Driving by this morning, I noticed a new gaping hole in the fabric of downtown. This time a 7,000 square foot warehouse built in 1924, and a pretty decent looking building that I've always thought to be a good candidate for reuse:

Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010965100)

I vaguely remember Steve Lackmeyer mentioning that the community foundation had planned to demolish a building. If I didn't dream that, then this is obviously the one. So... Somebody please fill me in on the details. If this was done to create yet another parking lot then I'm disgusted.

I have heard rumors of a few other buildings in midtown to be demolished for parking too.

i didnt realize there was such a parking crisis in midtown

I have heard rumors of a few other buildings in midtown to be demolished for parking too.

Any idea which ones?

I have heard rumors of a few other buildings in midtown to be demolished for parking too.

You're kidding, right?

Believe it or not, there really is a lack of parking in Auto Alley, especially if some of the larger buildings were to turn into office space. The buildings were built to house cars, so changing use makes off-site parking necessary. A parking garage somewhere would be the best option.

Not saying the Community Foundation really needed to tear that down in order to make more parking right now, but parking IS an issue. This fix is a near-sighted solution to a far-sighted problem. (Did I use that statement properly?)

Believe it or not, there really is a lack of parking in Auto Alley, especially if some of the larger buildings were to turn into office space. The buildings were built to house cars, so changing use makes off-site parking necessary. A parking garage somewhere would be the best option.

Not saying the Community Foundation really needed to tear that down in order to make more parking right now, but parking IS an issue. This fix is a near-sighted solution to a far-sighted problem. (Did I use that statement properly?)

Where did all the people park in the 60's, 70's and 80's? Parking is a lot harder to find in other cities, where you just live with the fact that you might have to walk 2 or three blocks. Parking is not even close to being an issue.

Plus the community foundation already owns a vacant lot right there:

Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010965250)

OKC will never learn. Tearing down old buildings for parking lots? Is this some kind of sick joke? I'm without words...

Surface parking I assume?

Where did all the people park in the 60's, 70's and 80's? Parking is a lot harder to find in other cities, where you just live with the fact that you might have to walk 2 or three blocks. Parking is not even close to being an issue.

Plus the community foundation already owns a vacant lot right there:

Leonard Sullivan Oklahoma County Assessor Real Property Detail Sheet (http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/AN-R.asp?ACCOUNTNO=R010965250)

The change in use is the main reason for lack of parking... going from car sales to office, retail and residential really eats up parking space...

Need well-lit, heavily patrolled parking area(s) just outside the core. "Green" them up and establish a major link(s) with commuter transit to the core.

I know, it creates other i$$ue$...

I've never had a problem finding an on-street parking spot along Broadway.

How cooperative are the businesses on Automobile Alley? For example, if a store or office closes at 5, are its parking spaces available for nearby restaurants? Is the Auto Alley association encouraging this type of sharing? Have they considered trying to buy out the property south of Iguana Lounge that is covered in junked cars (according to Google Earth : 54 nw 9th oklahoma city - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=54%20nw%209th%20oklahoma%20city&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl)) before tearing down buildings?

Unfortunately the Community Foundation is above any criticism for tearing down buildings. "Oh we're so happy they're here..they do charity stuff..they've saved automobile alley with their building..and so on."

I've always been incredibly critical of the Community Foundation being there. There was a 2005 study that indicated that the corner of Broadway and 10th was the most vital intersection for downtown development. I wanted to see more than a 2 story brick veneer and EIFS building go up there, but KMG donated the land to the Community Foundation, not a developer. Now they are going around tearing down other buildings that are genuinely urban for surface parking.

I would throw a fit if it happens again, and I don't doubt it for some reason. The SW corner of Hudson and 12th is currently where a large surface parking lot is going in for Plaza Court overflow (there was an hour and a half wait at McNellie's last Wednesday when I was there so I don't doubt they need it). We're seeing parking get tight in areas OTHER than Bricktown and in order to achieve a short term fix, we're seeing a lot of surface parking go up.

This is why we need the streetcar to happen ASAP. Also, aside from the fact that a garage may need to be built that MidTown and A-Alley can share, what about existing garages? There are several parking garages at St. Anthony's that Plaza Court customers could park at, and there's also a relatively new garage at NW 5th behind the new Downtown Y, between Broadway and the tracks, that I know is virtually empty after 5. What about using that?

I know, it creates other i$$ue$...

Parking garages are often a necessary evil in destination districts, unless we have a good transit system. All of it requires that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I've never had a problem finding an on-street parking spot along Broadway.

How cooperative are the businesses on Automobile Alley? For example, if a store or office closes at 5, are its parking spaces available for nearby restaurants? Is the Auto Alley association encouraging this type of sharing? Have they considered trying to buy out the property south of Iguana Lounge that is covered in junked cars (according to Google Earth : 54 nw 9th oklahoma city - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=54%20nw%209th%20oklahoma%20city&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl)) before tearing down buildings?

Across the street from the Iguana Lounge is a Christmas tree lot.

Across the street from the Iguana Lounge is a Christmas tree lot.

Google's imagery must be out of date then. Glad they got that lot cleaned up, guess it would make a perfect candidate for surface parking lot once the holidays are over!

Unfortunately the Community Foundation is above any criticism for tearing down buildings. "Oh we're so happy they're here..they do charity stuff..they've saved automobile alley with their building..and so on."

I've always been incredibly critical of the Community Foundation being there. There was a 2005 study that indicated that the corner of Broadway and 10th was the most vital intersection for downtown development. I wanted to see more than a 2 story brick veneer and EIFS building go up there, but KMG donated the land to the Community Foundation, not a developer. Now they are going around tearing down other buildings that are genuinely urban for surface parking.

I would throw a fit if it happens again, and I don't doubt it for some reason. The SW corner of Hudson and 12th is currently where a large surface parking lot is going in for Plaza Court overflow (there was an hour and a half wait at McNellie's last Wednesday when I was there so I don't doubt they need it). We're seeing parking get tight in areas OTHER than Bricktown and in order to achieve a short term fix, we're seeing a lot of surface parking go up.

This is why we need the streetcar to happen ASAP. Also, aside from the fact that a garage may need to be built that MidTown and A-Alley can share, what about existing garages? There are several parking garages at St. Anthony's that Plaza Court customers could park at, and there's also a relatively new garage at NW 5th behind the new Downtown Y, between Broadway and the tracks, that I know is virtually empty after 5. What about using that?

This is what always happens in this town. There are sacred cows -- like the Community Foundation -- that do whatever they want, even if it is bad for the city. This is similar to the Chamber wanting to build that anti-pedestrian building downtown.

We need the damn Chamber and Community Foundations to be stewards of the community and set good examples for development.

This is why we need the streetcar to happen ASAP. Also, aside from the fact that a garage may need to be built that MidTown and A-Alley can share, what about existing garages? There are several parking garages at St. Anthony's that Plaza Court customers could park at, and there's also a relatively new garage at NW 5th behind the new Downtown Y, between Broadway and the tracks, that I know is virtually empty after 5. What about using that?

Now we can get into discussions about who should pay for the garages. After 5:00 pm, should a parking garage be free for shoppers? If it's privately owned, can an arrangement like that be made?

The Plaza District is also experiencing parking issues, especially on nights when Lyric has a show going. If we really do strengthen the urban core, we'll need a coordinated approach for all of these districts. Who should lead it? The community, or the City?

This is what always happens in this town. There are sacred cows -- like the Community Foundation -- that do whatever they want, even if it is bad for the city. This is similar to the Chamber wanting to build that anti-pedestrian building downtown.

We need the damn Chamber and Community Foundations to be stewards of the community and set good examples for development.

:congrats:

Wow. Good posts by Soonerguru and Cafeboeuf.

Guru --
The chamber didn't prefer the design they ended up going with. They wanted to do a complete pedestrian-friendly overhaul of the interchange where E.K. Gaylord would have dead-ended at 4th and not sloped into Broadway which would have just met at 4th and then gone straight into downtown. City engineers put the breaks on that. If we really want to criticize someone for the chamber plans, the city has to take the fall for that, not the chamber. (sorry I just have to defend the chamber)

Cafe--
You're right. Someone has to be responsible for the parking. I can see an argument made that both the city or the community should be responsible for parking. If developers are paying to put up surface lots, that costs a lot of money, they could just give that money to the garage operators instead..granted their patrons would have to walk 2 or 3 blocks further. The city should also take the charge, like Wichita where the CITY there owns and operates a FREE parking garage for their little old town area. The reason we can't do that though is because, in OKC municipal organization, what entity operates public parking? COTPA. Nuff said.

If this is really for a surface parking lot, here's what truly amazes me: The community foundation already has a good-sized parking lot behind their building. Further, while pocket parks I guess are neato and everything, they could have easily added another 10-15 parking spaces just by extending the existing lot into their little, sorry to say useless, green space.

I can't imagine that there is just such an enormous demand for parking at the community foundation that it warrants flippantly blowing away another(albeit small) piece of history for a little extra convenience. A really nice little building is now gone forever. This should have been the last resort.

On a side note, I'm surprised to see that Steve Mason is actually the president of their board of trustees. To me that puts a little twist on things as it would seem this is a bit of a slap in the face to him(in particular, among others) in light of what he's trying to accomplish just one block over. I'm very interested in how it came to this, although I'm sure we'll never know. Maybe there's more to this story.

Newsflash to anyone here whining about parking: Our urban districts already have WAY more parking than other cities. Automobile Alley looks like a hockey players mouth & Bricktown is almost nothing but parking(look at the aerials).

The Plaza District is also experiencing parking issues, especially on nights when Lyric has a show going

The plaza district has a whole neighborhood full of streets behind it for people to park on. I've walked 15-20 blocks to see a show before in my hometown.

Is the Lyric experiencing attendance issues due to lack of parking?

The plaza district has a whole neighborhood full of streets behind it for people to park on. I've walked 15-20 blocks to see a show before in my hometown.

Is the Lyric experiencing attendance issues due to lack of parking?

The neighborhood is the issue. If I was a resident, I wouldn't want my street filling up with people driving in and out. Also, lighting in the neighborhood is quite poor, so it's not a safe-feeling walk. I've walked/driven around at night to research this very thing in the Plaza.

The neighborhood is the issue. If I was a resident, I wouldn't want my street filling up with people driving in and out. Also, lighting in the neighborhood is quite poor, so it's not a safe-feeling walk. I've walked/driven around at night to research this very thing in the Plaza.

On your first point - that's part of living in a vibrant neighborhood. 39th-42nd in crown heights gets pretty crazy on the weekends. It is what it is.

On your second point - It's way cheaper to address the lighting issue than to build a parking garage.

It's not that the Plaza is still a sketchy part of town that patrons don't feel safe in. In fact, Gatewood is becoming one of the city's more prestigious neighborhoods. The area to the south doesn't seem to be making the same kind of progress, granted.

You're kidding, right?

I have good sources that are telling me of two properties that are being targeted for demolition, then parking lots.

I can not say exactly which properties, but they are currently for sale and if they are sold to a particular group they will be demolished for parking.

These buildings are located in Mid-Town, not Auto-Alley. Either way I am sickened to think about the buildings being razed for a surface parking lot.

Are you talking about Mickey Clagg's plans for parking for his lofts and retail that's about to be finished on 10th between Robinson and Hudson?

OKC will never learn. Tearing down old buildings for parking lots? Is this some kind of sick joke? I'm without words...

Newsflash to anyone here whining about parking: Our urban districts already have WAY more parking than other cities. Automobile Alley looks like a hockey players mouth & Bricktown is almost nothing but parking(look at the aerials).
It isn't just OKC, it is pretty much the case in most cities outside the northeast corridor or Chicago.

When I lived in Dallas there was an article in Texas Architect magazine about downtown Dallas (where I worked at the time). It was discussing how the 80's bust and subsequent loan defaults and bankruptcies created a situation where surface parking lots were being created at an alarming rate, at the time (1992) about 40% of the land in the Dallas CBD was surface parking. Some of it was from blocks that had been leveled for new buildings that were never built but most were due to the Texas/Dallas County property tax situation, it was cheaper to tear down an existing structure and "convert" it to surface parking. The reason why was it would now be taxed as an "unimproved property" at a much, much lower rate than an existing, vacant building. The parking revenue could not even cover demolish but the tax abatement could.

Now I know that the tax situation is somewhat different in Oklahoma, but vacant downtown properties and surface parking are not unique to OKC. I know there is plenty of it all of the Texas cities and in places like KC and Denver. Some of those markets have done better in recent years of infilling those lots but there is still an abundance in most of them.

It would be interesting to analyze what kind of effect switching from income to a property-based tax system for state revenues would have on urban infill..

Google's imagery must be out of date then. Glad they got that lot cleaned up, guess it would make a perfect candidate for surface parking lot once the holidays are over!

The tree lot is only a small part of the lot. The rest is already a gravel parking lot.


Newsflash to anyone here whining about parking: Our urban districts already have WAY more parking than other cities.

Even in sprawling LA you have to park sometimes blocks away on neighborhood streets to go to popular restaurants and bars. It seems the only situation where this is considered acceptable here is when you go to a game in Norman.

Steve had interesting article this morning about Automobile Alley. While an area of downtown being identified as a "potential" retail hotspot is nothing new, the concept of back-in angled parking caught my attention. I love this idea and would like to see it incorporated into Project 180 for all of downtown. Apparently, this is how parking was done in OKC in the early days.

http://www.newsok.com/automobile-alley-seeks-to-become-an-urban-retail-corridor/article/3517716?custom_click=lead_story_title


Part of Automobile Alley proposal calls for consideration of “back-in” angled parking that would have drivers back into spots with the front of their cars pointing back into the street.

“We think the experience of other cities shows that backed in angled parking is safer than head-in 45-degree parking, which is more common here in Oklahoma,” McDermid said. “Historically on Broadway, there was 45-degree back-in angled parking. Maybe our forefathers knew something.”

McDermid said back-in angled parking allows drivers to back out of their spots in a forward direction, see cyclists on the road, and creates a “shield” with door directions preventing children from going into the street.

“The important thing to us, and to the city, is all that what we are proposing is new striping and signing — not a major cost in terms of infrastructure,” McDermid said. “It's relatively inexpensive and our engineering shows we will not significantly impact the performance of the street when it comes to carrying traffic.”



A quick internet search reveals that several communites around the world have had great success with this type of parking (except Syracuse, NY - where people had a difficult time grasping the concept of backing in and instead made 3-point turns to enter and exit the spaces).

A quick internet search reveals that several communites around the world have had great success with this type of parking (except Syracuse, NY - where people had a difficult time grasping the concept of backing in and instead made 3-point turns to enter and exit the spaces).

In all fairness, it gets mighty cold in Syracuse. The brains just don't work as well in bitter cold. :smile:

In all fairness, it gets mighty cold in Syracuse. The brains just don't work as well in bitter cold. :smile:

You know, I was thinking I would love to be a person on the sidewalk watching some yahoo trying to turn around in the street so he could drive in forward, just so I could walk up to him and tell him he is supposed to back in.

There are a couple of streets here in Austin that were converted to back-in parking recently and people seem to be using them properly here, unlike Syracuse. They can increase parking capacity and evidently make it safer for cyclists. Should be good for Automobile Alley.

Oughta be interesting given the propensity of folks to tailgate on city streets

If they can find a way to cram as many spots as possible along a city block they need to do that. For those parking lovers, imagine the equivalent size of parking lot you could have if you didn't stretch out all those spots and instead arranged them around as inefficiently as possible. For people who love good city planning, imagine the size of the parking lot we could avoid having.

There is already not a parking problem on North Broadway. Maybe abundance of parking is what we really need to bring in retail and more activity? It's worth a shot if we can accomplish it with more efficient street parking spots.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine people backing into parking spaces. Don't get me wrong. I whole-heartedly support the concept as it may improve the situation for bikers and it may make parking more efficient. However, I think it will be a bonanza for body shops! Too many nimrods can't even manage forward parking without scraping neighboring cars. How in the world will they manage backing into a space?

Well you already have to go in reverse to do a proper parallel parking job.

Just one thing about back in parking. They said they were going to install electric outlets for the hybrids so how is that gonna work?

Just more ways they are going to screw up Broadway and make it less friendly to get around.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine people backing into parking spaces.

They already back out of them (and into traffic I might add). I would rather back into an empty parking space than into a busy road, but that is just me.

I think they should leave Broadway as it is with parallel parking, especially if it ends up a streetcar route. I'm not a fan of the angled parking in Norman i.e. downtown/Campus Corner.

Honestly, I don't see how anyone could be against back-in angled parking. It is better than standard front-in angled parking and parallel parking in every conceivable way. To me is seems to be the biggest no-brainer in the history of no-brainers. I was actually shocked to learn that this is how parking was once laid out in downtown OKC (back when there WERE streetcars).

They already back out of them (and into traffic I might add). I would rather back into an empty parking space than into a busy road, but that is just me.

Hear, hear!!

I avoid parallel parking (unless it is an end space) and even front end angled parking (where you have to back out into traffic) if at all possible. Can't see how back in angled parking is any safer in the parking part (leaving the space may be another story). There are some places where back-in parking will get you towed (not sure what the reasoning is)

Well it won't get you towed on North Broadway, feel free to back-in park all you want, since that will be the intended purpose of these spots. And honestly it will be much easier than parallel parking, which is really difficult for most Okies for some unknown reason, because you won't have to back AND turn into a spot, just back straight into it.

The reason this is much better is that it allows us to squeeze in far more parking spaces on North Broadway. We all know how much we love our parking in OKC, so perhaps this is a solution--by just maximizing street spots. It's a no-brainer because the dimensions of a car are obviously wider on the side than along the front, so you can get at least twice as many cars parked along a street side-by-side as opposed to end-to-end.

The reason back-in is more ideal is because what goes in one way has to go out another way. It's better to have to go in reverse at first when even the most inattentive driver has most likely already scanned the street for moving people or cars than once you're already parked and inattentive people are doing what they do best. Also already mentioned in this thread, with your car front-facing toward the street at an angle the circumference of your opened car door will not only shield you from traffic as opposed to sticking out into traffic but it will also make small children and inattentive people to exit their car into the sidewalk rather than into the street.

If this is part of the project to take Broadway from 4 to 2 lanes, then I'm totally against it. Parking or not (which I might add, I've NEVER had a problem finding parking down there....ever). You might have to walk a few more feet once you do park, but you still walk less then somewhere like a mall. And heaven forbid people get off their fat butts and walk somewhere in OKC....wouldn't want them to work off those big macs or anything. Ugh.

Bombermwc - the goal of back-in angled parking and reducing travel lanes is to make the area more pedestrian friendly. They are trying to do the very thing you say you want done. They are trying to get 'fat butts' out of the driver seat and on the sidewalk. How is keeping current parking styles and existing lanes going to get people walking if it already isn't doing so?

I just don't agree with the plan. It's differences of opinion, and I'm not the decision maker, so i'll lose. I don't agree that Broadway needs to be 2 lanes to make it more friendly, and just because what's his face said so, doesn't make it so to me. Hey, others feel differently and that's great. But spending all that money isn't going to make people go down there...it's a total waste to me. If someone wanted to go down there for something right now, they would do it...parking would just be something that they would figure out. But spending millions to tear up a road that was redone not that long ago (another annoyance...redoing a street for the hundreth time...money wasted again), won't make people any less lazy.

I'll restate this though - you walk a hell of a lot more when you go to the mall, walmart, the grocery store, etc....than you do on Broadway TODAY. But people still go to those places. And you know what, people drive from one end of a strip mall to the other because they are so lazy. I just can't see the justification.

But spending millions to tear up a road that was redone not that long ago (another annoyance...redoing a street for the hundreth time...money wasted again), won't make people any less lazy.

To be fair, I think it's just restriping

My parents live in Austin and the only time her car has ever been hit in a parking lot was from some señor-citizen (elderly Hispanic man). And of course he tried to speed off. Good thing his tag was facing the window where the witnesses were sitting inside having lunch.

I just don't agree with the plan. It's differences of opinion, and I'm not the decision maker, so i'll lose.

I'm just trying to figure out what your opposition to it is.

Me as well. They said it'd just be restriping and repainting.

What's interesting is that parking seems to be a big reason why we can't get a decent retail district in the city. The funny thing is, is that it's not because there isn't enough of it, it's because there is too much of it in front of and between retail locations.

Retail works, especially specialty retail, when there is a high enough density of shops that they feed each other. The more convenient you make it for someone to park at one location, go in, buy, and leave, the worse you actually make it for retail as a whole in the area. In addition, in order to create this convenience, you end up separating the stores even further and destorying any benefit any of the stores have of being in the same location.

We have killed most of our old retail districts by tearing down buildings in large part for parking. However, we know people will park a good distance away from retail if there is enough access to a variety of retail once their initial walk is completed. This is how every mall in America works.

So, it may actually be better to make front door parking less convenient if it helps enable the increasing of the density of stores and ease of access from one shop to another. Any shopping in the core will have to be destination shopping for it to work. And the only way that destination shopping can work is in a high density pedestrian friendly environment where people go to shop at several stores, not just one or two, and spend some time in the area.

All that being said, I still don't see any sign that Broadway has been set up for any kind of serious retail district. It is still pretty fragmented, imo.

What's interesting is that parking seems to be a big reason why we can't get a decent retail district in the city. The funny thing is, is that it's not because there isn't enough of it, it's because there is too much of it in front of and between retail locations.

Retail works, especially specialty retail, when there is a high enough density of shops that they feed each other. The more convenient you make it for someone to park at one location, go in, buy, and leave, the worse you actually make it for retail as a whole in the area. In addition, in order to create this convenience, you end up separating the stores even further and destorying any benefit any of the stores have of being in the same location.

We have killed most of our old retail districts by tearing down buildings in large part for parking. However, we know people will park a good distance away from retail if there is enough access to a variety of retail once their initial walk is completed. This is how every mall in America works.

So, it may actually be better to make front door parking less convenient if it helps enable the increasing of the density of stores and ease of access from one shop to another. Any shopping in the core will have to be destination shopping for it to work. And the only way that destination shopping can work is in a high density pedestrian friendly environment where people go to shop at several stores, not just one or two, and spend some time in the area.

All that being said, I still don't see any sign that Broadway has been set up for any kind of serious retail district. It is still pretty fragmented, imo.

I've always loved this quote by James Castle:

Anyplace worth its salt has a 'parking problem'

If this is part of the project to take Broadway from 4 to 2 lanes, then I'm totally against it. Parking or not (which I might add, I've NEVER had a problem finding parking down there....ever). You might have to walk a few more feet once you do park, but you still walk less then somewhere like a mall. And heaven forbid people get off their fat butts and walk somewhere in OKC....wouldn't want them to work off those big macs or anything. Ugh.

Bomber.

Parking has not been a problem while the majority of attractions in A-Alley have been Coffee Slingers and Schlegel's. It will get tighter when Hideaway opens. It is visionary to seek a parking solution and have a large number of parking spots available because national retailers will want vital numbers, such as number of free parking spaces within 4/5 blocks, for example.

Broadway needs to be narrowed because it is too wide. It is basically 6 lanes of cars and there is never any traffic on it backed up further than 5 cars. It is another 4-lane road that OKC does not need. It would be more efficient not to mention safer to use some of that right-of-way to redo the parking and add a turning lane in the middle, and bringing it down to one lane for traffic in each direction. This will be more pedestrian friendly and more conducive toward a people-oriented environment in A-Alley.

It will not cost very much. They are not redoing the streetscape there at all. This will just involve re-striping and although they left it out, they'll also probably have to redo the lights unless they want to have dedicated right-turn lanes at intersections as well, which cuts down on the number of parking spaces you can get on the street. Having a dedicated right-turn lane would also make it less ped-friendly because the road would be widest at intersections, whereas you want it to be narrowest where you want to encourage people to safely cross which is why in most downtowns there are bump-outs and narrowed lanes and stuff of that sort at intersections with pedestrian crossings.

If this is successful in A-Alley they should export the idea to elsewhere downtown. Having more efficient street parking might even hopefully be able to shut down the Bricktown parking lot operators if there is no need for them.

If this is part of the project to take Broadway from 4 to 2 lanes, then I'm totally against it.

I could be wrong but I've not seen any official proposal to make Broadway 2 lanes.

That would be the re-striping. There won't be any changes to Broadway that require reconstruction. The current right-of-way is mostly dedicated to automobile through traffic (which is really quite minimal through Automobile Alley) and the only change proposed here is just redesignating lanes to make parking a more important part of Broadway.

Hey i'm not trying to make a big stink about it or anything...no feathers ruffled here or anything. Like I said before, it's a project I don't agree with, but big whoopie. It's not like I'm going to start picketing to get them to stop or anything. Kerry - I just flat out don't agree with the interpretation of the situation...it's that simple. Difference of opinion is all. They wanna go forward with it, not like I'im going to stop them...I just think it's dumb.

Here is an example from Kansas City on McGee Street:

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2010/11/30/23/BackIn_ME_11302010_JAT_020F_12-01-2010_MU1IO115.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg