Now then, if anyone's ever involved in the design and construction of car parks, I have a small suggestion which might add to customer satisfaction and thereby enable you to achieve your Key Performance Indicator.
My observations have taught me that one rather popular use of car parks is for people to deposit their multi-person motorised vehicle while partaking in some necessary, worthwhile or perhaps enjoyable activity, for example, going to an interview, doing the shopping or visiting an art gallery.
Is it not therefore wise to take account of the size and manoeuvrability of said vehicles when designing the car park? Should there perhaps be due consideration in the positioning of roof support pillars? Is it really a good idea to place two pillars in front of the entrance necessitating the execution of a slalom manoeuvre by those entering the car park? Would it not be of some delectation for the customer if the parking space is 1 Large enough to park a car and open the door and 2 accessible without the use of a bulldozer to demolish the concrete pillar in the way of the space?
I can understand that roof pillars are necessary; it would be an even greater inconvenience for the motorist to be crushed by 5000 tonnes of reinforced concrete while parking, and I also understand the pressing need for aesthetic values in car park architecture.
But let me request that car park designers test their designs using a software simulation package which allows for the simulation of a variety of cars from large to small. I do not drive a Suzuki Alto, although I suspect that most owners of Suzuki Altos actually require even more parking space than owners of large German saloons due to the standard of their coordination skills.
In other words, make the bloody car park into a place where you can park instead of a stupid concrete maze with half blocked spaces where nobody could even fit a washing machine!
My observations have taught me that one rather popular use of car parks is for people to deposit their multi-person motorised vehicle while partaking in some necessary, worthwhile or perhaps enjoyable activity, for example, going to an interview, doing the shopping or visiting an art gallery.
Is it not therefore wise to take account of the size and manoeuvrability of said vehicles when designing the car park? Should there perhaps be due consideration in the positioning of roof support pillars? Is it really a good idea to place two pillars in front of the entrance necessitating the execution of a slalom manoeuvre by those entering the car park? Would it not be of some delectation for the customer if the parking space is 1 Large enough to park a car and open the door and 2 accessible without the use of a bulldozer to demolish the concrete pillar in the way of the space?
I can understand that roof pillars are necessary; it would be an even greater inconvenience for the motorist to be crushed by 5000 tonnes of reinforced concrete while parking, and I also understand the pressing need for aesthetic values in car park architecture.
But let me request that car park designers test their designs using a software simulation package which allows for the simulation of a variety of cars from large to small. I do not drive a Suzuki Alto, although I suspect that most owners of Suzuki Altos actually require even more parking space than owners of large German saloons due to the standard of their coordination skills.
In other words, make the bloody car park into a place where you can park instead of a stupid concrete maze with half blocked spaces where nobody could even fit a washing machine!
Comment