For the 20+ years that I have been in town we have talked about more parking downtown. Part of the problem lies in the fact that people (including merchants) don’t want to walk very far. So, putting additional parking in one part of downtown doesn’t benefit the other side.

The parking spaces that the library is proposing to take away are spots that can’t be easily replaced. If those spaces are moved to Washington or further, people would still use the spaces for the library, but those spaces would be lost to the downtown.

Various calculations have been performed to identify how much parking an expanded library would need. I’d say those spaces should be considered part of the cost of the library. However, what if the library expansion provides more parking than required for library patrons? Those “excess” spaces could be considered an additional project or the library project could be thought of differently as a hybrid project.

David, Sean is right about the College libraries – I have nothing to add to his very clear description of the differences.

And, Sean is right about perceptions and expectations of parking. The 10 year old Walker parking study found people willing to walk 1/2 block to their destination – that’s not much. We have planned for cars and we’ve come to rely on the convenience. The challenge for downtown is we presume parking is shared among businesses, rather than each building providing its own. This is good because it keeps downtown compact, limits the amount of parking, and generally helps maintain the character if the historic core. On the other hand, if you’re expecting easy drive up and drive through access, you’ll be disappointed or frustrated.

You can’t really think that we have a shortage of downtown parking because we require too much parking at other non-downtown stores!?

Well, yes. There is no natural law of parking here; we need as much parking as we expect/demand. In the case of the downtown, the problem is not literally that there is no place to park — except during DJJD, Washington and Water Streets are rarely filled — but simply that we don’t find what’s available to be convenient enough. Our standard of convenience is dictated by our parking experience elsewhere (like Target).

It seems reasonable to conclude that a parking facility is part of the “cost” of a new library.

I’d like to see Betsey comment here, but it’s not. Parking seems to be considered already a problem. At most, we should be considering the loss of 20-or-so spots on East 3rd Street as part of the Library project. (Betsey states that the proposed plan is to also eliminate to 3rd and Washington lot — this is in only in one building concept; it is possible to do the necessary expansion without eliminating that surface lot.) Though I don’t know that there’s any tracking of what parking is for what purpose, I believe very few Library users park on Division. If the Library is providing parking space for other businesses’ use, then I don’t think it’s fair to consider that a cost of the Library.

Has there been any effort to make the colleges’ libraries more accessible rather than building more library?

Lynne Young and Margit Johnson can and have spoken effectively to the Council as to why this is an overly simplistic idea. The college libraries and the public libraries are wildly different, in terms of collection and — especially — in terms of type of service. Much of what the NPL does is children’s programming (that the current facility cannot accommodate). They provide access and books for people with limited income and limited English proficiency. The public library is more than a simple warehouse of books, and in these areas, the college libraries are not suited to serve as well as the NPL.

Has there been any effort to make the colleges’ libraries more accessible rather than building more library? I know that the children have gone up to the St. Olaf and Carleton libraries for school projects. The college staff are very helpful. It would be cheaper to run a bus from the library to the front door of the colleges than it would be to build a new facility.

Lack of parking is a serious consideration to a library expansion. If the expansion takes parking away from other businesses, the expansion becomes a drain, not an asset to the downtown.

For those who would like to eliminate parking in the hopes of making downtown Northfield a haven for bicycles, pedestrians and transit users I’d say we have to accommodate the reality we currently have while working toward the ideal we would like to see.

I agree, vehicle parking can’t be ignored. However, I think it should be acknowledged that we have this “reality” in large part because Northfield has allowed — sometimes forced — excessive parking in out-of-downtown development. I think a legitimate fear among small-business owners is that people will be more inclined to go to Target than their store if it’s just too much effort to be able to park downtown. Imagine how different that equation would be for the average shopper if Target’s lot were small enough that parking even occasionally overflowed onto Honeylocust and Jefferson Road. (I’ve never seen them parked on City streets; I don’t think I’ve ever even seen cars parked in the east or north lots).

Kiffi’s suggestion of above-ground parking on the Grastvedt/Jacobson lot seems good. A ramp is not exactly charming, but neither is a surface lot. And it doesn’t have to be ugly — see the above ground parking at the Stillwater Library.

The problem there is that at the time the City said they had no money to do that and the DT property owners would have to pay for it.. The DT property owners said we cannot afford to pay for it. I think it was about the same time the state general tax , paid only by commercial property owners, was implemented.

I’m sure the City’s and the DT building owners’ PsOV are only more strongly held now, for all the reasons we all know.

Why does every discussion have to start from the bedrock? What’s the matter with a two story parking lot in the center of the DT?

The problem is always the MONEY! How can we find the MONEY?

According to you and the Mayor, Maren has been providing good counsel. I don’t see a good reason to switch to an unknown and less experienced lawyer outside of town when we have an experienced municipal lawyer here.

What seemed obvious to the Chamber members is that you (and Mary) had your minds made up before you talked to your constituents. There are lots of good reasons not to change, including one that concerns many local businesses – the continuing trend of the City to go outside of town for hired help.