Most of the article goes in-depth about the proposed development itself, but I was curious why such a large overflow parking lot existed in the first place? The article only mentioned it has been empty in recent years due to reduced traffic to movie theaters due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Milhaus called it “over-parked”. Besides a brief reference to the land being considered for an industrial development at one point, the article doesn’t discuss why the cinema was “over-parked” in the first place.
For context, the overflow parking lot north of the cinema consists of two parking lots that combined, consist of 1,400 parking spaces. The parking lot that directly surrounds the theater consists of 790 parking spaces. This is all for a total of 2,190 parking spaces. Under the old zoning code which was in effect through at least 2010, a place of assembly was required to have 1 parking space for 3 seats. The movie theater has a total of 5,000 seats so 1,666 parking spaces would have been required. However, there is a total of 2,190 parking spaces which is 24% above the minimum amount required, there is 1 parking space for every 2.3 seats, and there is 120 parking spaces for each of the 18 theater screens. The current zoning code requires 1 parking space for every 5 seats. If the theater’s parking lots were constructed under this zoning code, there would only be a required minimum of 1,000 parking spaces. Under the current code, the total of 2,190 parking spaces is 54% above the minimum amount required!
I interviewed Dave Okum, Chairman of the Planning Commission for the City of Springdale, about the history of the movie theater and why so much parking was constructed in the first place. A movie theater, in some shape or form, has been on the site since at least 1985. (aerial imagery from that year depicts a movie theater with a parking lot) Dave said it was a National Amusements cinema location which was a chain of movie theaters owned by Sumner Redstone. Springdale was incorporated as a city in 1971 and Dave told me before then, Springdale was using the county Zoning Resolution for their zoning; he speculated that the cinema was constructed using the county zoning’s code parking requirements which required more parking than the current zoning code does. He said that the significant amount of parking for the movie theater was not something the developer did on their own but rather, was a zoning requirement. However, he did say that when the cinema expanded from 10 to 20 theaters, they were not required to construct additional parking spaces. He noted that not all businesses are overparked due to zoning regulations, some voluntarily construct far more parking than necessary.
I also interviewed Anne McBride, the staff planner for the City of Springdale. She said that the cinema as it currently exists was built in 1997 which would mean it was approved a year or two earlier. She also said, as I stated earlier, that the oldest zoning code they have on the books which is from 2010 required 1 parking space for every 3 seats for a place of assembly. It is reasonable to assume that an older zoning code Springdale had required more parking, or it was a condition as approval for the development when it was constructed. Older versions of the Hamilton County Zoning Resolution from 1973 and 1969 (which Springdale used until 1971) required 1 parking space for every 4 seats.
This is not just an issue locally, Streetsblog USA reported when the Walmart in Wood Village, Oregon, which is the largest Walmart in the Portland Region, became a Walmart Supercenter; the floor space increased by 45 percent but the parking lot only added 36% more spaces. Back in 2021, the Walmart location chained off 25% of its parking lot which is essentially a ratio of 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. According to the article, the parking lot wasn’t full on Black Friday even with the chained off portion excluded from consideration. In another case where the traffic engineering firm The Traffic Group analyzed the parking lots of 17 shopping centers on the east coast during the span of a few weeks in November and December of 2021; there was an average occupancy of 49%. This was during the busiest time of the year with Black Friday and Christmas shopping.
One of the biggest trends that resulted in these parking lots for shopping centers being used less than ever before is the rise of e-retail. According to eMarketer, e-commerce sales grew 34% in 2020 and 13.7% in 2021 to be valued at more than $908 billion and Digital Commerce reports that from 2011 to 2019, online sales doubled to 15.8% of all retail sales. With less in-person shopping than ever, there is not much as necessity for commercial centers to have such large parking lots. While this is not the same type of use as cinemas, a Morning Consult poll from 2022 states that 55% of respondents are more interested in watching movies at home and half of respondents additionally said it is too expensive to see movies in theaters.
For businesses where the amount of parking they have is no longer required due to changes in parking requirements or was never required in the first place; what can they do? The news site Route Fifty suggest that apartment and condos are an option but said that secondary commercial uses would be more suitable for utilizing empty parking such as fast-food outlets, banks, and urgent/emergency care centers. Dedicated spaces for local food trucks and delivery truck fleets are even an option. If there are empty storefronts, those could be offices, brewpubs, amusement centers, industrial warehouses, self-storage spaces, and e-commerce fulfillment centers. Espousing many of the same suggestions, Jennifer Spritzer of Cornell Real Estate Review pointed out that parking lots have been converted into outdoor greenspace as part of mixed-use development projects. With the large amount of impervious surface that don’t allow proper filtration of stormwater runoff, that is a befitting idea.
Local governments can also play a role in addressing this issue. Not only can restrictive zoning codes lead to businesses constructing parking lots far bigger than would ever be necessary as well as businesses doing so voluntarily; minimum parking requirements in zoning codes are not the most effective solution for this issue for every jurisdiction. If there is a jurisdiction with this issue, they could explore alternative solutions such as abolishing parking minimums, setting a maximum for how many parking spaces a property can have, and regulating the size of parking lots through stringent ISR (impervious surface ratio) maximums. Locally, we do have some examples; Cincinnati has done significant parking requirement reforms. In 2018, Cincinnati eliminated minimum parking requirements in the neighborhoods of downtown, OTR, Pendleton and parts of Mount Auburn and the West End. Earlier this year as part of the city-wide Connected Communities zoning reforms, there were numerous parking requirement reforms such as no parking minimums for existing building renovations, no parking minimums for areas within a half mile of the planned SORTA’s bus rapid transit corridors, and no parking required for new residential buildings with 10 units and less and commercial/mixed use buildings of 5,000 sq. ft. and less in areas within a quarter mile of neighborhood business districts.
This is a relatively new type of development pattern with oversized parking lots being repurposed. It can’t be fully speculated on the financial motivations of property owners with oversized parking lots, particularly when it comes to what kind of developments banks are willing to help finance. Jurisdictions can take on the effort to amend their zoning code to not just address potentially outdated parking regulations but also ensure non-orthodox developments that could take place in these parking lots are able to move forward in accordance with zoning requirements. For example, planned unit development (PUD) are always a good option to have on the book for such cases and multiple local jurisdictions have PUD in their zoning code such as Hamilton County, Cincinnati, Forest Park, and Norwood.
Looking at these solutions are not just answers to rectify decisions that jurisdictions and developers made in the past for new developments. These solutions can also prevent such decisions resulting in “overparked” developments from happening again in the future. With demand for development and redevelopment in Hamilton County continuing to grow, land that no longer is needed for its intended purpose will be under pressure to change use. What if there is a giant, underutilized parking lot in your community that could be home to more than 300 new residents like Springdale will be seeing?