Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 26, 2012

Parking crunch

July 26, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Like some of my architect colleagues, I’m not very good at math. After reading Chad Lawhorn’s excellent article (Journal-World, July 24) about the proposed “rec” center, I’m trying to understand how an 800-car parking lot will adequately serve the planned facilities. According to the article, the complex “could include a “10,000-seat track and field stadium.” Assistant associate athletic director for Kansas University Sean Lester is quoted as saying, “these events attract thousands of people, not hundreds.” Also mentioned in the article, “The fieldhouse could accommodate about 1,900 spectators with roll-out bleachers, but additional spectators could watch from a mezzanine level.”

After the first “rec“ center event, will it become obvious that more parking is needed and that a three-story parking garage must therefore be built over the 800-car parking lot? It would only add a few million dollars to a project whose financial feasibility is already suspect. But wait! Event attendees could be charged a substantial parking fee, which could pay for the parking garage!

Or perhaps some event attendees could park at the downtown parking garage/library and ride the “T” to the “rec” center.

Comments

Lawrence Morgan 2 years, 5 months ago

I'm very glad you brought these questions up.

You are RIGHT ON with these comments. Let's have them answered!!!

I am much more in favor of building regional projects all over Lawrence, to serve various neighborhoods, than this type of huge, huge building. See my comments under the recent article, "Clearer picture emerges of proposed recreation center."

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 5 months ago

This could be the standard bait and switch where they get the funding for the base project and play the, since we have this, now we need this to go with it. It happens all the time. The library initally was to be a library, then we were blessed with the parking garage which seems to be the whole reason they wanted the library in the first place. There is no money and all these projects should be voted down till we have the money to pay for them. Imagine how nice it would be to be able to pay cash for projects, not interest on bonds.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.