Another parking lot downtown-when will it end?
Youngstown — Posted on July 7, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The headline said “Downtown demolition will mean more parking.” I suppose that’s a fairly value-neutral statement. It’s not “Demolition alleviates parking crunch” or “Do we really need another parking lot?” Though, I think, the latter would have been my preferred headline.
The city’s design review committee approved a plan today to demolish four vacant storefronts on West Boardman Street, near Youngstown city hall and across the street from the Mahoning County administration building.
The buildings, between South Phelps Street and Market Street, will be down by early September with the area converted into a 29-space parking lot.
Why is any demolition being approved for a parking lot? A friend to whom I forwarded this asserted, “Demolition permits should only be issued after a new building permit is issued.” I think that sounds like a terrific stance.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Tags: demolition, downtown
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
8 Comments
I was wondering how that piece of development news would play in Youngstown. Parking lots are a waste of valuable downtown space. I am disappointed in the decision.
While I do agree that demolition of a perfectly usable building is not the best idea, we should keep in mind that parking is a problem in downtown (which is indeed a great problem to have!)
Perhaps I’m too much of an optimist, but a broken down eye-sore building would be less attractive to a potential developer than a shiny new parking lot ready to be built upon.
That being said, it will be a sad day in the city when the Paramount (Liberty) theater is torn down.
Thanks for your comment, Nate. I disagree: I’ve never had a problem parking downtown any day or night. Maybe I haven’t been able to park immediately adjacent to my destination, but having lived in DC and elsewhere, I view this as a normal part of city life. Also, this building is definitely not a broken down eye-sore and is in much better shape than, say, the Paramount or Kress. It was in active use just a year ago.
Well, there ya go, I didn’t know it was in use. Do you know what was there?
As for parking, I’m all for a walking city, but most people in this area aren’t. If the city is looking to cater to the local crowds, parking should be plentiful.
I would say, though, that someone in the first ward counselor’s office should force Mr. Frangos to update/rehab the parking lots he owns and opperates. Some look not so bad, but others (like one one next to BW3’s) probably hasn’t had work done to it since it opened.
According to the Vindy article: “There hasn’t been a tenant at any of the four business locations in at least a year. The empty storefronts last housed City Title Co., a bail bondsman, a law firm and Ampco, which moved to the city-owned 20 Federal Place. City Title is on Market Street.”
Now, I could be over-reading the text. “There hasn’t been a tenant … in at least a year,” could just mean that’s as far back as the paper looked in researching the article.
You could very well be right, hte vinidactor isn’t exactly know for deep-digging research. I also didn’t read that article closely. I thought it read only one building was being torn down, but four?! That’s a bit much to get rid of at once.
I was confused on that point, as well. I went there a few days ago to take a look at it. My understanding is that it’s one building (one-story brick) that has four store fronts.
Moved to 20 Federal Place? There have been several businesses lately that have closed their doors and moved to 20 Federal Place. I’m 100% for filling up the city-owned building, but I wonder how incentivizing businesses to close their doors is really helping to develop our economy? Shouldn’t we be working to draw outside businesses into 20 Federal Place rather than shuffling businesses around and then tearing down the buildings they previously occupied? Perhaps the City should invest in filling the City Planner position that has been vacant for several months now.