For me, the presence of a surface lot at a cultural attraction in its dense downtown represents a full-on capitulation to the siren call of the automobile by one of America’s most walkable cities. I took the Barnes to task for it when I reviewedits otherwise spectacular new home May 6, and doubt there is an urbanist out there who would defend the lot.
Judging from my e-mail in-box, however, quite a few suburban readers feel differently. I might have gotten a milder reaction if I had endorsed a member of the Taliban for president. One writer accused me of having a secret agenda to keep suburbanites out of the city.
That failure to provide cheap and plentiful parking is somehow deliberately exclusionary. Big surface parking lots destroy the urban fabric. If we really believe (I often don't, but this is debatable) that more parking is necessary, then put it underground. $50 billion worth of art and they can't build an underground lot?