OPINION: Led by a new mayor, a fresh council is trying to take a different approach to revitalising Hamilton's central city. What a shame the ideas seem to come from the 1960s.

Bowing to the general opinion that there isn't enough parking in the central city, it's not convenient, and it's not free, the new council is considering the option of free parking as part of its Annual Plan. The council hasn't ignored the opinion that there is not enough convenient parking either, in fact, there is a parking taskforce that has been working to identify where more parking could be added. These ideas range from repainting some lines and adding a couple more spaces, to the idea of converting Garden Place into a 91-space carpark.

This begs the question; do we really need more parking? Then, if parking is going to be free, who will pay for it? Let's have a look.

Currently, Hamilton City Council nets $1.44 million annually from parking. This money goes towards paying for things that rates would otherwise pay for. The council's free parking proposal sees $1.45 million less going into council coffers, and that money has to come from somewhere.

This is where those jumping on the "free parking" bandwagon may think twice. The current proposal is to pay for the two hours' free parking by additional targeted rates that will average $26 for each household and $139 for each business in the city.

Already, council has noted that there seems to be more spaces taken up by workers in the central city since introducing free parking after 3pm. This is despite the two-hour limit on free parking that is meant to keep space free for shoppers. Council would combat this by using "new technology" to track cars by number plate and to ensure a daily limit of two hours of on-street parking in the central city.

Council admits in their own report that free parking should only be a short-term strategy to revitalise the central city, yet the technology proposed would not allow for parking charges to return without additional expenditure.

So, if free parking isn't really free, and might mean that it is harder to find a space, surely more parking must be the solution, right in the heart of the central city?

Council's figures show parking utilisation at 85 percent in the very heart of the central city bounded by London and Collingwood streets, but outside of this, average utilisation drops to 35 percent, with some areas having utilisation of less than 20 percent. This is not to mention the various off-street carparks, including the underground Garden Place carpark, which has over 450 spaces. Just because it isn't always possible to get a space outside the shop we want to go to, doesn't mean that there is a dire shortage of carparks.

Garden Place is Hamilton's town square. It may no longer resemble Ngāti Wairere's gardens, but it's one of the only spaces in the central city where workers, students, shoppers and families can take a break. As more people move into the central city to live, these open spaces become more important as public amenities. Vibrant events have a draw that malls can't compete with. The giant Christmas tree and city burn markets as part of the Balloons over Waikato festival are standout events that are uniquely Hamilton. Having the space as a carpark that can occasionally be closed off and actually used by people is a poor compromise.

The lighter proposal to open the north edge of Garden Place to cars would push rat-run traffic through Garden Place and deter shoppers from supporting the local businesses. The existing shared space between Garden Place and Civic Square is a funnel for traffic that sees motorists pass through at unsafe speeds. The proposal to extend the existing shared space from Ward St to Collingwood St would solve these issues and create a welcoming pedestrian-owned space that encourages people to wander, shop, or maybe have a bite to eat. This is what would really bring people back to the central city.

Although parking alone will not bring people back into the central city, there are worthy improvements to be made. Council has budgeted for new parking technology, which could potentially be used to help you find a park, and it could also allow you to pay seamlessly, at a price that manages demand. More people catching the bus, riding bikes, or walking will ease congestion and, in future, ridesharing like Uber will reduce the need to park a car.

These are solutions for 2017, not 50 years in the past.

We think there is a need to have a real conversation about parking, and how cars fit in with our plans for a modern and vibrant city. Cities should be built around people, and it's time the people have a say in what that should look like.