Many of you will probably recall small, short-lived “parklets” springing up seasonally in Seattle the past few years. These are part of an 
international event called Parking Day, and we’ve posted about it here on Wallyhood when the program first started in 2014 and again last year.
This year, the city is expanding the event to two days, hence: PARK(ing) Day Plus+! Any person or group is invited to create a pop-up park, but a free permit is required. Applications are due August 5.
From the notice we received from SDOT:
Each year in September, people, businesses, and organizations across Seattle participate in the international PARK(ing) Day event. This event is an opportunity to rethink how streets can be used with temporary parks in on-street parking spaces. The program has been so successful in Seattle that this year, we’re expanding it into PARK(ing) Day Plus+!
PARK(ing) Day Plus+ will be held on both Friday, September 16 and Saturday, September 17 and will allow anyone in Seattle to install a one- or two-day pop-up park or street improvement project. As in past years, SDOT is offering free permits to participants that partner with us. All you need to do to participate is read through the PARK(ing) Day Plus+ guidelines and submit an application (along with a site plan and proof of neighbor outreach) to [email protected] by August 5.
Looking to do something creative with your installation, but need some additional funding? Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods is offering Small Sparks grants (up to $1,000) for PARK(ing) Day Plus+ installations through the Neighborhood Matching Fund program. To learn more about these grant opportunities and how to apply, contact Ed Pottharst ([email protected]) or Karen Selander ([email protected]). Small Sparks grant applications should be submitted no later than August 5 to receive funding before the event.
PARK(ing) Day Plus+ provides an opportunity to turn parking spaces into interactive places to engage with local communities or to test new ideas for improving neighborhood streets. The event is a creative way to generate a conversation about healthy, sustainable, and livable cities with tangible pop-up projects.
If you’re interested in participating, please check out the program website and email all questions and completed applications to [email protected]. We look forward to seeing your application!
And the War on Cars continues… The parking place stealing structure in front of Molly Moon’s is totally unnecessary. Fainting Goat seems to operate fine without one. I’m curious, does Molly Moon’s pay the city the amount the spaces would have produced as income if cars were allowed to park there? And how long is the structure allowed to exist?
Agree 100% with Lisa. The thing )parquet) in front of Molly Moon’s occupies two valuable parking place, consequently hurting other business traffic, and customers who would like to park there. I hope there is a limit on its’ existence. If every business did that, it is conceivable that all of them except the cleaners would profit from additional space. You don’t see anyone sitting in the parklet from late October through about June. As Lisa said, Fainting Goat does very nicely without a parklet.
I totally disagree with Lisa and iowagirl. The more we can do to encourage pedestrian and cycling traffic, the greater the economic benefit to small businesses, as shown by numerous studies. See http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_economic.cfm. And, the small table which crowds the sidewalk at Fainting Goat is no comparison to the parklet at Molly Moon’s.
Purely for Wallingford itself, it would be great for business if the center part of it is made walking only, with parking options added to the edges of it. Parking structures on Stone and 45th or what not. Ideas like that just aren’t practical for Wallingford specifically. Right now it’s important for the East-West car traffic. We can eliminate all parking to make Ballard people go home easier and make Wallingford like Aurora, but we can’t really encourage pedestrian and cycling traffic by too much with all the cars that need to go through. Slower them down as is right now surely make it good for pedestrians, but not much more can be down without digging a tunnel underneath.
yep.
1. SDOT is not going to allow that to happen, at least not as the parklet program is currently structured.
2. If that were to happen, then someone would build a market-rate parking structure in Wallingford, which would actually be a far more efficient use of land than what we have now.
If wouldn’t surprise if #2 came to pass if/when the route 44 gets its RapidRide-like enhancements, but it won’t be from parklets.
Lisa & IowaGirl — The “War on Cars” is a truthiness claim. The data do not back up the false narrative.
See what SDOT maintains and spends its money on here: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/sdotbudgets.htm
Bike lanes make up just 6% of the road miles inside Seattle.
Bikes and transit make up even less of the SDOT budget, just 3.8%.
And across the state, we spend $16 Billion, with just 8% going to something other than cars. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/BiennialBudget-15-17.htm
So, with that kind of spending to prop up automobile use, where is the War on Cars?
The war is right here – parking – and the narrative echoes the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. Both the current and proposed 2035 plan, but 2035 is particularly clear on how it thinks about parking, for example
Now, I don’t think anyone questions that the end goal is a desirable one, but the question wasn’t whether the war was just or unjust. The principle is clearly that insufficient parking is good because it deters cars.
The temporary parklet program looks like kind of an addle-headed PR gimmick that’s supposed to put street parking up as an alternative to imagination and fun. Can anyone think of another city resource that’s ever been offered up in this way, particularly for such inane purposes?
How about the idea that publicly-funded infrastructure should be made available to any citizen, but only so long as a citizen is able to cough up for a $10,000+ piece of equipment, and only so that said citizen may store said piece of privately-owned equipment on said public right-of-way?
I like the idea of low-cost parklets that are open to anyone, regardless of means, far better.
How about the idea that city infrastructure should work for the real lives of the people who live here, rather than be based on utopian fantasies? Honestly, on the spectrum of common public opinion, I think I would normally be way over on the anti-automobile side, they’re a general catastrophe and we’ve known that for generations. But we need to deal with the issue in ways that work, and this parklet BS is not helping a bit.
Hmmm… People do use the parklet. Just because I don’t park my car in front of YOUR house doesn’t mean that the parking on your street has no value.
Remarkably, the universe doesn’t revolve around either of us. Other people can and do use these amenities that you despise.
Who uses the parklet in front of Molly Moon’s except Molly Moon’s customers or the occasional street vagrant? It’s designed to be used byTHEIR customers, not the public, in general. That’s why I’m asking if they are paying market rate for the two parking spaces they’re wasting.
How is a few parklets a WAR? How is expanding transit use a WAR on cars?
Your arguments are like saying that when your momma told you to eat your vegetables that she was engaging in a War On Beef and Sweets.
When we spend BILLIONS of dollars a year on cars for 100 years, spending a few million on bikes and a few thousand on parklets is not what any reasonable person would call a WAR.
And when you and your party call for more amenities, it is disingenuous at best to moan that the low cost amenities someone else is paying for don’t meet your specific aesthetic.
Turns out the world doesn’t revolve around you.
I was agreeing that the parklet was taking up valuable parking spaces for customers who want to shop in the area. I don’t agree at all with the War on Cars statement. I was not talking about bicycles. oNLY referring to the fact that street parking is really important to have,a d the parklet takes up two spaces.
I agree 100% with Lisa and iowagirl.
The limit is two days.
I think that question was asking how long the permit for a parklet is. does it expire?
Not trying to be difficult here, but this article is actually about PARK(ing) Day, which is a bit different from the “parklets.” Personally, I’m not necessarily opposed to parklets, IFthey’re well used (I’ve seen quite a few a that aren’t.). But they should not be allowed to stay up year round in bad weather.
I’m also not opposed to a one day use during PARK(ing) Day Plus+, IF they get used as well, As long as they don’t make a habit of it, I don’t think one day will kill us. Anything that helps brings neighbors together, putting down their smartphones and meeting each other, is a good thing, IMO. Especially as the city insists on shoving unwanted density down our throats.
However, SDOT is lying, AGAIN, when it says “The program has been so successful in Seattle.” They call it a success because of the demand to expand it from community groups.
So just how strong was this demand? SEVEN people. That’s right, seven individual citizens in the entire city asked for it to be expanded. And SDOT only grudgingly gave up that information after being pressed on it.
Here’s their statement:
” Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and Cascade Bike Club have been active in working with the department to expand the scope of the PARK(ing) Day program. In addition, seven community members communicated directly with the project program manager advocating for expansion of the project.
The demand isn’t just measured by the number of people who asked for the expansion. The number of participating sites has been increasing over the years. If people communicating directly with the city is becoming a criteria, then you are just asking for advocacy groups to find people to flood the communication channels.
You can search on the quoted text to find the original story. Hayduke’s summary is quite accurate, this is the best they could do to back up their claim. They need someone like you to help paper over their fabrications.
I think this is just a bad matrix of measuring demand. If there are not too many people applying for sites, and not too many people who actually visit these sites, then we can say the demand is low. Advocates can always fabricate a lot of different numbers, but usage would be a true measurement.
TJ, we already know what Cascade Bike Club’s position is. which is anything that makes it harder to drive a car in this town is a good thing. CBC won’t be content until I=5 is converted into a giant bike lane. So it’s a good thing they only represent about 3% of the city’s commuters.
The job of any advocacy group for any issue is to advocate for their issue. It’s when you get lots of non-affiliated comments and support that it actually shows a meaningful demand. Which is not the case with SDOT and PARK(ing) Day.
So Scott Kubly and SDOT misled the public on that. Just like they misled the public in a press release published on the West Seattle Blog: “(T)he city writes that people are “driving too fast along SW Admiral Way, crashing into parked cars, and residents are afraid.”
The department goes on to say, “In fact, one mother choked up at our first public meeting at the thought of walking her children across SW Admiral Way.”
Though a mother may have choked up, the city’s statement doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the West Seattle Blog, the mother who “choked up” during a public meeting while she was speaking was actually talking about how the department’s proposal to remove parking in front of her house would impact her family’s daily life. It was the potential removal of parking that would then force her to cross the busy street with her children that upset her.
So why are you using how many individuals asked the city about it as a measurement? You know for sure if that’s the goal they can find people to “ask”. What do you have against true meaningful measurable like how many sites are participating? If this is a bad idea, there will be fewer participants and more complaints.
HHHmmm well how many people will it take to get a clean up our sidewalks program to begin and continue? I am sick of being catcalled by drunks n front of QFC?
Molly Moon asked for it. They evidently believe that they get more business with a place for people rather than a place for cars. They are responsible for the upkeep of the parklet as well. If you’re concerned about parking supply, I recommend you ask the city to start charging for on-street parking in Wallingford.
As for the parklets themselves, there’s lots more information here: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parklets.htm
Well, sure. They’ve acquired some real estate for pretty cheap, it’s pretty good business if you have customer volume enough to make use of it. For all that the space is technically not theirs. The parking it replaced really isn’t theirs, though, not just technically, it served businesses up and down the street, year around, a common resource that has been given to one retailer, for very little cost.
Maybe I’m the only one who cares about this, but I’m not a big fan of the kind of disposable environment that tends to be installed over road asphalt. Temporary -> low investment -> low quality, not really an esthetic that works for me in an urban context. Speaking as an urbanist, you know.
Urbanist? Ha!
I’m baffled by people like you, Donn, who can’t see that more walkable, more-pedestrian friendly streets are *good* for businesses. After all, it is people who shop at local businesses, not cars.
If you want to live in a strip-mall friendly location, there’s plenty of that north on Aurora and in our suburbs.
This junk adds nothing to walkability, it’s just an extension of the adjoining business footprint. In the two or three decades I’ve lived in Wallingford, if I could remember the times I’ve driven to a business on 45th I expect I could count them on the fingers of one hand – but if the clientele of local retail is restricted only to those who live here, then you tend to have only retail that isn’t worth driving to. I think some of our better establishments would argue that by your twisted logic, cars do shop here.
Donn, has there been any change you’ve ever liked?
Why, yes, and even street re-purposing. I was delighted when the Ballard Farmers Market moved out onto Ballard Ave, closing the street on Sunday afternoon. That’s a truly viable use, that I believe benefits the merchants and sure works for the market. There are a few other good moves that aren’t so germane here, but as a rule, most good changes happen at a smaller scale, not so often bold strokes and colossal projects.
How is something at the scale of the Ballard market (several blocks closed) OK in your mind, but something at the scale of a Parklet (one parking space) not OK?
The market works well. Pretty much year around, despite the seasonal nature of much of the goods, but in the summer it’s very busy. It serves a type of commerce that needs the space. The prior locations in various parking lots worked OK, but I think this makes more of it. If it turned out that the Ballard Ave merchants don’t appreciate it, then that would be different, but I expect they do. They took a street that wasn’t much for through travel anyway, and when it isn’t active, it clears out.
The parklet is a joke, a trashy temporary “occupy parking” that apparently may never be removed. They deface the city. A miniature homeless encampment would at least have the merit that the occupant really needs the space.
You make no sense
two parking spaces. not one.
Paul, those people can’t and won’t shop at local businesses if they can’t easily get there. Of course MM likes the parklet, it’s low cost extra space and visibility for them. And, it’s not like people who would park there would necessarily shop at MM, so they’re not really sacrificing much. It means that all the businesses a couple of blocks in either direction are making the sacrifice. It’s the 45th street Tragedy of the Commons.
Face reality: eliminating a parking space or two isn’t going to do one damn thing to materially reduce the number of people who can drive to 45th to shop. There already isn’t that much parking.
For our local businesses to make more money they really need more people shopping in their stores. (well, they can also charge more I suppose) And if they want more people in the stores, we’ve got choices like these:
1. Become a suburban strip mall so that more people can drive here.
2. Increase transit so more people can bus here.
3. Increase density so that there are more people in the neighborhood who can walk to the shops.
Are we willing to allow big new parking structures to support strip-mall shopping on 45th? Are we willing to accept the snarled traffic that would result? I strongly suspect not. I certainly don’t want to live in a strip-mall suburb.
So, if we want more people shopping on 45th than we really have to pursue the other two options.
Unfortunately the too many in Wallingford (read this blog and next door) are too often variously opposed to transit (WAR ON CARS, Sound Transit is a boondoggle!) and opposed to increased density (see all the HALA wars).
You crack me up sometimes, Paul. In the same paragraph you claim that taking away a couple of parking spaces won’t do a damn thing and then you claim that’s because there isn’t that much parking already. Well if you take away something that’s already rare and hard to come by in the first place, it certainly will have an effect on it, Paul. If there was tons of available parking on 45th Street then you’re right it wouldn’t really make a difference. So thanks for proving my point. Too funny.
Anyway, as I’ve said I actually like the idea of parklets IF they’re well-used. I’m pretty sure people aren’t going to be sitting outside in the middle of winter in the rain eating ice cream, however. So now that parking space is just wasted space. But hey if it advances your war on cars it’s all good right?
And I’m really not sure where you’re coming up with your suburban strip mall analogy. So I would actually go with option 4. Namely, leave what’s left of our parking spots alone.
The parklet has been there for a while. Has there been any negative effect on 45th St merchants? No. Is there enough parking to sustain 45th St businesses on the strength of only people who drive to the district? No.
Do you want a stronger commercial district? If so then you need to look to solutions other than more cars.
Otherwise move to the suburbs.
“Otherwise move to the suburbs.”
No thanks, Paul. Unlike you, I like Wallingford the way it is. That’s why I bought here, It’s walkable, neighbors knowing each other and hanging out together, nice gardens, and lots of well kept single family homes.
In other words, everything you hate and want to change. What is it with you urbanists, anyway. You move to a neighborhood not because of the way IT IS, but to come in and change it into something different that you want. And all the while telling others who live there they are “privileged” “exclusionary” “NIMBY” “racists,” because we don’t believe you when you tell us what you think is best for us.
How about, instead of telling us to move to the suburbs, which, in a few years you’ll want to come in call us exclusionary, and change that as well, how about YOU MOVE. You love density so much, think it’s so wonderful? MOVE DOWTOWN. After all, you’ve got so much density there already, it must be reaaaally affordable, right?
Sigh.
What we’re talking about here is minor amenities (which is a frequent request in these conversations), minor parking changes (which don’t materially impact the overall parking situation in the commercial strip), and improving the prospects of our small, locally owned businesses.
If you don’t want to strengthen our small, locally owned businesses, or if you can’t see a way to do so that does not involve “more cars”, then I posit you in fact bought a house in the wrong area. You may have thought you bought into a suburb, when in fact you bought into an urban neighborhood.
“Strengthen our small, locally owned businesses” by making it harder to get to to Wallingford? Yes, that makes ever so much sense.
The parklet outside Molly Moon’s is ONE PARKING SPACE. A single parking space. That really makes it “harder to get to Wallingford” in any significant, meaningful way? If you go a block off 45th in either direction, you can find parking.
I’m just saying that’s the principle thing it does with respect to neighborhood business. Granted that it is of small magnitude, and if it stops at one parklet then the impact won’t be noticeable. But since I don’t recognize that some trash out in the street with (maybe) people sitting in it improves the pedestrian environment a bit, the slight decrease in parking is all there is to say about it. And I don’t even live around the corner, so business patrons aren’t parking in front of my house.
Donn…. again, you intentionally misconstrue.
There are more ways to get into Wallingford than via a car.
There are other ways to get more people into Wallingford businesses than via cars.
The most effective way to get more people into Wallingford businesses is not via cars, but by transit and bikes and walking and increased local density.
What does this have to do with parklets? A parklet does none of those things, so +0 on those other ways someone can get to a 45th business; -1 on getting there via car. You add it up.
Precisely! Being anti-parklet has nothing to do with promoting our local businesses, nor anything to do with increased access to the 45th St commercial district.
Being anti-parklet is needless negativity.
Being anti-parklet is being anti-amenities.
Remember: just because YOU don’t use it Donn, doesn’t mean that NO ONE else does.
So people who don’t care for parklets should move to the suburbs, because it’s needlessly negative, seeing as they are almost irrelevant to practical business concerns – as long as there’s only one of them. As to whether I’m a MM customer, indeed I am not, but then neither do I need to park in that vicinity. It’s just that I care about the urban environment, since as you know I am an urbanist.
Right, it means that all businesses on 45th a block each way are missing the use of that parking spaces which MM so cleverly made into a not very eye appealing parklet.
The dumb parking thing in from of Moly Moon’s is ridiculous. Agree fully with Lisa’s concerns and questions. Let’s get on this one! How do we find out the info we want to know?
For all the car lovers, I think the issue is that Seattle simply can’t keep growing AND stay the same level of (not very) friendliness for cars. It’s just the issue of bigger cities. Wallingford was a suburb when Seattle wasn’t quite a city. Now that’s changing and for people who want the same life they will have to move.
Seattle simply can’t keep growing and preserve quality of life in any respect. The problems with cars are just part of the general breakdown of transportation. Housing will never be reasonably affordable, schools are on the verge of emergency status, police can’t respond to anything short of armed conflict, etc. Wallingford was never a suburb in the memory of any living person, it has been an urban neighborhood all along for everyone who lives here. When I moved here in the ’90s, it was because I worked at the UW and I could walk or bicycle there – it isn’t the kind of auto-dependent area that is particularly characteristic of the suburbs. But when we block off street parking on 45th, we’re only pinching our local retailers.
Quality of life is getting better in many ways in Seattle. There are more and more events, better and better restaurants. It’s just a different place, and better for some, worse for others. Street parking itself is not the most critical issue for local retailers by themselves. How many blocks of parking would be needed for one theater? It’s not an easy question to answer. What’s known good for retails is the ease of walking on the sidewalks, and the slow 45th traffic that’s always polite enough to yield to pedestrians is more essential than anything else. Stone way is unpleasant and bad for retail due to its wide street and fast traffic.
Purely for retail improvement, I’d say building parking structures in the QFC lot and the Wallingford center lot AND turn all the 45th street parking into parklets would probably be the best for retail.
Ballard on Sundays is what’s a good model for retails: it has the parking space reserve due to the hospital to the east and the industrial area to the west. However, at the main retail area itself it’s pedestrian only. That’s what attracts customers. Street parking on Ballard Ave itself surely wouldn’t be critical at all. The problem in Wallingford is that street parking for retailers just spill over to all the residential areas.
Donn, where is your transportation study data that proves that to be true?
Well it can’t even remotely “…stay the same level…” with regards to parking spaces if parking spaces are taken away!
TJ.” Wallingford was a suburb when Seattle wasn’t quite a city. Now that’s
changing and for people who want the same life they will have to move”
I believe all those people in the 1890s and early 1900s are all dead. There were hardly any cars when Wallingford was outside Seattle city limits. Get your history straight.
Have you ever used the Parklet in front of Molly Moons? There is only 2 swing style seats that are only used by 5 year olds to sit on and the wood exterior is slanted with no place to sit!!
What the heck good is it!! its worthless!!!
If that’s the case, then why is Molly Moons paying good money for the parklet? Because they just like 5 year olds?
Good question: Why ARE they paying good money? And, by the way, how much money ARE they paying?
Just so we’re clear, I’m 35 and I absolutely use the swinging seats whenever they’re vacant! But I’ve also been accused of acting like a 5 year old at times; if the shoe fits…
It’s actually not about the seats. It’s about the space. You get more shoppers when people can comfortable walk around your store. Even if that space had no seats at all, it would be helpful for business, since it creates a buffer for foot traffic. Having slow traffic lanes, easy to cross streets, and reasonably-wide sidewalks are all good for retail businesses. You can look at how malls, including outdoor ones like University Village, is designed.