GSO/Guilford Pols

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Face-spiting | Main | That's nuts »

Feb 12, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017ee8759793970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good questions:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hartzman

Kee and East Greensboro 1

Robbie and Roy - Years of doing siht like this.

I wonder how many at the meeting realized their intent to rid downtown of its hard won multiculturalism.

Andrew Brod

How would extending Florida Street rid Downtown Greensboro of its "multiculturalism"?

mlm

My question is exactly the same: How would extending Florida Street rid Downtown Greensboro of its "multiculturalism"?

Hartzman

I believe the point of the street is to get from McConnell north coincident with not seeing any urban blight.

Robbie and Roy are trying to do the same thing with downtown.

They seem to want to see people like them instead of people who go there and live on the "other" side now.

A white upper crust Perkins Performing Arts Center that will choke the life out of the businesses catering to who they don't want to be there.

Makes sense, considering the "consultant" and the task force didn't bother to do a study of how the venue could affect existing businesses.

Andrew Brod

Okay, so it has nothing to do with what's going on downtown. It's merely similar, in your view.

Shifting gears to your preferred topic, I'm still mystified by your belief that the GPAC will "choke the life" out of downtown businesses. There are some reasonable arguments against moving forward on the GPAC, but this isn't one of them. If I'm a downtown business owner, I'm excited about more people coming downtown. Might there be street and parking congestion? Perhaps, but those are solvable problems (and, one would think, good problems to have!). Conversely, if the center fails to generate the attendance predicted by the feasibility study, then I'm no worse off than before.

Brian

As a commuter, parking congestion downtown anywhere isn't fun. If you don't like congestion, then drive to a shopping center. If I'm a downtown business owner, then..."hallelujah". It's always a shame to go to a downtown and see so many cars parked on the street and parking garages that people actually are using sidewalks and bike lanes to get to their destinations. Perhaps we need to introduce you George of the notion that competition for parking downtown would be "a good problem to have."

Hartzman

"I'm still mystified by your belief that the GPAC will "choke the life" out of downtown businesses. There are some reasonable arguments against moving forward on the GPAC, but this isn't one of them."

We hired a consultant to study the impact, and they didn't do it.

Don't you want an educated guess as to the impact Andrew?

"Perhaps, but those are solvable problems."

You are trying to justify something that was supposed to be addressed that wasn't.

We paid them hundreds of thousands and they ignored what looks like what may be the most important aspect of the impact to other non tax funded entities.

"if the center fails to generate the attendance predicted by the feasibility study, then I'm no worse off than before."

WOW. If the attendance doesn't hit and it fails, we just flushed $40 million.

I fear you may be suffering from some cognitive dissonance Andrew.
.
.
.
"If you don't like congestion, then drive to a shopping center."

The problem may be, which is not being addressed by the task force, that too many won't go downtown because of the congestion.

"If I'm a downtown business owner, then..."hallelujah"."

What empirical evidence justifies this statement?

If parking goes to $10 in the decks and all the free on street parking is taken up first, are you sure of the joy?

Shouldn't we investigate the unintended consequences instead of purposefully not finding our what they may be?

"competition for parking downtown would be "a good problem to have."

If Tony Bennett plays and there is no inexpensive, easily obtainable parking for those not going to the show, there may be some business for the local restaurants and then nothing during the show, and a few scraps after.

The nightclubs could get killed, which is pretty clearly Robbie and Roy's intent.

Brian

Here you go George: http://bettercities.net/article/how-too-much-parking-hurt-cities-19790.

Hartzman

Brian, please explain how the story you referenced is germane.

Brian

I won't bother George, because, you sir, can not be quenched. I post it for others since it is in context to the discussion of parking and success of downtowns.

sal leone

Can't we all just get along

Hartzman

I will interpret your response as you tried to defend the indefensible Brian, which usually ends up with similar ending epitaphs.


Andrew Brod

"Shouldn't we investigate the unintended consequences instead of purposefully not finding our what they may be?"

Good point. By that reasoning, we should also investigate the effects of a GPAC on climate change, world coffee prices, and the Cubs' chances of winning the 2013 World Series. Why would we purposefully not find out what they may be?

Hartzman

Andrew, please refer to my last comment to Brian.

I believe Ed has agreed with me that the parking should be looked into.

I am saying it needs to be looked into.

That's why we hired the consultants.

Using sarcasm to mask a lack of an intelligent response speaks volumes.

Andrew Brod

I admit it: sarcasm is all I have left. Intelligent responses don't seem to work with Hartzman.

polifrog

You could always delve into unintelligent sarcasm again...

Andrew Brod

Besides, it's all well and good for Hartzman to say now, deep in the thread, that all he wants is for these questions to have been investigated by the feasibility consultant. But that's not what he said near the top:

"A white upper crust Perkins Performing Arts Center that will choke the life out of the businesses catering to who they don't want to be there."

It's true that he followed this with a lament that the feasibility consultant didn't study this, but his lament doesn't undo the "will" in the quoted sentence. Not "might" or "could" but "will."

Now, maybe that was an error. We all make mistakes. But the sentence with the bold "will" is what I replied to. I don't think it's a stretch to call that a striking claim. I don't think it's a stretch to say that any self-respecting downtown business owner would be happy to see more traffic and more business. This is so common-sensical that the burden of evidence should be on Hartzman to prove the contrary.

Finally, it's not generally the purview of feasibility consultants to study infrastructure needs in detail. I'm not saying it never is, because it depends on the project. But this is generally done by the city or whatever government has jurisdiction. Often the feasibility consultant will mention the implications for parking, street traffic, pedestrian traffic, etc. but at that point the analysis usually proceeds under the assumption that if, say, more parking is needed, more will be provided.

And I don't think that's a bad assumption, though it does have implications for the city's expenses. Let's take Hartzman's dire scenario in which "parking goes to $10 in the decks and all the free on street parking is taken up first." Hartzman appears to think of this as the death knell of downtown businesses: it'll "choke the life" out of them. The infinitely more likely result is that the city will be urged by one and all to provide more parking; and so it will.

If Hartzman had said that increased downtown traffic has implications for the city's cost of supporting the GPAC project, he'd be well within the range of reasonable discussion. But saying that this will kill downtown businesses is bizarre.

So okay, I guess had something left other than sarcasm. But I still predict that this won't sway Hartzman.

Hartzman

"The infinitely more likely result is that the city will be urged by one and all to provide more parking; and so it will."

Before or after any avoidable unintended consequences?

Andrew, do you believe the task force should look at the impact of parking on downtown businesses for the PPAC before we commit taxpayer dollars, or not?

Ed Cone

Parking is a reasonable thing to consider when you are planning a big new facility. But as I've said before, we don't want downtown to be a mall or shopping center with big asphalt aprons cutting all the buildings off from the street. People can walk a couple of blocks, and if their route takes them past a bar or restaurant, that's probably good for the bar or restaurant. If parking is tight near the PAC, parking for other things will shift to other decks and spots. The idea that bringing lots of people downtown is a threat to downtown vitality seems way off to me, and, yes, Hartzman's original declarative statement seems a bit lacking in the fact department.

Andrew Brod

Sure, why not? I haven't been arguing against studies. I've been arguing against studying stupid things. So if you want to study the effects on parking, I say fine. That's reasonable. And as David Wharton has noted, it'll be important to understand the interactions between car and foot traffic.

But if you want to study your odd claim that downtown businesses will be hurt by a GPAC, I think you'll have to fund that one yourself.

sal leone

I don't see why we are fighting with words over GPAC. The GPAC is in need of CPR and is dying fast. I read everyones point of view and yes we need to look at parking, more people downtown will increase bars and restaurant sales.

The fact is I do not see GPAC coming soon, unless the money issues gets resolved fast.

David Hoggard

Sal... be quiet lest you be pigeon-holed as Hartzman lite without the line breaks.

prell

"The GPAC is in need of CPR and is dying fast."

"The fact is I do not see GPAC coming soon..."

Well it's dying but doesn't exist at the same time, so I don't see it coming either unless what doesn't exist survives.

Hartzman

Did you enjoy the subtle intimidation Sal?

What a great example.

Agree with me and be branded by the rentier class as a bad apple who won't go with the predetermined flow.

"Rentier capitalism ...refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, intellectual property rights, rents, dividends, fees, or capital gains.

The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who, it is argued, play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolize the access to physical assets,
financial assets, and technologies.

They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property which provides a claim to a revenue stream)and dealing in that property.

Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation
that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism."

Andrew Brod

Whoo hoo! I'm a rentier! Finally!

Hartzman

That wasn't about you Andrew.

Sorry to disappoint.
.
.
.
"More Than 3,000 Parking Spaces Just Minutes From Our Doors

Convenient parking is easy with four parking decks surrounding DPAC.

In total there are more than 3,000 spaces within 1/10 to 1/4 mile walking distance from the theater."

http://www.dpacnc.com/plan_your_visit/parking_guide
.
.
.
1200 / 3 = 400 yards

1 quarter mile = 1320 feet

The city of Greensboro is saying there are 1,598 spaces within a little less than a quarter mile, including private lots at VF Corparate Headquarters Lincoln Financial and the Greensboro News & Record lots.

If all 1,598 the parking spots within 1,200 feet of the GPAC are utilized for a show with more seating than DPAC, and DPAC has 3,000 spots to GPAC's 1,598, did AMS, the consultant for the Task Force say it would work without negatively impacting local night time businesses?

If there is a meeting at the library or the museum, or band or play or dance practice or an art show at the cultural arts center on the same night as a sold out show, where are those people going to park and how much are they going to have to pay?

sal leone

I got no ill will at the GPAC. I just see lots of problems with cost and location. The GPAC is a good idea and under the right leadership could work. The time is a problem also, our debt is high and I dont see the light at the end of the tunnel for our economy. We are looking to rebuild a pool at around 5 million dollars, we want to build a GPAC for millions more and yet we have not said one word about helping people in need, the homeless, mentally ill, people in poverty, etc.
We can build all we want but these social problems will still be here.

Ed Cone

I read Hartzman's class-warring as aimed at Hoggard, who also will be surprised at his new station in life.

David Hoggard

Lovin' it! 'Bout time.

Hartzman

I was downtown yesterday and thought of what the traffic would be like after a show that lets out at 11pm, relative to to those wanting to go into downtown at the same time.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there during the transition, which seems to have to have an impact on local business.

Maybe that's why there are very few if any restaurants and nightclubs near the coliseum area.

Can't help but think this has been an incredible oversight.

The comments to this entry are closed.