BY ALAN PITTMAN
Park or Parking Garage?
rehabilitation of the Centre Court and
Washburne buildings and Aster pit. The two
projects wouldn’t require the bigger urban
renewal subsidy.
A proposal for a green city park on the
half-block across from the downtown
library has also drawn strong public support
at city forums. UO architecture professor
Mark Gillem proposed a park with trees,
reading lawns, a playground, an interactive
fountain and a street with parking that could
be converted to market stalls.
Gillem said such a park would attract
and adding a fountain, playground and other
amenities would cost more. For similar
acreage, the city estimates that developing a
neighborhood park costs about $213,000.
Numerous state, federal and foundation
grants are available to help build city parks.
Citizens may also contribute much of the
cost. Citizens raised $5 million for the adja-
cent library building.
But Downtown Eugene Incorporated,
the Chamber of Commerce and other con-
servative business interests that have long
dominated downtown planning staunchly
oppose public open space, arguing that it
will only attract undesirables.
That anti-park view is a different
approach than most successful cities. For
example, New York, Portland, Ashland and
denser redevelopment on the remainder of
the block, serve families going to the library
and make downtown more livable and attrac-
tive for residents, shoppers and tourists.
The public cost of the half-block park
would be far less than the subsidy KWG is
demanding. The city already owns about
three-fourths of the land and has an option
to purchase the remaining piece (now a
parking lot) for $266,000. Last year, the
city appraised the value of its land (includ-
ing the Sears pit) at $970,000 but offered to
give it to a developer for only $192,000.
Filling the hole, ripping up the pavement
Vancouver, Wash., all count downtown
parks as one of their key attractions and
contributors to development success.
The national Project for Public Spaces
cites numerous examples of how urban
parks bring a city together, boost business
and property values, help the environment
and revitalize areas. Cities commonly use
design, increased use and patrols to curb
undesirable activities, according to the
group. Many cities have built ground-level
parks on top of underground garages.
Economists at ECONorthwest reported
to the committee July 17 that “community
Downtown committee requires little for big subsidy
W
ill the city offer citizens any rea-
son to vote for a huge urban
renewal subsidy for a downtown
developer?
It’s beginning to look increasingly
unlikely. A West Broadway Advisory
Committee stacked with supporters of
Portland developer KWG recommended
Sept. 5 that the city require little of the
developer in exchange for about $50 mil-
lion in subsidies.
Absent from the committee recommen-
dation was a strong call for a new down-
town park, real limits on the expensive
parking garages KWG demands, limits on
subsidizing corporate chains against local
businesses or much else in the way of actu-
al requirements in exchange for the massive
public subsidy.
If the City Council goes along with the
committee’s recommendation to require
nearly nothing in exchange for the taxpayer
millions, it “will most likely doom the suc-
cess of the necessary funding measure on
this November’s ballot,” wrote Rob Handy.
Handy, one of the few KWG skeptics the
council appointed to the committee, repre-
sented Citizens for Public Accountability
(CPA) on the panel.
Already, opponents have formed a PAC,
Taxpayers for Sensible Downtown
Development, to oppose the urban renewal
subsidy, Measure 20-134. The group
includes most of south Eugene’s elected
officials, members of CPA and a variety of
local businesses including Sundance, The
Kiva, Paul’s Bikes, Sandpiper, the Tango
Center and Tsunami Books.
A PAC brochure distributed at the
Eugene Celebration asks, “Should Eugene
amend the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
to increase the debt limit by $40 million and
give that money to private developers to
build corporate retail and grocery chains
and subsidized parking — transferring your
tax dollars away from education, public
safety, human services and roads? NO!”
The group suggests a more “sensible
alternative.” The Taxpayers PAC said the
city should instead pursue an existing T.K.
developer proposal for a 106-unit condo
development and a Beam developer historic
green space” was a key component of suc-
cess for mixed-use redevelopment.
Parks are one of the most popular
amenities in Eugene. Almost two thirds of
voters supported the city’s last two park
bond measures.
As a compromise, the city could pursue
a smaller park in the area. With the previous
Connor/Woolley development proposal,
local landscape architect Jerry Diethelm
suggested a corner “pocket park” kitty cor-
ner to the bus station plaza with a fountain
and seating.
Local architect Art Paz suggested a sim-
ilar-sized elevated plaza above retail. But
graphic designer Thomas Lincoln has criti-
cized the elevated design as inaccessible
and not contributing to street activity.
Lincoln offered his own compromise 1/4
block design (see picture), but he said the
committee refused to hear him speak.
The West Broadway committee called for
a focus on “sidewalks as a primary public
open space.” It recommended only either a
1/8th block public plaza on the corner across
from the library or just a wider sidewalk.
Although parks for people aren’t popu-
lar with KWG boosters, parking for cars
apparently is. KWG has demanded taxpay-
ers pay for 700 parking spaces in under-
ground garages for its development.
Including loan interest, the spaces could
cost taxpayers up to $80,000 each.
It’s unclear if KWG needs all the expen-
sive parking spaces. The development is
adjacent to the 729-car Broadway Place
city garage, which is usually 80 percent
empty. Within two blocks, three other half-
empty garages combine to offer a total of
1,556 spaces. But KWG used formulas sim-
ilar to those for suburban shopping malls to
justify more parking. Despite the high cost,
the Broadway committee didn’t challenge
the developer’s calculations.
The committee challenged hardly any-
thing KWG proposed, according to Handy.
While KWG specified a guaranteed 13 per-
cent profit for itself, the committee offered
no “fiscal discipline” in protecting taxpay-
ers pockets, Handy wrote.
“Overall, the committee recommenda-
tions are broad, weak or so vague that they are
open to multiple interpretations,” according to
Handy. “We failed to address the concerns
and values of the broader public, but instead
adhered to the mantra, ‘keep recommenda-
tions vague, don’t upset the developer.’” ew
SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 13