Parking issues within the boundaries of the Cultural Arts District regarding future plans and cooperative efforts have been discussed at length among district members, City planners and the Redevelopment Agency. Cooperation between district partners has alleviated parking issues in the past, most recently with our Celebration on the Boulevard event in November of 2006, Arte Americas Fridays in the Plaza and a host of other events.

The Met’s current lot at Van Ness and Calaveras houses 54 parking spaces and will possibly allow for more with a redrawing of the lot for efficiency as we lead to our Fall 2008 reopening. This allotment of spaces coupled with metered streetside parking has more than accommodated our efforts in the recent past, and when we have needed assistance from Cultural Arts District partners to account for expected overflow they have been more than willing to help. In turn, the Met has reciprocated with its parking lot when needed by other organizations.

As for parking following the expansion plans that were on view at the last ArcHop event, many possibilities are in play and will be visited in the coming years as that project develops, including the possibility of underground parking beneath the new building. In addition, the Cultural Arts District Master Plan calls for, with certain developmental milestones being met, the construction of two parking structures as well as possible lots along H street. Plans for the new Central Library will also call for a certain allotment of additional parking. All of this, of course, deals with long term scenarios that will be fleshed out in environmental studies and as developmental milestones are reached and in full collaboration with the district partners.

Rest assured that the parking issue is not one that has been overlooked, and as plans for development within the district progress, so do those for parking to accommodate the additional expected traffic.

John English
Manager, Marketing and Communications
Fresno Metropolitan Museum

I didnt realize that lot was the mets, even though it is labelled museum parking. However, it is only 55 or so spots, with around ten reserved ones. that is not enough for a soon to be world class museum, located across from another art museum.

My comment was more made because this seems to happen all over Fresno, and even then for the wrong reason. It seems like Fresno is going through an identity crisis and trying too hard to be like other cities. I've seen a surprising amount of old historical buildings torn down in place of new buildings. Seems like the money could be put to better use, like an actual good public transit system....

EDIT: Also, I would argue the blighted downtown has far less to do with architecture and far more to do with a ton of other issues.

right across the street next to the flower shop.

There allot of good people working to preserve and restore our great old buildings. With that said are all old building historic? No. We should be selective in what buildings we call historic, and demand to be restored and preserved.

In the name of progress will some old buildings be torn down? Yes. With old buildings there are a host of challenges that impede renovation. Those include higher structural and earthquake standards, handicapped accessibility, asbestos abatement, fire exiting requirements, not to mention all the new technology an infrastructure that new buildings require. These issues, believe it or not, often make it more expensive to renovate an old building than it is to tear it down and start from scratch. It is a hefty investment that preservationists undertake, and we owe them our gratitude for saving our history for this generation and the next.

Chris Johnson made a good point during the ArcHop panel discussion. He said that renovating existing buildings is one of the most sustainable practices, because there is a huge amount of embodied energy in every building. "Even if you strip a building down to its structure and facade, 50% of the energy it took to construct the building remains." Otherwise all those materials and energy goes to the landfill. That shows that the most economic route is often not the most sustainable route.

Why knock down buildings to build new? If you look at any vibrant urban core, you will find a patchwork of architecture styles and building ages. The great buildings stand the test of time. But we can not be to timid to make architectural leaps. If we do not tear down building that have outlived there usefulness then we are destined to always have a blighted downtown.

Kiel Famellos-Schmidt
ArcHop Curator

The City needs to build 3 more 7 level parking garages that should solve the problem.

Make parking in the garages free with validation to anyone going to shop or government offices Downtown.

Have one way in and one way out of the parking garages.

Have proper security and do not let the street vagrants into the garage to roam and break into cars.

There is no reason anyone without a car should be in there unless they work there.

Why does Ace Parking and the Raddison let old street vagrants go up in the parking garages with shopping carts?

I heard one old boy yelling he has da right ta go up there it's da publics property and he is public.

No they don't have that right.

But security can chase the skaters around the garages while old boy drinks and urinates eveywhere.

And also cases cars for a quick break the window and steal things.

Make people coming back to get their car show their ticket to enter.

Make the first floor of one garage motorcycle parking only

This way there is clear view of people on first floor.

The City Should Build a parking Garage behind the baseball stadium.

Make parking free for games if you have a game ticket.

It should also have a walkway connecting it to the stadium.

Then noboby would be bothered by the street vagrants entering and leaving.

People would feel safer parking in a secure garage.

More people would come to a game and they'd spend more at a game if parking was free.

where is the met's parking lot?

The Met has a parking lot already that would serve as more than enough space without building a structure.

Also, this addition, when it comes to pass, won't knock down the Bee Building...it'll be a separate structure sitting where the Met's old office was. Just for clarification.

I have a hard time believing the addition to the Met will ever get built as it was three times larger then the current Met. I was told it would cost somewhere around $100 million! I really didn't care for the look of the addition either as it would look absolutely nothing like the existing building, and more like the current City Hall.

edluv--

Regarding a parking structure for the met, the most likely reason that you did not see it mentioned or shown with the model is because it is more of an accessory structure to the building and not part of the "architecture" of the building. Furthermore, the Met might actually be located in a parking-exempt area of downtown (I'll have to verify that tomorrrow), which in that case a parking structure is probably not part of the project. In any case, parking structures are usually never highlighted when modeling a project.

However, you bring up an interesting point, because although the function of a parking garage is not the main attraction and most definitely not designed to be a feature, they are still indeed very much part of the built environment which we all have to look at everyday, and all structures in our built environment, no matter what they are, should still inspire people to appreciate their surroundings and find an aesthetic appeal wherever they might be.

Parking is definitely important, although, if we want our city to have a true urban environment, people are going to start having to embrace walking a bit more throughout the city to get from their car to their destination.

i went to arc-hop, and was impressed with the models and ideas presented there. but, one thing stood out to me, especially in considering the model for the met: a lack of parking.

i could be wrong, but i didn't see any allowance or plan for parking or parking structures. it seems foolish to plan a destination, like a major museum, without planning for how people are going to get there. and as much as i'd love for there to be monorails, trolleys, better buses, transporters, etc, i realize that most people drive cars. and, if you're coming from out of town, you're probably coming in a car. so, where are you supposed to put said car? in one of the parking structures 3 blocks away?

now, fresno isn't the only place where i've noticed this. i went to the deyoung in sf, and really had a nice time @ the museum. but, it's located in golden gate park, although sort of on an edge. so, it was all street parking in the park, on a limited (i think 2hr) basis. not exactly encouraging me to hang out long. now, at least the sf moma has structures close, as well as street parking in the vacinity. but still, parking!

if we want/expect/encourage tourism, we have to think about how people arrive. you can't be a destination any other way.

Is this just more old buildings we're tearing down? This baffles me... one would think it would be much less expensive to renovate than it is to tear down and rebuild. And more important, we're tearing down history. We have these beautiful old buildings, and instead of embracing our history we're knocking it down. I have nothing against newer architecture, but why knock down our history to put it up?