtown. More private parking lots also began to pop up with five total lots identified within the Central Business District by 1929.10 These parking lot ‘voids’ were a drastic change in the dense urban fabric of Cincinnati. Elsewhere, cities were beginning to sacrifice public spaces to confront the perceived parking crisis. For example, in 1925, Detroit converted its central Cadillac Square into a 300-space parking lot. Cincinnati was more interested in preserving its “charm of form and color rarely seen in American cities.”11

Cincinnati was more interested in preserving its “charm of form and color rarely seen in American cities.”

Great Lakes region to Cincinnati. By the 1850s, Cincinnati had roughly 100,000 residents and was home to the Burnet House Hotel, America’s largest and grandest hotel at the time. After doubling its population size to 215,000 people over the next twenty years, the City of Cincinnati was recognized as the country’s densest urban area in the year 1873 and the sixth largest City in the country in terms of mere population.5 Cincinnati was without a doubt

a vibrant City filled with life and opportunity for many.

-1925 Plan11

Fig. 1.2.C: Between 1910 and 1920, Cincinnati began building large parking structures for cars, such as the Carew Tower Complex10

Fig. 1.2.B: Early steamboats in the City7

5 6 7

8

8

Stradling, David. Cincinnati From River City to Highway Metropolis. Arcadia, 2003.

Jakle, John A., and Keith A. Sculle. Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture. University of Virginia Press, 2005.

9

Segrave, Kerry. Parking Cars in America 1910-1945. McFarland & Company, 2012.

10 Mitchell, Lawrence Fredrick. 1998. The evolution of the cincinnati central business district and riverfront: An historical and architectural approach, 1900-1989. Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.

11 City Planning Commission. The official city plan of Cincinnati, Ohio, adopted by the City Planning Commission, 1925. Press of Steinhauser Printing Company, 1925.

Wartman, Scott. “A look at Cincinnati’s troubled century of mass transit.” Cincinnati Enquirer. 25 Apr. 2018.

Riverfront, accessed October 2, 2019, http://www.cincinnativiews.net/riverfront.htm.

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

9

1.2.4 THE PRIVATE PARKING INDUSTRY

Open lots were first found in Cincinnati closer to the riverfront. Following the flood of 1913, the riverfront was left with open

Across the nation, the parking industry was almost exclusively private in its early years.

Businesspeople

took

the

opportunity

to

capitalize on vacant land and satisfy parking demands

while

making

quick

returns

for

their own benefit. A wide variety of investors made use of the opportunity found in parking.

The owner of the first parking lot, mentioned above in Detroit, was an Ukrainian immigrant named Max Goldberg. Goldberg first got into the parking industry through his weatherization company, which focused on preparing cars for the rigours of the outside world prior to the invention of Duco Enamel. Goldberg began operating half of his lot as a parking lot. Yet, over time, this function transitioned and evolved as new technology developed and weatherization became less of a necessity. Goldberg saw success in the returns of his lot. Consequently, he proceeded to buy more lots until he was soon at the top of an extensive parking dynasty.

Above: An aerial map of Cincinnati before

in the parking industry as his main source of

193012

income. Many other investors used their limited

“Entrepreneurs responded to the increased demand for downtown parking with buildings designed specifically to contain automobiles.”

Goldberg was one of the few people who stayed

funds to acquire or manage small parking lots as a stepping stone into their preferred industry, such as restaurant ownership.8 Demand was so high that parking lots promised guaranteed returns. This practice was particularly popular among immigrants, and parking lot operators were

-Lawrence Mitchell10

found

among

every

demographic.

In Cincinnati, the original parking garages followed

the

trend

of

private

investment.

“Entrepreneurs responded to the increased demand for downtown parking with buildings designed specifically to contain automobiles.”10

voids perfect for parking uses. Owners of the remaining buildings in this location made the most of their close proximity to the Central Business District. In order to offer more parking options, they even knocked down buildings to provide larger surface

parking

lots

in

some

cases.

Prior to the Great Depression, Cincinnati investors began to capitalize on existing vacant spaces. In 1925, approximately 10% of the City’s office space was vacant.

While this was not a terrible circumstance, some landlords were left footing the bills for property taxes and upkeep of their buildings which were not generating enough stable income. This resulted in many property owners following the leads of investors along the riverfront and knocking down their buildings for the quick economic gains of parking lot investment and management.

When

possible,

some

investors,

such

as Walter Huenefeld, constructed large parking garages. Huenefeld sponsored the erection of a stylish seven story parking garage on Ninth Street in the year 1926.

His garage was one of fifteen similar garages constructed by various investors in the 1920s.8 The rapid growth in the private parking sector revealed how parking was a lucrative opportunity for private interests.

Parking lots appeared as a logical solution for property owners with vacant land as well as those who struggled to fill their vacant buildings. However, the problems of urban vacancy only increased as America entered a new era with the Great Depression.

Fig. 1.2.D: Walter Huenefeld’s Ninth Street Garage10

10

8

Mitchell, The evolution.

10

Jakle. Lots of Parking.

10 Mitchell, The evolution.

12 “Early Years in Indiana,” Miami University Libraries Longform | Covington’s Cincinnati, accessed October 2, 2019, https://spec.lib.miamioh.edu/longform/covington/.

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

11

1.3 DECENTRALIZATION & DEPRESSION (1930-1950) Metro Area

Cincinnati

Study Area

29

By the time America was experiencing the worst of the

located a block away from the Shillito department store.

Great Depression, it was also in the throes of a parking

In addition to parking, the garage housed Shillito’s

crisis. Despite the rapid growth of the private parking

automobile accessories and sporting goods outlet on the

industry in the 1920s, there were still not enough parking

first floor, making it a mixed use structure. The open-

spaces for commuters in their private vehicles. Even though

deck garage was emblematic of a new style of garages

fewer people were commuting downtown, more space than

favored in the era. These garages were cheaper and

ever before was required for the storage of their private

easier to build downtown, though, they were not quite as

transportation. Furthermore, available parking was often

aesthetically pleasing as the enclosed garages of the early

found at the City’s edges, such as Cincinnati’s riverfront.

1900s. Retailers without the means to construct their

There was a distinct desire for more centrally located

own garages like Shillito could lease out existing facilities

parking beside the most activated buildings in the center of

for use by their customers; this resulted in partnerships

downtown. To bring this vision to life, a government subsidy

with parking lot operators. Even smaller shops may have

was required to account for the more expensive land found

furnished just a few parking spots for their customers

within the Central Business District. Moreover, downtown

within a larger lot at a nominal rate. The final option

merchants were eager to create parking opportunities

was for merchants to pool their resources and lease a

in order to draw potential customers to their businesses

large, new site to operate as a business association.

and attempted to do so when the government lagged

Customers of all involved businesses could then use the

in fulfilling the need. The third section will focus on the

facility and present a validated parking ticket following

shift to municipal parking and national trends associated

their purchase to exit for free. This system was popular

with the Great Depression into the Post-WWII era.

in many American cities, but no data has been found as to whether Cincinnati businesses followed the trend.13

1.3.2 RETAIL & MUNICIPAL INTERVENTION Map year parking Previous map year parking

City governments finally decided to take an active role in parking management and creation. Prior to the Great Depression, the only precedent for municipal intervention was found in curbside parking restrictions and business licensing fees for private parking enterprises. Private interests were primarily concerned with the fact that

30

municipal intervention would lead to unfair competition.

Nonetheless, downtown retail establishments were desperate for economic relief. Urban department stores watched as many of their customers chose suburban malls with copious amounts of free parking over the headaches of shopping in the Central Business District. This reality prompted some businesses to take matters into their own hands.

N

Downtown merchants had several options to create parking opportunities for their customers. The first of these options involved constructing their own garages for exclusive customer use. One example of this occurrence

These methods were all recognized in Cincinnati’s transportation survey, and the business association was considered an excellent bridge to municipal intervention.

Cincinnati

planners

proposed

that

if

enough

local

businesses could understand the importance of parking within their immediate districts, they could pay increased taxes to support City operated facilities that provided free parking nearby. This method, similar to modern day Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for new developments, was called a ‘benefit district system.’ Cincinnati followed the national trend that parking was typically not conveniently located in the spaces where it was needed most. As a result, they sought to effectively eliminate these concerns.10 Prior to the completion of the 1947 plan, the City was operating only a few municipal sites. The most prevalent was Public Landing down by the river. Established in the late 1930s after the flood of 1937, this site illustrated the local challenges, as the riverfront destination was a far walk from the businesses it hoped to serve. Additionally, the surrouding area was largely undeveloped at the time.14

Fig. 1.3.A: 1946 map of parking with charts about the study area population and race and CBD establishments and sales4 4

13

Authors 29 Census 1940 - Census Tracts Hamilton County OH 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 & 17 30 US Census of Business 1948 Vol II Retail Trade - General Statistic, Part 2

12

14

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

City of Cincinnati Commission. Parking, a study of present and future needs in downtown Cincinnati. September, 1947.

Suess, Jeff. “Public Landing triggered disputes from the start.” Cincinnati Enquirer. 20 Sept. 2017.

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

13

Moving to

forward,

become

the

more

City

fully

expressed

involved

in

its the

1.3.3 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS & PARKING RELATED LEGISLATION

intent parking

industry as an extent of its obligation to manage an

adequate

street

system

within

the

municipality.

Municipalities realized that they were not as efficient managers of parking lots compared to the private

Cincinnati had several options for how it might intervene in

businesses that preceded them. Consequently, many cities

local parking opportunity and management. The 1947 parking

began to form partnerships with large parking companies

survey looked at parking lots under the lens of who owns it,

who had already been operating within their borders.

who controls it, and who operates it. Cities could decide to

Cincinnati began its effort of parking management with

acquire land, retain control over it, and also manage its day

this ideal in mind, saying “Public ownership of land

to day operations. This path typically required expansion

concerns such as the lot’s appearance, layout and size, surrounding signage, and street signals. They also accepted locations for new facilities.16 Finally, the plan mentioned the removal of any requirements that made the construction of new facilities unnecessarily more expensive, as this cost was passed on to the public. In this era, the City focused on increasing parking supply in any way possible. Parking was viewed as a necessity for its expanding commuter base.

would not necessarily mean public municipal operation.

of local government through a new parking division or

The City can assemble land in proper size and locations

even a parking authority. At the time, parking authorities

more easily than can private investors and often at a

were viewed negatively because they were established

lower cost.”13 The report went on to analyze the other

independently of the existing administration and operated

two options for municipal intervention: acquiring and

with a great deal of independence. It was unknown whether

retaining ownership of land while allowing for private

such an aggressive form of municipal parking management

operation or acquiring land and simply selling it to private

was necessary and effective. The result of this uncertainty

parking entities for ownership and future management.

was often private-public partnerships. These partnerships

Ring

g

rkin of Pa

Either scenario operated as a public-private partnership

allowed cities to steer the private parking practice in the desired direction. Yet, it freed municipalities from the

However, they began by addressing more superficial

Fig. 1.3.C: Cincinnati’s 1947 parking survey13

headaches of parking management over the long term.

with private interests benefiting from public funding and land acquisition and public interests benefitting from decreased responsibility. Cincinnati ultimately decided that the first option was most attractive. The City hoped to utilize its resources to acquire land for convenient parking facilities and to retain ownership to ensure the parking lots remained that same use indefinitely.

At the same time, they were willing to partner with private operators to handle day to day operations.

Fig. 1.3.D: Cincinnati’s 1947 transportation plan included highway proposals4

Once the City accepted their role in parking management, they had one last tool for influencing the parking industry.

Municipalities had to establish regulations for parking via their land use and zoning codes. Cincinnati’s 1947 Parking Plan looked in depth at legislation and zoning for parking.

Nationally, many cities were establishing requirements for parking linked to new construction. Columbus, Ohio was the first to do so in 1923, requiring off-street parking spaces for new apartment buildings.8 Other cities were linking parking requirements to floor area and

“The City can assemble land in proper size and locations more easily than can private investors and often at a lower cost.”

-1947 Traffic Survey13

land uses. Cincinnati would eventually follow that lead

Fig. 1.3.B: Shillito’s parking garage15

13 15

4

City of Cincinnati Commission. Parking.

“Our Rich History: In 1894 the New Odd Fellows Temple in Cincinnati Was a Grand Building,” NKyTribune RSS, accessed October 2, 2019, https://www.nkytribune.

com/2019/04/our-rich-history-in-1894-the-new-odd-fellows-temple-in-cincinnati-was-a-grand-building/.

14

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

Authors

8

Jakle. Lots of Parking.

13 City of Cincinnati Commission. Parking.

16 City of Cincinnati Commission. Metropolitan Master Plan, adopted by the City Planning Commission, 1948.

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

15

1.3.4 SUBURBANIZATION & RUBBERIZATION

Business District via public transit. Now people were moving to the far reaching townships surrounding the City, which were only accessible by car. Without

Well-off Cincinnatians had been moving further from the urban core for years. First the street cars and inclines allowed high-income residents to climb the hills and establish a ring of dense neighborhoods. Eventually,

its abundant connectivity, the City was becoming a

1.4 DECLINE OF THE CITY (1950-1980)

less attractive place for residents who preferred the larger yards, safer communities, and cleaner air in the suburbs. The worst of suburbanization was yet to come.

roads and increased automobile ownership extended this

Metro Area

ring even wider, creating more spread out communities.

By the time WWII ended, all of Cincinnati’s growth was

Cincinnati

seen at its peripheries. The downtown was left to shrink and fade away. While residential land use went by the wayside in the Central Business District, Cincinnati had

Study Area

a growing office sector. Without the residential base, far

32

fewer people were commuting to and from downtown every day. Yet, each person in their private automobile was requiring far more space than the traditional public transit rider. This era saw the end of Cincinnati’s iconic streetcars.

The first rubber-wheeled buses were purchased as a fleet in 1926. They were simply supplemental to streetcars until

Map year parking

1947 when the Cincinnati Street Railway Company began

Previous map year parking

to shut down streetcar lines to make way for what they viewed as the future of public transportation. In reality, the rubberization of public transit seemed to spell the

Fig. 1.3.E: The last incline in Mount Adams shut down in 194917

beginning of the end. Within a span of four short years, all of the streetcars were replaced, and the last one ran in 1951. The last incline in Mount Adams had shut down two years earlier in 1949.6 In the end, many people

31

began to view the streetcars as noisy, overly expensive to maintain, and dangerous. People thought the flexibility of a rubberized system would be able to accommodate more routes and therefore more patrons. However, as the streets were being designed and constructed to carry buses, private automobiles eventually took over.

Around the same time as the closure of the streetcar system,

Cincinnati

was

experiencing

severe

N

urban

flight. Cincinnatians had previously been moving to streetcar suburbs within close proximity to the Central

Fig. 1.3.F: Historic buses from the era6 Fig. 1.4.A: 1980 map of parking with charts about the study area population and race and CBD establishments and sales4 6

4

Wartman. “A look at Cincinnati’s troubled century.”

17 “Cincinnati News: The Enquirer.” Cincinnati.com. Accessed October 3, 2019. https://www.cincinnati.com/news/.

16

Authors 31 1977 Census of Retail Trade: Major Retail Centers in Standard Metropolitan Area 32 Census 1980 - Census Tracts Hamilton County OH 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 & 17

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

17

Fig. 1.4.B: Final streetcar ride in 195118

18

Cincinnati Traction History, accessed October 3, 2019, http://jjakucyk.com/transit/.

18

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

19

The personal automobile came to reflect and symbolize the values of personal freedom and convenience from the Post-WWII era. The upsurge of personal vehicles and their cultural significance served as the foundation for the proliferation of space dedicated to parking in both cities and suburbs. Whereas the growing suburbs easily accommodated this phenomenon, cities struggled to keep up and were quickly riddled with congestion and a neverending parking shortage. The Post-WWII era served as a critical moment in history for cities to reevaluate their function and reaffirm their purpose. Although Cincinnati had often been applauded for its landscape, art, and character, it felt forced to compete with the suburbs

“The future growth and prosperity of the CBD hinges on the development of better accessibility, better parking facilities, greater convenience, and a more attractive appearance.“

-1958 Plan20

and thus sacrificed beauty for functionality. Parking and automobiles were the original problem for cities. Later they were posed as part of the solution, ultimately leading to the City’s demise as it dramatically transformed the

1.4.3 EXACERBATION OF SUBURBANIZATION & DECENTRALIZATION

physical landscape into a sea of parking and highways.

From 1950 until 1980, Cincinnati’s Central Business District

1.4.2 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PURPOSE

suffered its greatest decline in population. The population changed from 43,347 people to 14,442, representing a 67% decrease. (Fig. 1.4.A) By 1955, the concentration of residential space had decreased by 30%.19 The federal

The 1957 plan defined the Central Business District as “the

government directly encouraged the movement of people into

center of commerce, the center for mass accumulation of

the surrounding metropolitan suburbs by financially supporting

people, and the locus for functions which serve the entire

large scale suburban housing projects and providing subsidies.

metropolitan area.”19 Yet, at its core, the plan described

One example is the 1944 GI Bill that helped veterans achieve

the Central Business District’s assets as its concentration

home ownership, thus making suburban living more attractive.

of services and accessibility. It was believed that the main

The rise of regional shopping centers also diverted shoppers to

reason for any decline was due to insufficiencies of the

the suburbs with ample parking spaces and an abundance of

latter factors. To remedy decline in the City, emphasis

top retailers. In 1956, the Swifton opened its doors as the first

was placed on the accessibility and functional aspects of

suburban mall in Cincinnati. This mall was located in Bond Hill

the City in terms of the car. The City believed that “the

and part of the first ring suburbs. It was considered Cincinnati’s

Fig. 1.4.C: CBD trends in daily population and methods of arrival between 1945 to 197519

Above: 1950s ad that states “Free Abundant Parking” at a modern office complex17

In the 1958 Circulation Plan, Cincinnati describes the competition with

“Form follows parking requirements.”

regional shopping centers as one of the biggest challenges to overcome.

The City responded with the expansion of its parking infrastructure. By

future growth and prosperity of the CBD hinges on the

“retail, social [and] cultural hub.”

development of better accessibility, better parking facilities,

Kenwood Plaza, located farther out into the suburbs of Silverton,

greater convenience, and a more attractive appearance.”20

opened to the public. Even farther north, the Tri-County Mall

‘Attractive appearance’ was not defined by aesthetics but

opened in 1960 as an important regional shopping destination

in terms of convenience and parking availability that would

in Greater Cincinnati. The share of retail sales in the Central

However, it intensified the construction of parking lots and garages in

attract outsiders. The plan exhausted the word ‘convenience.’

Business District compared to the Metropolitan area declined

other areas. Parking requirements highly shaped the City landscape.

from 28.8% in 1948 to 5.5% in 1977. (Fig. 1.3.A & Fig. 1.4.A)

As Donald Shoup described, “Form follows parking requirements.”22

19 20 21

21

In the same year, the

17

City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati Central Business District Plan Part I Circulation, adopted by the City Planning Commission 1957.

City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati Central Business District Plan Part II Land Use and Building Groups, adopted by the City Planning Commission 1958.

19 22

Rose, Steven. 2014. ”Swifton was the City’s Retail Hub” Cincinnati Enquirer, June 2.

-Donald Shoup

22

the 1960s, nearly all large cities required parking limits, meaning every new development had to have a certain amount of parking based on a specified formula. This policy limited development in certain areas.

“Cincinnati News: The Enquirer.”

City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati Central Business District Plan Part I Circulation.

Shoup, David. 1997. “The Cost of Free Parking.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17: 3-20. Accessed September 2019. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.

org/85e8/8ff1ffea6ed5f6083154b6629481e8a7342b.pdf.

20

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

21

1.4.4 THE COMMUTER CITY

demand. This realization became a negative feedback loop as

Despite declining retail and other industries in the Central Business

District,

Business

Services,

including

Office

Space, increased by 23% from 1937 until 1955. During this time period, parking also increased by 25%. In fact, parking garages in the 1950s dominated new development and made up 49% of new space constructed. Workers often filled these spots more than shoppers. The increase of office and parking spaces demonstrated how the City was transforming into a ‘Commuter City’ that catered to parked cars and commuting office workers.19 The transition to a Commuter City essentially made Cincinnati inactive outside of the typical work hours. This trend began before the 1950s. A survey reveals that 50% of trips made into the Central Business District were for work and 33% were

the City continuously carved out room for more parking yet simultaneously negatively impacted other industries and the overall character of the City.

The City was not oblivious to

the implications of a car-dependent culture. In the 1957 plan, parking was described as a necessity for the Central Business District as another form of transportation was not on the horizon for Cincinnati. The car was just the reality for Cincinnati, and thus, the City had to accommodate it one way or another. There were consequences of sacrificing so much land to parking.

However, the City’s priorities and values often did not match the recommendations that were emphasized in the proposed plans.

1.4.6 URBAN RENEWAL & SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

for shopping and business.20 To change the narrative, the City looked towards recreation as a means to attract

Between 1950 and 1980, Cincinnati experienced a national

suburbanites during other times in the day. In 1968, the

phenomenon. There was a sharp demographic shift where white

Riverfront Stadium was built as part of a bigger plan to

residents moved to the suburbs, and black residents remained

develop the Riverfront. However, after the riverfront had

in the City. Within the urban core of Cincinnati, including the

been cleared for development, only the stadium and one

Central Business District, Pendleton, and Over-the-Rhine, the

other building had been built on the site.10 The stadium

white population declined from 89% to 43% while the black

was situated near the newly constructed Fort Washington

population increased from 11% to 56%. (Fig. 1.4.A) White

Way, the third Street Distributor that connected to I-75.

families were incentivized to live in the suburbs, yet black

The assumption was that with greater access, more

families were denied financial assistance for homeownership

suburbanites would be encouraged to come to the City.

and barred from living in most of the new suburban

With a four-level parking garage underneath the stadium

communities due to discriminatory policies such as racial

and the accessibility to the highway, it made it easy for

covenants. The inner-city families suffered from disinvestment

suburbanites to come to the game. On the flip side, people

in the City and the negligence of the City leadership to

would leave shortly after the game ended and have little

address

interaction with the City itself. The stadium did little to

communities surrounded the Central Business District where

reverse the trend of decline that Cincinnati was experiencing.

the communities were deemed blighted or often referred to as

pressing

issues.

The

most

concentrated

black

slums. In the 1957 Plan, downtown Cincinnati was described

1.4.5 PARKING & CARS: SOLUTION OR PROBLEM FOR THE CITY?

as being “painted in highly contrasting colors: rich, bright hues for the vigorous life of the Central Business District; cold and grey for the slums which surround[ed] it.”19 The Housing Act of 1949 was meant to eradicate blight and provide affordable

Parking was presented as the problem and the solution

and adequate housing. In reality, it contributed to more

to the City’s decline. Despite increasing parking supply

blight as renewal often meant clearance and displacement

in the City, there was still a void due to increased use of

of black neighborhoods. For instance, the areas deemed

personal automobiles. The City seemed to be fighting a

blighted were often cleared for a highway or parking facility.8

Above: Parking lot at the Kenwood Mall in Cincinnati in 195623

losing battle as supply of parking continued to lag behind

8

23

Jakle. Lots of Parking.

10 Mitchell, The evolution.

19 City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati Central Business District Plan Part I. 20 City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati Central Business District Plan Part II.

22

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

“Mall Hall of Fame,” December 2006, accessed October 3, 2019, http://mall-hall-of-fame.blogspot.com/2006/12/.

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

23

1.5 RECENT PAST (1980-Early 2000s)

The 1980s demonstrated a shift in how the City of Cincinnati

By the 1980s, Cincinnati followed a national trend to

viewed itself, its function, and its overall strategy. In stark

begin prioritizing residential construction in the Central

contrast to its utilitarian focus in the 1950s, the 2000 plan-

Business District. The 2000 Plan advocated against being

published in 1986- asks, “What [does the City] want to

a Commuter City where people only work. It emphasized

24

that housing ensures that “the economic center doesn’t

The City realized that it needed to offer more than just

die at workday’s end and awaken only with the office

convenience and accessibility. It was time to get back

dawn.”24 Nonetheless, office space continued to be

to what made Cincinnati special such as the parks, arts,

a priority for the City as outlined in the 2000 Plan. An

history, and architecture. Although parking was still an

unintended consequence was the need for more parking

obstacle to overcome, Cincinnati no longer wished to be

as almost 90% of parking became occupied by office

like a suburb. Rather, the City focused on what made a

employees and thus compromised retail parking. As a

place attractive including pedestrian traffic and different

result, the construction of more parking was encouraged.

offer its citizens beyond the stark functional necessities?”

types of amenities. The 1980s also reflected a change in 33

the City’s attitude towards parking lots. Parking was now

Retail continued to suffer, and the 2000 Plan reflected this

looked at as a sign of a failed project or regression. This

concern. Yet, it was hopeful about retail returning to the

section lays out a few key events in Cincinnati’s recent

Central Business District. By 1989, the Plan Committee

history that help explain the City’s hopes and values

declared the plan’s recommendation to increase 400,000

as well as shortcomings and warnings for the future.

square footage of retail unrealistic. The Plan Committee found that the City had a net loss of retail space of

1.5.2 CINCINNATI 2000 PLAN

640,000 since 1980. This raised additional concerns that

Map year parking

Unfortunately, by the 1980s, the City had lost a lot of its

Cincinnati’s downtown from a successful, vibrant, healthy

Previous map year parking

unique character, which was outlined in the 1925 Plan in order to distinguish Cincinnati from surrounding cities in the country. In the 2000 Plan, it concluded that Cincinnati had little sense of neighborhood identity. To remedy this, the 2000 Plan focused more on other aspects of the City that needed to be improved or retained such as parks and

the loss of retail could “change the essential character of core area to a retail void that can harm the attractiveness and appeal of the entire Cincinnati Community.”24 To

address

retail

issues,

the

plan

suggested

the

creation of a Business Improvement District. Two big development projects- Fountain Square West and the Riverfront/Banks Development- came out of this plan.

open spaces, historic architecture, pedestrian walkways, and skywalks. The pedestrian was not only valued but accounted for in City planning efforts. However, the automobile still dominated the landscape and more parking continued to be recommended. The plan advised against long-term parking in the Central Business District. Instead, it encouraged the development of parking facilities in four

N

different sections on the outskirts of the Central Business District. Van pooling and ride sharing were suggested to accompany the parking located farther away. Despite the plan’s intentions, parking lots and garages continued to be developed and expanded throughout the City.

Fig. 1.5.A: 2001 map of parking with charts about the study area population and race4

4

24

Authors 33 Census 2000 - Census Tracts Hamilton County OH 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 & 17

24

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

Fig. 1.5.B: The Cincinnati 2000 Plan was adopted in 198624

City of Cincinnati Commission. Cincinnati 2000 Plan, adopted by the City Planning Commission, 1986.

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

25

1.5.3 FOUNTAIN SQUARE WEST In the Cincinnati 2000 Plan, Fountain Square West was highlighted as a “prime development site.”

25

and seen

as an opportunity for Cincinnati to build a landmark that would propel it towards the future. However, after over a decade, four different mayors, two different developers, and millions of dollars wasted, the site was made into a 125-spot parking lot. One of the finalists for developing the site, Dan Staton of Duke Associates, described bitterly about how the parking lot, at a cost of $344,000 per parking spot, “may well be the crown jewel of Cincinnati parking lots.” He quoted, “Maybe we should only park Rolls25

Royces and Mercedes-Benzes on it.”

As plans for the site

became unfruitful, the City turned to the parking lot as a last effort to make some stable money. They hoped to develop the site in the near future. The Fountain Square West debacle revealed how development in Cincinnati can be stifled by political maneuvering, a power struggle between the City and the private sector, and, lastly, bad timing. Due to the delay in the development of this site, many players were involved over time. Thus, politics clouded the process even more. The City, particularly the Director of the Economic Development Department, was stubborn about the vision. The Director would not give into the developer’s suggestions about overall feasibility for the site’s design, time frame, and financials. Business owners were additionally at odds with the City because the City frequently acquired their property through eminent domain.

Finally, the City’s economy was not doing well at the time.

Specifically, the retail and hotel industries were struggling.

One example was offices that were a quarter mile of Fountain Square were experiencing a 17% vacancy rate.25 The Fountain Square West site was not developed until later in the 2000s. However, even the later development came short of the original concept of an inspiring skyscraper.

Instead, it resulted in an underwhelming 4-story, 210,000 26

square-foot building with a 164-space parking garage.

The building, formerly home to the Macy’s Department store and Tiffany & Co., had been bought out by the

private non-profit Cincinnati Center City Development

unfinished

Corporation, also known as 3CDC. Once again, the

Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) put Issue 7 on the

City found itself in the same position as it did in 1990.

Hamilton County ballot. Issue 7 or ‘Metro Moves’ proposed

Mayor Cranely expressed his hope for the City and said,

a regional network of light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar

“As our Downtown continues to reinvent and revitalize

lines that utilized the tunnels of Cincinnati’s unfinished

itself, the development of the former Macy’s building

subway. The plan would have connected downtown to the

will anchor Downtown’s future.”

26

subway

curse

when

the

Southwest

Ohio

The Fountain Square

airport and to various suburban communities. Despite

West site had a lot of potential. Yet, the potential could

the momentum and support for the project from the

not be realized since the City did not learn from its past.

City council, the press, the public sector, and the private sector, Hamilton County voters shut down Issue 7 almost

1.5.4 RIVERFRONT/BANKS DEVELOPMENT

2 to 1.35 The plan’s failure can be explained by two main realizations. Taxpayers were already paying for projects like the stadiums that went over budget. The other reason

Plans for the Riverfront/Banks Development project had been laid out since 1948. Similarly to Fountain Square West, development was slow moving and did not materialize to its full capacity well into the 2000s.

When the development was completed, the Cincinnati Riverfront had transformed from a dull, gray, automobiledominated area to a lively, green recreational and commercial district with pedestrian-focused facilities.

Hidden below the Riverfront existed an extensive network of parking garages. The Riverfront represented the successes of having a strong public-private partnership and being adaptive to changing circumstances. Although, it did come with its challenges. These included the stadium projects going over budget, the expansion of the highway, and the location in the flood-prone terrain.

was political manipulation. The mayor at the time, Charlie Luken, and Congressman Steve Chabot opposed the Metro Moves plan.35 The opposing campaign called ‘Alternatives to

1.5.6 3CDC Starting in 2003, a strong private-public partnership formed

in

the

City

of

Cincinnati.

The

corporate

community- comprised of leaders from PNG, Kroger, and other major entities- contributed to the formation of 3CDC. This local private nonprofit was first recommended by the City of Cincinnati’s Economic Development Task Force. 3CDC has become a major player in the presentday landscape of development and parking in Cincinnati, which will continue to be seen and felt into the City’s future. All in all, the corporate presence and contributions of 3CDC are paramount to Cincinnati’s current and future development. It is presently difficult to imagine Cincinnati without the influence and decision-making power of 3CDC.

Light Rail’ was successful in changing the public sentiment around rail and other transit systems. Ultimately, they were effective in literally derailing the Metro Moves plan.

The Riverfront Transit Center was also being discussed around this time. Although it was eventually constructed and continues to exist today, it remained largely underutilized and did not fulfill the original design or intent of the project.

Without the rail system in place, the Transit Center ended up being ineffective. Occasionally, the Riverfront Transit Center is used as parking space for busses and other large vehicles.

It is also used for large events. However, the full potential of the project has not been realized due to political fallouts.

Fig. 1.5.D: ‘Metro Moves’ rail plan was voted down 2-1 in the year 200228

1.5.5 METRO MOVES & THE RIVERFRONT TRANSIT CENTER The unfinished subway of 1929 haunted Cincinnati throughout

time.

The

City

attempted

to

pursue

alternate modes of transportation. Yet, it continued to fall short. Since 1947, Cincinnati had recognized that the dependency on automobiles was damaging to the City. Thus, each plan since then recommended light rail and alternative transit systems as potential solutions.

In 2002, Cincinnati had an opportunity to reverse the

Fig. 1.5.C: 1999 Riverfront Transit Center conceptual drawing27

25 26

27

Tate, Skip. 1991. “How the West Was Lost.” Cincinnati Business Courier, December 9: 28- 30.

“Cincinnati’s Other Abandoned Subway.” Queen City Discovery. Accessed October 2, 2019. http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot.com/2009/05/cincinnatis-other-abandoned-subway.html.

28 “Cincinnati: Cincinnati Transit: A Brief History,” metro, accessed October 3, 2019, http://metro-cincinnati.org/?page_id=977.

35 Piltcher, James. 2002 “Light Rail Plan Hits A Wall of Resistance.“ Cincinnati Enquirer, November 6: A10.

Tucker, Randy and Alexander Coolidge. 2019. “Downtown Macy’s building sold to 3CDC for $7.5M.” Cincinnati Enquirer, January 8.

26

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

27

1.6 CONCLUSION

Over

34

been

Cities are constantly adapting and evolving. They are

experienced in the City of Cincinnati’s physical, social,

the

last

influenced by the social and economic policies of the time,

and

economic

century, landscape.

many Major

changes

have

the

political leaders and administrations, private individuals

changes in the City relate back to cars and parking. In

contributors

to

who invest in public spaces, wealthy suburbanites,

many ways, Cincinnati is a microcosm of broader trends

plans laid out for development projects, and a variety of

that happened across the United States from before

additional factors. In the last century, parking affected

1930 until the present-day. With the introduction of the

the City’s economic, social, and physical landscape

first Ford Model-T in the year 1908, automobiles have

in more ways than one. In a sense, parking can be

dramatically impacted Americans relationship to the City.

considered a living organism. Yet, this living organism

Subsequently, American cities like Cincinnati responded to

was not always positive for the environment of the City. It

the development of cars by reorganizing and rearranging

did not always breathe life into the City. Instead, cars and

the urban fabric to meet the sudden and imposing

parking were parasitic at times. Especially during specific

demands around cars. The intent was to have increased

eras in America’s history, the development of parking lost

automobile storage and convenient, automobile-oriented

control, breaking down and devastating the urban form.

transportation systems to better connect cars with the City.

As technologies developed, cities and their policies

Riverfront Development is completed contributing to an increase in parking and commerce

The Dawn of Parking prior to 1930 transitioned into a

responded. Examples include the invention of the

period of Decentralization and Depression between 1950

automobile and Duco Enamel paint in the early 20th

and 1980. Municipalities intervened into the ownership,

century and new, innovative transportation systems like

management, and construction of parking lots during this

highways that were developed throughout later eras in

particular era. Additionally, public-private partnerships

American history. The City of Cincinnati is arguably a

emerged in order to address and alleviate the economic

microcosm for America’s historical relationship to parking

Map year parking

concerns of the time. From 1950 to 1980, the era was largely

as it followed many of the national trends seen in various

Previous map year parking

characterized by continuous decline and disinvestment in

cities across the country. From demographic and population

the urban core. Suburbanization and decentralization were

shifts to fluctuating private and public interventions to

only exacerbated in the City, and urban renewal had many

the effects of decline on the longevity of cities, parking

social implications for Cincinnati as well as other American

has been a widely discussed topic in nearly every decade

cities. This era was further defined as the Commuter City

in the 20th and 21st centuries. At times, parking was

because development prioritized suburbanites and workers

presented as a self-perpetuating problem. Specifically, in

who traveled downtown for recreation, business, and other

Cincinnati, the City could not see itself escaping from the

events. However, the section about the Recent Past, between

issue. At other times, it was presented as the solution to

1980 and the early 2000s, demonstrated a shift in how the

urban issues. Many times it seemed there was a parking

City viewed itself with a new attitude towards the role and

crisis and not enough space to accommodate the growing

purpose of parking. A few of the key events that influenced

number of vehicles on the streets. As cities grew, parking

these changes included: the 2000 Cincinnati Plan, the

lots and garages grew with them. It cannot be denied

Fountain Square West and Riverfront/Banks Development

that parking has impacted the urban fabric and American

projects, and the formation of the local private non-profit

lifestyle in ways that cannot easily be reversed or undone.

Underground parking

N

3CDC. These projects represented a trend in which the City started to reclaim lots for urban infill. Moving into the presentday, a Return to the City sentiment is felt in Cincinnati.

Fig. 1.6.A: Present-day parking, including underground parking, with charts about the study area population and race4

4

Authors 34 Census 2010 - Census Tracts Hamilton County OH 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 & 17

28

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

29

In thinking about the future of cities, parking is certainly a

future, parking may be the best compass that people

topic that will continue to draw attention and be discussed

have available to them when planning for, designing,

by politicians, academics, private investors, business

interacting with, and investing in cities and their residents.

owners, corporations, citizens, families, and students alike.

As long as the automobile is a part of the American lifestyle, parking structures will continue to be part of the physical landscape of cities. This has lasting implications not only for the City’s physical fabric but for public transit systems, social dynamics, and environmental sustainability as well.

Nonetheless, there exists the opportunity to rethink how cars and parking impact the culture and well-being of cities and people. Nothing in life remains stagnant. There is undoubtedly the possibility that creative, innovative, and sustainable mechanisms for how to engage with the urban environment will emerge in the future. There are numerous lessons from a historical lens about what should and should not be repeated in current times. For instance, it is clear that another mode of transportation may be needed in order to seriously address the topic of parking. Additionally, the City of Cincinnati could benefit from partnerships and coalitions when implementing new projects as often past projects have not been finished to

Above: Inside the Cincinnati Riverfront Transit

the fullest extent. Finally, as learned from history, the

Center today27

City should consider investing in projects that enhance the City’s character as well as directly improve the lives of its residents both in urban and suburban settings.

As it applies to the present, policy makers, business owners, or practically anyone with a stake in the urban

Fig. 1.6.B: Entrances to Cincinnati’s Riverfront Transit Center in the present-day27

landscape- which is everyone- should think about the past successes and failures related to the industry of parking. The intent of this historical report was to bring light to past practices, policies, plans, developments, and key events as it pertains to parking lots and garages. A historical perspective is critical in gaining more in-depth insights and information to best inform the present and future of modern cities. The ever-evolving organism of parking has been an architect of human development in the last century. It can be seen in multifaceted ways from a key indicator for cities states of development to an effective planning tool and strategy. Looking towards the

Above: The Riverfront/Banks Development remains an important landmark in Cincinnati today17

27

17

“Cincinnati’s Other Abandoned Subway.”

27

30

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

“Cincinnati News: The Enquirer.”

“Cincinnati’s Other Abandoned Subway.”

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

31

Fig. 1.6.C: Evolution of parking with key events and themes from before 1930 to early 2000s4

4

Authors

32

DAAP | SCHOOL OF PLANNING

THE FUTURE OF URBAN PARKING | PLAN 7007 | FALL 2019

33