Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
When "it could have been worse..." is the best thing to say
This looks better than reality because the lot outline appears farther away, the intent to level it will make it so you shouldn't actually see the asphalt. from here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Parking Lots, trying to stay cool...
OK, so why couldn't they state anything about this 'need' when asked directly for an explanation of the utility of the lot last week?
Dear Summit Drive Neighbors:
As a follow-up to our meeting last Thursday night , we have been studying a number of different options for our client. Given their need for vehicular access to the east end of Eaton Hall we will be presenting the plan that we showed you last Thursday night at Monday night’s Planning Commissiom meeting. I apologize for this late notice, but don’t feel there is a need to meet again as a group.Please feel free to pass this message along to those whom I don’t have contact information for.Thank you
Stephen R. Thompson, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
PROJECT MANAGER
Bergmann Associates
Clock ticking...
Word still coming today on Thursday's potential meeting.
Getting ready for final push, hoping it is not needed. Pam wants you to join an email thread discussion group, send your address to her at, pamela.frame'AT'gmail.com New letter sample just arrived
Tillie and Basil
Getting ready for final push, hoping it is not needed. Pam wants you to join an email thread discussion group, send your address to her at, pamela.frame'AT'gmail.com New letter sample just arrived
Tillie and BasilSunday, March 8, 2009
Taking the ball and going home...
Funny night Thursday, with only a few neighbors showing up until about 5 or more minutes after the start time, I was just a bit nervous as so many people had shared compelling reasons that were keeping them away, but then a large contingent arrived en masse.
The short story is CRCDS-ACS should be rapidly trying to turn around a site plan revision to meet with the neighborhood again this upcoming week. They collected email addresses and will I guess try to help get the word out rather than slowly releasing time and location info the last few days expecting us to handle comunication.
The long story involved some drama during which a proponent of liberal asphalt application, who I will call 'Curveball' took the floor and seemed to threaten that they may just submit the original proposal to the planning board or tear the building down. That's really what I remember but he couldn't have been that irrational I suppose. To be fair, emotional comments came from the opposition, but there was truth to these comments unlike many attempted assertions of needs for the office entrance parking location that receded under questioning.
Finally with a chance to speak, I blathered on stating the obvious, pointing out how all available internet aerial (Google, Zillow, Microsoft live) imagery supports, that people don't seem to park in the East lot at all if spaces are available in the West, and why would they? The West lot is where all of the current campus need is, the only thing convenient to the East lot is Trevor Eaton. I suggested how additional spaces could reasonably be added to the design in which they have already found 20 more of the thirty five spaces (and 51 of the 66 total) that absolutely can't fit up top in the current parking areas. I mentioned a repeated story told about how there wouldn't be space for all of the ACS office workers in the lot down below and that some of the staff would be forced to park up top and walk down, and asked why on earth anyone would want to park down below rather than up top. I provided an illustration showing distance to door convenience of none and only a slight advantage of 7' less elevation change in the lower lot spaces, which is obviously many times offset by the 500'or 700'+ of aisles and drives, 360 to 540 degrees of turning and 24'+ of altitude change required to drive to the lower lot. I also mentioned how if the last required spots were built off of the East lot with a level sidewalk to the entrance, the worst spots for all of CRCDS would only be 3-4 car lengths longer than the initial proposal's worst spaces, but with zero compared to the 10' foot vertical climb of the proposal. Of course these would be closer and much more convenient to the rest of campus, and I'd think much easier to maintain, plow, light, construct, and use. The response seemed just shy of stunned silence. I asked this utility question again a bit later, and even Curveball offered nothing to justify the consruction of this lot.
Who knows what Curveball and his team will cook up next. Pam thinks she saw him cruising the neghborhood Friday afternoon so maybe he's brewing a new plot against Alling Deforrest's landscape work, or hopefully he's had an epiphany. I think it's clear that many more spaces can be added to the existing parking areas than have been yet admitted. I don't fully understand the ADA access ramifications but am convinced other solutions must be available at cost savings. I do really feel confident and hope they are finding the best possible solution, but we need to be ready.
One suggestion that I think makes sense is circulating a pettition stating simply that we find a new parking lot constructed on the grounds unacceptable given the lack of any solid justification.
I also think there is a lot more to provide feedback on, lighting, final parking space location decisions etc.. Please let me know if you think I am being overly optimistic or unfair.
Thanks,
Bill
The short story is CRCDS-ACS should be rapidly trying to turn around a site plan revision to meet with the neighborhood again this upcoming week. They collected email addresses and will I guess try to help get the word out rather than slowly releasing time and location info the last few days expecting us to handle comunication.
The long story involved some drama during which a proponent of liberal asphalt application, who I will call 'Curveball' took the floor and seemed to threaten that they may just submit the original proposal to the planning board or tear the building down. That's really what I remember but he couldn't have been that irrational I suppose. To be fair, emotional comments came from the opposition, but there was truth to these comments unlike many attempted assertions of needs for the office entrance parking location that receded under questioning.
Finally with a chance to speak, I blathered on stating the obvious, pointing out how all available internet aerial (Google, Zillow, Microsoft live) imagery supports, that people don't seem to park in the East lot at all if spaces are available in the West, and why would they? The West lot is where all of the current campus need is, the only thing convenient to the East lot is Trevor Eaton. I suggested how additional spaces could reasonably be added to the design in which they have already found 20 more of the thirty five spaces (and 51 of the 66 total) that absolutely can't fit up top in the current parking areas. I mentioned a repeated story told about how there wouldn't be space for all of the ACS office workers in the lot down below and that some of the staff would be forced to park up top and walk down, and asked why on earth anyone would want to park down below rather than up top. I provided an illustration showing distance to door convenience of none and only a slight advantage of 7' less elevation change in the lower lot spaces, which is obviously many times offset by the 500'or 700'+ of aisles and drives, 360 to 540 degrees of turning and 24'+ of altitude change required to drive to the lower lot. I also mentioned how if the last required spots were built off of the East lot with a level sidewalk to the entrance, the worst spots for all of CRCDS would only be 3-4 car lengths longer than the initial proposal's worst spaces, but with zero compared to the 10' foot vertical climb of the proposal. Of course these would be closer and much more convenient to the rest of campus, and I'd think much easier to maintain, plow, light, construct, and use. The response seemed just shy of stunned silence. I asked this utility question again a bit later, and even Curveball offered nothing to justify the consruction of this lot.
Who knows what Curveball and his team will cook up next. Pam thinks she saw him cruising the neghborhood Friday afternoon so maybe he's brewing a new plot against Alling Deforrest's landscape work, or hopefully he's had an epiphany. I think it's clear that many more spaces can be added to the existing parking areas than have been yet admitted. I don't fully understand the ADA access ramifications but am convinced other solutions must be available at cost savings. I do really feel confident and hope they are finding the best possible solution, but we need to be ready.
One suggestion that I think makes sense is circulating a pettition stating simply that we find a new parking lot constructed on the grounds unacceptable given the lack of any solid justification.
I also think there is a lot more to provide feedback on, lighting, final parking space location decisions etc.. Please let me know if you think I am being overly optimistic or unfair.
Thanks,
Bill
'Build a lot and they will park', Kevin Costner's character in A League of Their Own
Parking Design
(So Costner wasn't in that film, maybe Bull Durham? I'm no parking engineer nor a movie expert so please accept this as a disclaimer)
Below is an illustration I made to show the design proposal reviewed Thursday and some of my suggestions for parking that I have repeatedly shared with the Bergmann-LeChase CRCDS crowd. Click the image to see it larger and read my notes, the blue (new design) areas are from my memory where the new design proposed changes, the West expansion and stairway are crude and somewhat inaccurate because I left off a few spaces, and the stairway was very neatly drawn, just with peculiar shifts that I captured in an impressionistic kind of way with shapes.
The red bits are the abandoned footprints of the original design
The green shows some of the areas I have suggested could provide parking that would in my opinion be less costly, less destructive of green spaces and to avoid the dramatic encroachment on 'the hill' and neighbors or solve an accessibility issue. I am only plugging in a total of 103 space additions as there has been little feedback to my proposals so I am showing a range of options that are less desirable, but maybe easier to execute.
As I have shared in the past, parking would in fact be less convenient in the proposed lower lots because while walking distances appear to be identical the extra crazy driving to the lower lot makes it unappealing unless you crave the roller coaster experience, want to waste time and brake pads etc.. I also shared an observation at the meeting that no other parking consumers at CRCDS would be competing for those convenient to ACS spaces, as they would be absolutely inconvenient. to the rest of campus like the proposal, some more driving would be required, and it would be a slightly longer walk. The 50 and counting spots in the front would mean that the back lot with it's 73 spaces wouldn't see cars for the main campus activities until the prior capacity reached over 90%. I described at the meeting how the major aerial map viewing websites illustrate this pattern.
Google shows ~50 to the West with only 1 in the East which probably was the catering van and shouldn't count.
Microsoft Live shows over 100 to 15 but only two empty spaces appear to the West of the East lot where at least two of the 15 were CRCDS vehicles.
Lastly Zillow chimes in at 70 to zero, that's just fishy don't you think? Surely I must be hacking into their image databases and Photoshopping these results because people would not park so predictably.
Maybe they will decide to build a parking garage.
(So Costner wasn't in that film, maybe Bull Durham? I'm no parking engineer nor a movie expert so please accept this as a disclaimer)
Below is an illustration I made to show the design proposal reviewed Thursday and some of my suggestions for parking that I have repeatedly shared with the Bergmann-LeChase CRCDS crowd. Click the image to see it larger and read my notes, the blue (new design) areas are from my memory where the new design proposed changes, the West expansion and stairway are crude and somewhat inaccurate because I left off a few spaces, and the stairway was very neatly drawn, just with peculiar shifts that I captured in an impressionistic kind of way with shapes.
The red bits are the abandoned footprints of the original design
The green shows some of the areas I have suggested could provide parking that would in my opinion be less costly, less destructive of green spaces and to avoid the dramatic encroachment on 'the hill' and neighbors or solve an accessibility issue. I am only plugging in a total of 103 space additions as there has been little feedback to my proposals so I am showing a range of options that are less desirable, but maybe easier to execute.
As I have shared in the past, parking would in fact be less convenient in the proposed lower lots because while walking distances appear to be identical the extra crazy driving to the lower lot makes it unappealing unless you crave the roller coaster experience, want to waste time and brake pads etc.. I also shared an observation at the meeting that no other parking consumers at CRCDS would be competing for those convenient to ACS spaces, as they would be absolutely inconvenient. to the rest of campus like the proposal, some more driving would be required, and it would be a slightly longer walk. The 50 and counting spots in the front would mean that the back lot with it's 73 spaces wouldn't see cars for the main campus activities until the prior capacity reached over 90%. I described at the meeting how the major aerial map viewing websites illustrate this pattern.Google shows ~50 to the West with only 1 in the East which probably was the catering van and shouldn't count.
Microsoft Live shows over 100 to 15 but only two empty spaces appear to the West of the East lot where at least two of the 15 were CRCDS vehicles.
Lastly Zillow chimes in at 70 to zero, that's just fishy don't you think? Surely I must be hacking into their image databases and Photoshopping these results because people would not park so predictably.
Maybe they will decide to build a parking garage.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Save Pave
5-4-09; Presentation of site plan for input
7:00 Thursday March 5th: Strong Hall, Room 117 right near the east stairtower
The meeting is in Strong Hall, at a lecture hall a couple of flights up from the main entrance. There is a receptionist if it is not clear and probably a few people will be milling about.
Attending:
Bergmann and Associates, Stephen Thompson, and presumably others
CRCDS, Mark DeVincentis, Director of Facilities, Darrell Jachim-Moore, CFO
American Cancer Society will have a couple of people in attendance, presumably Mathew Flanigan, the capital campaign and corporate relations director is one
The director of zoning for City of Rochester Art Ientilucci is invited, Zina logenegro will not be able to attend
I just got email from Katie Comeau, Director of Preservation Services who spoke at the informational meeting has offered that either she or Cynthia Howk would attend the meeting if it would be considered helpful, of course I believe it would be and will let them know.
I guess seeing the plan presented, and providing feedback is the agenda. I don't know if discussion of zoning issues would be beneficial, especially if no representative from the City Zoning board. Many topics should be in play include lighting, plantings and other details.
Late yesterday, Stephen Thompson called and told me that the revision involves a smaller 20 car lot and a retaining wall with access from the lane that currently houses the architectural materials museum. While that should dramatically reduce the footprint and impact on the slope, I don't personally like the use of the lane running next to two neighboring properties. They plan a screening fence and evergreens to reduce noise and light pollution from this installation.
Stephen pointed out that not all of the 24 ACS staff members would be able to park there so some would walk from the lot above to which I shared my concern that why would anyone choose to park down below when the walking distance would be identical, but for 7 vertical feet and the extra 500' of meandering downhill driving to park would merely waste time and brake rotors. The unseen new proposal would add an additional 200 feet of driving and a U-turn so it is also not likely to offer any net convenience either. I learned there is in fact an accessibility requirement and discussed my sidewalk solution and learned it should be well within the ADA distance requirements, so that is promising.
Other than questioning the need calculation, I've yet to hear any specific concerns over the proposal to expand the Northwest lot. The initial plan shows a significant amount of material removal, (or regrading) into the existing lot which looks like it is in need of an overhaul. I think there could be an opportunity for an additional short lane of Westward spaces off of that proposal that could put the overwhelming bulk of the added spaces closer to the core campus areas for which they are needed, leaving the East lot for ACS and high demand situations. I haven't heard specifics about parking opportunities I pointed out weeks ago but was told something was added there. Especially if the plan involved regrading I think a small extra spur could be easily integrated. as it would be on a plateau tucked behind two mature trees.
Hope to see many of you tomorrow. Bill
7:00 Thursday March 5th: Strong Hall, Room 117 right near the east stairtower
The meeting is in Strong Hall, at a lecture hall a couple of flights up from the main entrance. There is a receptionist if it is not clear and probably a few people will be milling about.
Attending:
Bergmann and Associates, Stephen Thompson, and presumably others
CRCDS, Mark DeVincentis, Director of Facilities, Darrell Jachim-Moore, CFO
American Cancer Society will have a couple of people in attendance, presumably Mathew Flanigan, the capital campaign and corporate relations director is one
The director of zoning for City of Rochester Art Ientilucci is invited, Zina logenegro will not be able to attend
I just got email from Katie Comeau, Director of Preservation Services who spoke at the informational meeting has offered that either she or Cynthia Howk would attend the meeting if it would be considered helpful, of course I believe it would be and will let them know.
I guess seeing the plan presented, and providing feedback is the agenda. I don't know if discussion of zoning issues would be beneficial, especially if no representative from the City Zoning board. Many topics should be in play include lighting, plantings and other details.
Late yesterday, Stephen Thompson called and told me that the revision involves a smaller 20 car lot and a retaining wall with access from the lane that currently houses the architectural materials museum. While that should dramatically reduce the footprint and impact on the slope, I don't personally like the use of the lane running next to two neighboring properties. They plan a screening fence and evergreens to reduce noise and light pollution from this installation.
Stephen pointed out that not all of the 24 ACS staff members would be able to park there so some would walk from the lot above to which I shared my concern that why would anyone choose to park down below when the walking distance would be identical, but for 7 vertical feet and the extra 500' of meandering downhill driving to park would merely waste time and brake rotors. The unseen new proposal would add an additional 200 feet of driving and a U-turn so it is also not likely to offer any net convenience either. I learned there is in fact an accessibility requirement and discussed my sidewalk solution and learned it should be well within the ADA distance requirements, so that is promising.
Other than questioning the need calculation, I've yet to hear any specific concerns over the proposal to expand the Northwest lot. The initial plan shows a significant amount of material removal, (or regrading) into the existing lot which looks like it is in need of an overhaul. I think there could be an opportunity for an additional short lane of Westward spaces off of that proposal that could put the overwhelming bulk of the added spaces closer to the core campus areas for which they are needed, leaving the East lot for ACS and high demand situations. I haven't heard specifics about parking opportunities I pointed out weeks ago but was told something was added there. Especially if the plan involved regrading I think a small extra spur could be easily integrated. as it would be on a plateau tucked behind two mature trees.
Hope to see many of you tomorrow. Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
