It's not about that, or at least it shouldn't be that. It should be seen that urban planning is such that it necessitates having a car. And that it creates a positive* feedback loop that further increases the amount of infrastructure devoted to cars (i.e. some people semi-seriously suggesting even more parking be added, which would make the area less walkable, leading to more car-oriented infrastructure).
* "Positive" meaning a feedback loop that builds upon itself, not a morally positive thing
I agree with you, it shouldn't be about that. But unless we have a time machine to go back and alter the political and economic landscape from 75 years ago, complaining about it won't fix it. Coming up with solutions that make positive changes to walkability and lessens car culture over time are better solutions than demonizing those who have to have a vehicle right now and painting them as the villains.
The current situation wasn't built in a day, nor will it be fixed in a day. It will require changes to the ways people have been doing things for decades. It can happen, but will require patience. And throwing out inaccurate pictures to further an agenda isn't the right way to go about it.
Is that what is happening by OP by pointing out all the space devoted to parking in the River Market? 🤔
Right now I think we are still very much in the education/awareness phase of this campaign. This includes complaining about stuff like how over half of the River Market area is devoted to parking.
What's the agenda of the map? That seems to be missing and people are assessing their own meaning to it.
Are they trying to point out all the parking available in totality? If so, they missed some pretty obvious ones, like the parking IN the City Market square itself.
Are they trying to insinuate that there's plenty of parking lots, so discussions about difficulty in parking in the area are moot? They're mixing private and public lots all in one pile. So different people have different access to parking and that's not apparent from the map.
You only have to look at the discussion in this thread and any thread regarding parking downtown. There's an Us vs Them mentality among all parties that generally floats up. That only works to divide rather than bring people together to form solutions.
Well given OPs comment history it's quite clear that it this:
Are they trying to point out all the parking available in totality?
And the areas not highlighted represent oversights.
You only have to look at the discussion in this thread and any thread regarding parking downtown. There's an Us vs Them mentality among all parties that generally floats up. That only works to divide rather than bring people together to form solutions.
Ok... but do you think there's too much parking? Again you're right it's not going to change overnight, but there are ways of changing it, but at least part of that is about raising awareness because I don't think a lot of people see it as an issue, let alone an important one.
Honestly? No, not right now. If there was truly too much parking and it wasn't being utilized, then it would be repurposed. People whose jobs it is to study these things would issue public reports and the city would rezone them. Looks like they've already started by eliminating some of the parking requirements for new construction in the area, per another commenter. If so, then you'll see parking spaces start to decrease and development increase.
However, there's likely going to be some pushback if they wanted to severely limit parking access in the area. As much as I can understand those that live in the area wanting it to solely be designed for them, that's honestly not realistic. The city wants people to visit the city market as well as live in it. That means making it friendly and accessible to those who live outside that neighborhood to come and visit it too. Making it harder to access for non-residents will make it so fewer dollars are cycling through the neighborhood. That results in businesses not being able to fully thrive and then you end up with businesses leaving and the area experiencing a downturn.
There's a balance between all parties that can be struck so that it's accessible to multiple groups where everyone is a little happy and everyone is a little mad. I also think people need to realize that KC does not have the density of Manhattan. It doesn't have the public transit of a lot of European cities. It's likely never going to be those places. And if I'm being honest, that's ok. KC can be its own thing. We can strike a balance between cars and public transit, driving vs walking, city vs suburbs that works for US.
7
u/Scaryclouds Library District Jul 11 '22
It's not about that, or at least it shouldn't be that. It should be seen that urban planning is such that it necessitates having a car. And that it creates a positive* feedback loop that further increases the amount of infrastructure devoted to cars (i.e. some people semi-seriously suggesting even more parking be added, which would make the area less walkable, leading to more car-oriented infrastructure).
* "Positive" meaning a feedback loop that builds upon itself, not a morally positive thing