New Woodland Courthouse and Downtown Garage projects by the numbers
Excerpts from the Woodland Record:
0 $ – Amount the State of California plans to spend on a parking garage for the New Woodland Courthouse.
0 – Existing parking spaces provided by the state for the Yolo County Superior Courts.
2.55 – Acres promised to the state by Yolo County for the New Woodland Courthouse according to a 2006 resolution. The property is the city block bordered by Court, Third, North and Fourth Streets that currently houses the holding jail, the public defender’s office and the law library.
4 – Stories planned for the New Woodland Courthouse, with a basement and penthouse in addition to that.
14 to 16 – Courtrooms the New Woodland Courthouse project will include depending on the source. According to the 2007 Project Feasibility Report and interviews with state officials, the recommended Option One specifies 14 courtrooms. Option Two includes 16 courtrooms, 14 finished and two unfinished.
72 – Years the State Theatre has been in business in the downtown.
88 – State employees the City of Woodland claims will be attracted by building a downtown garage according a grant proposal that was not awarded. Please note the following entry.
219 – Expected state employees after the New Woodland Courthouse is built, regardless of a parking garage.
172,940,000 $ – Amount the state has budgeted to build the New Woodland Courthouse.
458,892,500 $ – Total amount of state funds budgeted for other courthouse parking structures in California.
Read more at the Woodland Record.
Posts
8 comments:
How does on street parking go down to 436 from 689 in 8 yrs?
Perhaps the owner of the State Theater could have invested a little money to update the theater and added some parking.
Old and wore out is just not appealing. 72 years is a fairly normal human life expectancy and a little long for a commercial building.
10:02
Yeah, it makes more sense for the city to spend money and build a garage for a new theater so that Petrovich or Wiseman can benefit most. That way, we can have a generic new building in our "historic" district to match the other nouveau "1880s" gems that have sprouted up over the last two decades.
Encouraging a developer to renovate an historical asset, help out a long-time downtown establishment and – get this – have the developer pay for some parking are all bad ideas. It's best if the city just spends our money without any creativity and vision so that Woodland can be denuded of any character.
I'm glad you pointed that item out. I especially like the part about human life expectancy. As everyone knows, excellent urban planning is based on the idea that buildings shouldn't last more than 72 years. Brilliant!
let it go, let it go. You are obsessed with the parking structure, but it isn't going to be built. Let it go...
9:41
Did you write that to the tune of "Let It Snow?" Very poetic.
I am concerned about the city spending money on a parking garage. The city has not demonstrated that the city needs a garage but it has spent a lot of time (and money) and used a lot of smoke screens trying to justify building one. Look at the different numbers the city has used to sell the idea to various agencies and the public.
There can be ten garages built downtown... as long as the city doesn't spend money on one that is fine with me. The City Lofts project is planning on building a parking garage for their needs... let the courts and a theater do the same.
Dino
I am sorry you missed the point, let me try again. There is an old wore out theater that the owner could invest in but has not. How would this story be different if the owner of the existing theater proposed updating, expanding, and adding parking?
Perhaps if the owner did there may be public funds available for that project and not for a new theater.
Sadly, the theater owner does not have the vision, investors, or both.
I submit your beef is not about the courthouse project or the parking garage but rather you are advocating for a failed theater in the best way you know how.
7:43
That IS strange. That's a difference of 253 spaces, many of which can be used by the courts. What happened to all of them? The city has plenty of existing parking spaces to satisfy the courts. Let the courts purchase and build a couple of small surface lots within a 3-5 minute walking area and be done with it. The city would save millions and would still be able to keep the courts downtown.
10:25
I'm sorry you failed to make your point. And your "submission" shows your total lack of understanding of what is happening at city hall and the purpose of my reports.
Renovating the State Theatre as part of attracting a theater developer is a piece of the puzzle. The idea (shared by many) demonstrates a creative way - an alternative - to the city's myopia that was born from back door dealings with a favored developer at least six years ago.
The State Theatre, although in poor condition now, is an asset that could be used to the same end as what the city desires... but the prospect of renovating it and capitalizing on its own history to match the "historic district" has potentially more value to the district as a whole.
It's a big picture thing you probably can't understand based on your conclusion that my sole motive is to help the owners of the theater. The owners could simply sell the State or they could be partners in a venture. To me it doesn't matter. The asset is there, it should be used.
The same energy the city is using to recruit a generic new multiplex can be applied to a project that includes an historic building as part of a more grand theater complex... with its own parking paid by the developer. I'm not advocating that public funds be used - outside the staff time required to facilitate such a vision.
You need to examine your deficient conclusion about my true "beef." Why would I expose the city's fixation on a garage if my sole advocation was to save a "failed" theater? (Which, by the way, has not failed... it's still in business.) Fortunately my mind does not work like yours.
Post a Comment