Letter to the Editor: What is a parking park, and why don’t we have one?
To the Editor:
In a letter to President Pitts last April, a number of faculty and staff protested the proposed destruction of trees for parking in the property bounded by State, Castle, Mathews, and Hanna. I suggested the concept of a “parking park” in that letter, and noted that a large majority of prospective students in the U.S. have begun considering a university’s environmental policies and practices when choosing a school. I want to share here what I had in mind, and how the recent destruction of trees to build more large expanses of asphalt parking lots fails to realize that conceptualization.
Until recently, parking lots have been constructed by removing all living things from a patch of ground, flattening it, putting in drainage to storm sewers and/or retention basins if required, and installing as many parking spaces as possible. Asphalt, the cheapest material available as a result of the United States’ low oil prices, is typically used. Recent construction innovations for parking lots include using pavers that allow some water to percolate into the ground, permeable asphalt, bioswales, and rain gardens not only to hold, but absorb water using plants. Large shade trees that used to be removed and replaced by ornamental shrubs or trees are being left. Large trees can hold and absorb tremendous amounts of water, substantially reducing runoff, and slow damaging winds. They also help cool parking areas and the cars parked in them. The down side can be some bird droppings on cars, an occasional dead branch falling and doing damage, or trees blowing over during severe storms. Indianapolis has begun to make some inroads in its parking lot zoning practices, but the concerns about sewer problems continue to outweigh the environmental impact of design and construction destruction.
My suggestion of a parking park was to create a mixed use area—one that would not only provide parking but have natural spaces to use for recreational and educational purposes by the university and neighborhood community. It would provide some of the benefits of recent parking lot innovations and become a model of the university’s commitment to being more environmentally responsible. Conventional parking lot design would be altered to save many large trees and stands of trees. This would require the university to put in fewer parking spaces than it had originally proposed, disperse parking between stands of large trees, and put bends in drives and sidewalks to avoid large trees. But the benefits would be many, including multiple uses, reduced environmental impact, and an enhanced university reputation. And it would save the university the expense of the more environmentally responsible but costly alternative—a parking garage.
As is evident from the few trees that are left, this is not what happened. By my count, at least 80 medium to large trees are gone, including many 50-80 year old oaks, silver and sugar maples, a holly tree over 50 years old, and the only sycamore and sweetgum trees on the property. This does not include large trees removed over the last two years when the gravel lots were installed, or the large trees removed for the new dorm. About 30 trees have been left standing and a small grove of white pines. The university is putting back a few more trees than were cut down, but this does not mitigate the environmental impact of replacing mature trees with much smaller trees.
The administration will likely tell us this was the best that could be done given the cost. The cost could have been reduced with fewer spaces. They will also note that the University Heights neighborhood approved their revised design. Yes, a letter of support was provided. But the university’s promise to save as many large trees as possible was not met. The continually changing drawings and the almost illegible symbols and color renderings of lush green areas obscured the actual destruction of existing trees. Trees were also mistakenly cut down due to poor oversight. And more trees were removed because the design did not meet the city’s expectations on water retention. So there is blame all around.
We could have done better. Instead of over 300 parking spaces, the university could have installed 150 or 200 to replace the 75 being lost with the construction of the new dorm. With a “no growth” policy at the undergraduate level, why do we need parking four times the amount being lost? We could be developing programs and creating incentives to encourage students and faculty to walk, ride bicycles, rideshare, or use public transportation and reduce the amount of parking needed. In short, the university has made some motions but mostly given lip service to the concerns of faculty, staff, and the neighborhood on this issue. It has chosen short-term penny pinching over long-term costs, externalizing costs to the neighborhood and environment. As someone who has committed my career to our university and has lived in the neighborhood for over 13 years, I am deeply disappointed with what has happened. We are paving over what could have been more paradise-like, to paraphrase an old song. We could have been a model, but we have failed.
Dr. Jim Pennell
Associate Professor of Sociology
