I hate to think that I'm sounding anti-development or anti-growth here, but I just can't quite understand that in 2006 the Champaign City Council in all its wisdom would approve an apartment/condo complex with clearly and admittedly inadequate parking.
Why would they do such a thing?
Do they think the upscale yuppies who are gonna buy the condos can stack their multiple SUVs on top of each other? Do they honestly believe that claptrap that they're trying to appeal to urban residents who WON'T have or have need to rely on vehicles. Just who is that? Workers have cars. Students have cars. Retirees have cars.
The way I figure it, any upscale (read expensive) condo means at least two occupants. Two occupants in 2006 means two people working outside the condo which means at least two vehicles. There are 259 units. There are 200 parking places. I'm a liberal arts major, but even I can do that math.
In the mean time, let's consider continuing the debate about why we should cut back or eliminate MTD service in the Campustown area, where the ill-fated Burnham project is to be built.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Parking's not the issue. It's all about profit. Profit for the developer. Tax money for the city. And decades of parking problems for downtown.
All completely logical in a free-enterprise system, I guess.
And so it goes.
2 comments:
Hey, look on the bright side. When we run out of cheap oil, parking will become totally irrelevant!
Good point. But until then, how are all the yups gonna get out to South Prospect to spend their money at The Gap and Old Navy?
Volk's tram ain't ready yet.
Post a Comment