Lets also not forget the daytime population of Manhattan alone is 4+ million people. The CMSA+
is 20 million. Some parking spaces are 400 a month and around $5 a day. Rovers comments are out of perspective.
Over 3 mil on street and free Parking in NYC.
People who go to NYC know how important cars are in NYC.

How many total parking spaces are in OKC?

People can say what they want and attribute it to perception or whatever, but I've personally known of a few businesses that either relocated to a different downtown location or moved out of downtown altogether because of the lack of or cost of convenient parking. Not saying there isn't any parking (there is), just saying there's a big difference between the existence of parking spaces and the perceived convenience and cost of parking and there is a lot of office vacancy downtown.

How many total parking spaces are in OKC?

I can’t find an exact number but I would estimate easily around the 3 million range. There was a study in 5 cities and it found Des Moines had approx 1.6million parking spaces. With a land area of only 82 sq miles and population of only 217k, it’s not hard to imagine okc having 3 million or more spaces in its sprawling 621 sq mile city limits. That’s probably an underestimation.

Living over an hour from Chicago for 40 years you learned to take the train into town. Parking was expensive or impossible. Every try to park for a cubs game? You park at a college about 3 miles away and you take the shuttle if you wanted to drive or you took the train.

How does any business in NYC ever sell anything without billions of parking spots? This logic is lol. Parking is what fragments the urban core and results in less people on the streets. There is way way way too much parking the core. You need to look harder if you can’t find it. It’s there.

Why do people want OKC to be other cities? It would be easier if those who don’t like our way of life to move to these other utopias. I never understand why folks keep comparing us to other cities. I like our way of life here and don’t need to be some other city. There is nothing wrong with being unique vs a clone city.

Why do people want OKC to be other cities? It would be easier if those who don’t like our way of life to move to these other utopias. I never understand why folks keep comparing us to other cities. I like our way of life here and don’t need to be some other city. There is nothing wrong with being unique vs a clone city.

So if I want my city to thrive and become a better place to live I should move? What kind of logic is that? It’s a good thing people didn’t do that in the 80s...

Over 3 mil on street and free Parking in NYC.
People who go to NYC know how important cars are in NYC.
I agree cars are important everywhere. Even in Europe modal share is made up of mostly cars. I’m only saying 7 million parking spaces in NYC isn’t that much. They need more parking in NYC and especially downtown LA.

Let's get back to downtown parking. What is a better immediate use for these areas?

Many of them are like NW13th and Robinson, which was 1930s strip shopping that wound up housing Brown's Bakery for many years. In the 1990s Bob Moore bought it and removed the structures in order to gain more parking for their dealership at 13th and Broadway. 20 years later the dealership is dirt and the Brown's area is asphalt. Is there a better immediate use for these plots?

My point being that many times surface parking is a better land use as part of the 50 year plan while we wait for the central business district to infill with substantial developments.

So if I want my city to thrive and become a better place to live I should move? What kind of logic is that? It’s a good thing people didn’t do that in the 80s...

Our downtown “is” thriving who told you otherwise?

Our downtown “is” thriving who told you otherwise?

It’s getting better everyday but also has a long way to go. I believe it will get there but not until this antiquated parking mindset changes. No one goes to a city because it has great parking.

No one goes to a city because it has great parking.
No one goes to a city because of its lack of parking either. No one goes to cities because of their mass transit. Amenities are what adds to the pleasant experience. Having plentiful parking is pleasant for me and many others.

. No one goes to cities because of their mass transit.
I specifically go to DC, Boston, NYC, Chicago because I can get my work and leisure done via public transportation.
Many persons as they age realize that they won't be able to drive forever and prefer to have excellent mass transit, especially good links to area healthcare centers.

^^^ the sole reason you go to those cities is so you can ride around on trains and work? Why not just stay home and work instead of traveling there? I’m not understanding you.

No one goes to a city because of its lack of parking either. No one goes to cities because of their mass transit. Amenities are what adds to the pleasant experience. Having plentiful parking is pleasant for me and many others.

I specifically visited the Netherlands because of their world class mass transit and lack of cars and parking. Mass transit and not having to rent a car is a large factor in deciding almost every city I visit. On the other hand I don’t think people are deciding to skip a trip to NYC to take their family to Amarillo because It’s easier to park.

^^^ the sole reason you go to those cities is so you can ride around on trains and work? Why not just stay home and work instead of traveling there? I’m not understanding you.

Because I don't work from home. A lot of selection regarding conference attendance has to do with ease of public transit. GoGators answer above is in line with my thinking.
And yes, I would go to a city or country to ride a train. I'm fascinated by the bullet trains of Japan and hope to make it to that country soon.

Because I don't work from home. A lot of selection regarding conference attendance has to do with ease of public transit. GoGators answer above is in line with my thinking.
And yes, I would go to a city or country to ride a train. I'm fascinated by the bullet trains of Japan and hope to make it to that country soon.

Japan has the most efficient trains on earth. On time and doors shut so you better get on in time. Hong Kong is cool too. I’ve ridden in both countries.

In Japan driving a car is a huge responsibility. If you are in an accident you are at least 25% at fault regardless. In their system had you not been there the accident would not have happened. So even if sitting at a light and hit thats 25% your fault.

One thing about these other countries they have less land area and cities were built mostly before cars. So their roads are smaller. America was built with the car and is a young country in the big picture. Our cities were mostly built with roads/cars.

I specifically visited the Netherlands because of their world class mass transit and lack of cars and parking. Mass transit and not having to rent a car is a large factor in deciding almost every city I visit. On the other hand I don’t think people are deciding to skip a trip to NYC to take their family to Amarillo because It’s easier to park.
Then by this logic there are specially cities I’ve visited to see their road and freeway networks.

Because I don't work from home. A lot of selection regarding conference attendance has to do with ease of public transit. GoGators answer above is in line with my thinking.
And yes, I would go to a city or country to ride a train. I'm fascinated by the bullet trains of Japan and hope to make it to that country soon.
Okay but the main reason you go is for work not because of their lack of parking or transit systems which is my point.

Though I agree with you on Japan. I love that country and am visiting soon. I love their trains and women. They also have a beautiful road and freeway network and some really cool cars we don’t have in the states along with Tokyo just being something unlike anywhere else from what I’ve heard.

Then by this logic there are specially cities I’ve visited to see their road and freeway networks.

Yes, I’m sure the parking lot tour industry is lucrative.

I’ll say it again. No one goes to a city because of great parking.

Yes, I’m sure the parking lot tour industry is lucrative.

I’ll say it again. No one goes to a city because of great parking.I’ll say it again. No one goes to a city because of its lack of parking either. These arguments are a false equivalence.

It’s not about OKC “being other cities.” It’s about urban parts of OKC abiding by successful urban design principles. I don’t care what the suburbs and outskirts do that much. People in OKC shouldn’t have to move away for an urban experience that is based around car ownership. I’m talking about a geographically small part of the city.

Does more parking bring more business?
https://www.locallogic.co/blog-post/does-more-parking-bring-more-business


What we found was that, in general, the streets with the least parking available actually had the lowest vacancy rates, and vice versa.


These findings may seem counter-intuitive. But there are a number of reasons why parking may not help retail business, and can even be harmful. For one thing, more parking means more cars, more cars means more traffic, and more traffic generally creates a less pleasant atmosphere. Noise from traffic makes sitting on a summer terrasse less enjoyable. More traffic makes for a more dangerous environment, particularly in the anarchic world of parking lots, as well as broadly for children and those with impaired mobility. Additionally, more parking makes for narrower sidewalks, resulting in the jostling for space that is typical on any Saturday on Rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest. And in terms of charm -- well, we’ve all seen plenty of Montreal’s beautiful commercial streets on postcards, but not too many featuring parking garages.

Furthermore, research has shown over and over that parking is not critical to retail streets. From 2010 to 2015, Philadelphia removed 3,000 downtown parking spots -- 7% of the total -- and has seen increased retail vibrancy in that period. In New York, the construction of new bike lanes -- using space that could be taken up by parking instead -- corresponded with a 24% increase in retail sales nearby. And on top of this, drivers often spend less per month compared to cyclists and pedestrians -- nearly two-thirds that of pedestrians, according to one British study. As such, incentivizing drivers might just be bad business.

Imagine 3,000 parking spots being 7% of the total downtown.

I believe "successful urban design principles" are the largest part of why we have so much parking in the urban core today. Urban Renewal made a large amount of land bare, and responsible economic growth has still not filled it 50 years later. I submit that surface parking is an acceptable use of much of this land until the developments come along that will occupy the space for the 100 plus years their prime location will demand.

Upthread there is praise for cities that have good public transportation, and I think it is suggested they are superior to OKC because of that. I think the reality is they are cities that are at least 100 years older than OKC and they were built out before cars became plentiful and cheap. All the cities listed are there because of their access to the most economical transportation of the era they were built in, which was water. First was ocean ports, then navigable rivers. The 19th century brought the railways and the 20th brought the automobile.

OKC is car centric because it is a 20th century city. Much as Las Vegas, Phoenix, SoCal and other areas of the West.

Except it wasn't car centric before 1947 and had a robust transit system where, not only could you get all the way up to 63rd at the time, but you could get to Guthrie, Norman, El Reno, etc.

^ Doubt it will return to being horse centric. In all seriousness though, prior to 47 most households were single wage earner. The population in this era did not have a significant number of females in the work force that were married and working outside the home. Nor was there a significant part of the female population >21 that was single. As far as teens having cars, not so much. You can't compare the transportation needs of OKC pre 1947 to today.

That was not my intent. I was simply saying that it was not always car centric.

I believe "successful urban design principles" are the largest part of why we have so much parking in the urban core today. Urban Renewal made a large amount of land bare, and responsible economic growth has still not filled it 50 years later. I submit that surface parking is an acceptable use of much of this land until the developments come along that will occupy the space for the 100 plus years their prime location will demand.

Upthread there is praise for cities that have good public transportation, and I think it is suggested they are superior to OKC because of that. I think the reality is they are cities that are at least 100 years older than OKC and they were built out before cars became plentiful and cheap. All the cities listed are there because of their access to the most economical transportation of the era they were built in, which was water. First was ocean ports, then navigable rivers. The 19th century brought the railways and the 20th brought the automobile.

OKC is car centric because it is a 20th century city. Much as Las Vegas, Phoenix, SoCal and other areas of the West.

This is about 23,000 empty spaces in downtown being terrible for the health of the city. I don’t care if okc was built in 1400 or 2020. That statement remains true.

No one is saying parking lots should be banned. Just that 23,000 spaces that are literally never used is problematic for a city center. How anyone could argue that statement is baffling.

This is about 23,000 empty spaces in downtown being terrible for the health of the city. I don’t care if okc was built in 1400 or 2020. That statement remains true.

No one is saying parking lots should be banned. Just that 23,000 spaces that are literally never used is problematic for a city center. How anyone could argue that statement is baffling.

I am not minimizing or discounting your statistic, but what is your solution? My honest question is what is economically viable today, and does not sell out the future, as a replacement for those spaces?

It’s not about OKC “being other cities.” It’s about urban parts of OKC abiding by successful urban design principles. I don’t care what the suburbs and outskirts do that much. People in OKC shouldn’t have to move away for an urban experience that is based around car ownership. I’m talking about a geographically small part of the city.

The flaw in your argument is a majority of MAPS taxes comes from outside downtown. All citizens have input not just downtowners. Your argument is no one else matters except downtowners.

I think we have a thriving city with a great downtown. Parking spots allow non downtowners to come and enjoy all the MAPS projects.

Like another poster said there is not an overabundance of building demand to shut down parking spots. And small businesses rely on parking spots to generate extra revenue which can make just enough difference.

Outside of downtown the biggest complaint I hear is not enough parking. Regardless if its true or not its their perception. And a lot of people outside of downtown have made cars their #2 expense and want to park close to their cars. Some have fears of walking far downtown. I think its unfounded but people think this.

There is no reason to eliminate spots and lets see how it does once all 3 new venues are open year.

I am not minimizing or discounting your statistic, but what is your solution? My honest question is what is economically viable today, and does not sell out the future, as a replacement for those spaces?

First, I would eliminate on street parking and make way for protected bike lanes, pedestrians, and parklets. Getting rid of the parallel spots along the street car line eliminates the possibility of it being blocked by cars anyway. This would be a small step the city could do tomorrow. Not much the city could do with private lots that are already there. I wouldn’t allow any further demo permits for surface lot construction within the core. Plus if possible, The city should put pressure on these private property parking owners to keep up with current landscaping requirements that go along with new construction. Finally, I would actually enforce the city ordinance of allowing people to park only on specific hard surfaces. Any lot that includes gravel, grass, etc. would be fined until shut down. That’s where I would start.

No one goes to a city because of its lack of parking either. No one goes to cities because of their mass transit. .

I go to cities specifically for those reasons.

I go to cities specifically for those reasons.
As do I.

Lol I’m not buying it. Maybe that is one of the reasons but it isn’t the main reason. You go to cities because of the city. That would be like saying “oh I went to NYC specifically to ride the subways and everything else like the historic landmarks were second.” Perhaps you two are missing my point or I’m not explaining it.

But saying “no one visits a city because of its parking” is a false equivalency.

First, I would eliminate on street parking and make way for protected bike lanes, pedestrians, and parklets. Getting rid of the parallel spots along the street car line eliminates the possibility of it being blocked by cars anyway. This would be a small step the city could do tomorrow. Not much the city could do with private lots that are already there. I wouldn’t allow any further demo permits for surface lot construction within the core. Plus if possible, The city should put pressure on these private property parking owners to keep up with current landscaping requirements that go along with new construction. Finally, I would actually enforce the city ordinance of allowing people to park only on specific hard surfaces. Any lot that includes gravel, grass, etc. would be fined until shut down. That’s where I would start.

I agree with your overall concept. I might quibble with some details, but this is a good start. Especially no parking on the street car line.

IF YOUR LACK OF PARKING ISN'T THE ONLY REASON FOR VISITING A CITY THEN YOUR OPINION IS INVALID! ;) ha ha. Giving you a hard time, but I think you're dismissing people's opinions because you're missing our larger point.

I think the point is that many of us travel to dense, urban cities not just because of their public transportation and lack of parking but because these things are what make these cities vibrant and walkable. They're interconnected. You can't separate them.

In general (because it depends how they're spread around), every parking spot OKC has in it's core makes OKC less dense and walkable because cars are taking up spaces that could be filled with residents, visitors, businesses, and more broadly, street life. And, the more dense/walkable and less cars the more the benefits accrue. Unfortunately, OKC keeps building parking garages every block and wonders why the streets are dead and no one is riding the streetcar. Again, I don't care what OKC does outside the core that much, but urban areas that don't abide by urban principles are not as good as those that do.

^^^ Oh I agree with you about OKC’s parking. Plus the parking garages they are building are horribly designed and should be hidden or underground like most cities. We tore down a beautiful bus depot and building recently for some. I can go on all day bashing these parking garages.

My response about the whole visiting cities for transit thing was in regards to Gators comments about people not visiting a city because of its parking lots. Of course no one does and no one here claimed they do.

But I was not too impressed with the streetcar when I rode it and for the money we could have got more with an enhanced articulated bus system and dedicated bus lanes. This would have prevented virtually every problem the streetcar current has.

Given OKCs car culture, I’m not so convinced parking garages are affecting ridership that much but I could be wrong. We need a multi billion dollar investment in OKCs mass transit network alone AND getting serious about interstate rail travel as well as connecting OKC to Tulsa with 110 MPH rail to their DOWNTOWNs and increasing speeds on heartland flyer. Extend heartland flyer to newton. Do that and I bet ridership increases. Since the street is already in place it should be expanded and the new expansion double tracked instead of a circulator.

The flaw in your argument is a majority of MAPS taxes comes from outside downtown. All citizens have input not just downtowners. Your argument is no one else matters except downtowners.

I think we have a thriving city with a great downtown. Parking spots allow non downtowners to come and enjoy all the MAPS projects.

Like another poster said there is not an overabundance of building demand to shut down parking spots. And small businesses rely on parking spots to generate extra revenue which can make just enough difference.

Outside of downtown the biggest complaint I hear is not enough parking. Regardless if its true or not its their perception. And a lot of people outside of downtown have made cars their #2 expense and want to park close to their cars. Some have fears of walking far downtown. I think its unfounded but people think this.

There is no reason to eliminate spots and lets see how it does once all 3 new venues are open year.
And a majority of MAPS goes outside of downtown too

Im getting sick and tired of people making this argument with the idea that MAPS only benefits downtown. While it is true that in downtown you can have the flashy and best building uses MAPS has always been a city wide effort not just in collections. Having downtown amenities just illustrates the beauty of having a core, it's economically advantageous to build big venues given the urban design constraints that dont exist in the rest of the city, Venues feed off each other in a dense area - so it makes sense to build a arena, baseball stadum, and canal to co-exist and create the destination that downtown is.

but lets not forget the fairgrounds is ALWSAYS at MAps and isnt downtown, there are no senior cititizen centers downtown, very few trails and new sidewalks are downtown, ect. Maps has always been city wide, its just easier to build the big attractions downtown for a variety of reasons. ...

And a majority of MAPS goes outside of downtown too

Im getting sick and tired of people making this argument with the idea that MAPS only benefits downtown. While it is true that in downtown you can have the flashy and best building uses MAPS has always been a city wide effort not just in collections. Having downtown amenities just illustrates the beauty of having a core, it's economically advantageous to build big venues given the urban design constraints that dont exist in the rest of the city, Venues feed off each other in a dense area - so it makes sense to build a arena, baseball stadum, and canal to co-exist and create the destination that downtown is.

but lets not forget the fairgrounds is ALWSAYS at MAps and isnt downtown, there are no senior cititizen centers downtown, very few trails and new sidewalks are downtown, ect. Maps has always been city wide, its just easier to build the big attractions downtown for a variety of reasons. ...

Has anyone done the numbers percentage wise to see how much money goes to each part of the city? Would be interesting.