Mr. John King, journalist for the Chron, told us at a CBB forum that he was amazed at all the on-grade city parking lots we have in Burlingame and that we have the flexibility to better utilize them. Architect Ionescu has started with a concept to better use for the Donnelly parking lot.
So will our new plan say we want more seas of concrete? Will we have a deja vu moment from the 1989 land grab for Primrose Lanes (1340 Howard) for the princely sum of $1.6+ million to make 60 parking-spaces? Why not start with this sea of concrete on Howard and include ground floor retail et al (plus parking) which would revitalize this important part of town.
Will we demolish another part of town for the bane of Burlingame? Will we be smart with the parking lots we already have? Or will we build a 50 story parking structure?
And will that ever be enough!
- Written by Fiona
Good points. Aspirations of become a planner, Lady Fiona?
Posted by: Resident | December 21, 2005 at 08:04 PM
No, I don't but there is a rather tall gentleman who would be a perfect future city planner for the town of Burlingame! Last I heard though he was headed for grad school!
Posted by: | December 21, 2005 at 09:00 PM
It would be beneficial for all concerned residents to view the overhead presentation that showed just how much of the downtown area is comprised of at grade parking lots. This presentation was REALLY an eye opener.
Posted by: Rich Grogan | December 21, 2005 at 09:55 PM
At a minimum, I think we should get some attractive looking banners that point out where the parking is (Santa Barbara has these as well as a map). I circled for a while at lunch today until I remembered about the spots by Royal Donut...that whole row along Carolan was 50% empty during lunch!
Posted by: Joanne | December 21, 2005 at 11:04 PM
Couldn't agree more.
Parking lot signage maps + trolley visibility maps schedule --- apparently DBID, BID, and possibly the Chamber are all working on something. Hopefully we'll see the fruits of those labors soon!
Posted by: Resident | December 22, 2005 at 03:10 AM
We must keep in mind the artful dodging Mr. Ionescu did on the parking issue. My impression was that he focussed on the profit-making part of developments (the number of units, their sizes, ease of access) and did not want to get into the harder parts like how many levels down a developer would have to dig to build enough parking to keep his development from using up public parking. His plans need eagle eyes on them.
Posted by: just looking | December 22, 2005 at 04:05 AM
Absolutely, eagle eyes on all money-driven projects but I have my eagle eyes on our City - yes even our present more savvy council - that they will be less destructive and more creative.
Mrs. Nagel, can that go on the wish list!
Posted by: | December 22, 2005 at 03:58 PM
I work downtown and about a month ago a person named Linda from DBID came to our office with a detailed map of all the city lots and how much it cost to park. We can now direct clients, employees tenants to all-day $1.00 parking near our office instead of feeding quarters in the meters. I thank DBID for putting this information together and distributing it to all the merchants.
For example, you can now pay $1.00 to park all day behind Bank of the West and Brothers Deli off of Primrose or Park Road (xstreet Howard). It's only a block or two to walk to the "ave" but what a relief not to worry about getting a ticket. A real deal.
Posted by: Constance | December 24, 2005 at 01:03 AM