That is the choice. It is remarkably self-defeating to oppose a measure that would create some life in that location in the name of making it easier and more agreeable to walk. It would be easier and more agreeable to walk if I could walk to something useful, like a grocery store.

The parking “rules of thumb” that are cited are almost invariably excessive; they’re formulated with new greenfield development in mind, development where no one can walk to destinations, not for the middle of a neighborhood at the edge of a downtown. Yes, we need to “bring life” to the core; but to suggest that demolishing it for parking lots will do that is tragically flawed thinking. It’s only logical through the logic of car-dependency, but at some point we have to part with that logic. Thanks to Detter for voicing this rule of thumb, which I wish we’d learned in the age of “urban renewal”: it’s time we stopped destroying the city in order to save it.

Judging from the timestamp on your comment, Steve, you were writing it just about the same time that we corrected the reference above to read: “… from the Secretary of the Interior and adopted by the State of Michigan …”

By “etc.”, I’m guessing that Andy’s not referring to walking and biking, since those are existing ways that people can move about without a car, as I and some of my neighbors do when we walk to the PFC and/or the farmer’s market to get groceries.

As for buses, providing more parking is the last thing that will increase demand for them.

I wonder how the number of available spaces in the area of the PFC compares to what’s currently around the site in question. Of course, those near the PFC serve other businesses/offices at various times, not just the PFC, so a straightforward comparison may not be possible.