It’s on a college campus, and it’s not “just” a parking structure (like a nameless corporate parking structure in a downtown area) it’s a constant reference point to anyone one campus to meet at “T— Drive Garage”. It’s the largest parking structure on campus, big brand new and shiny.
Tons of people meet there, congregate there, especially before and after sports games but also meeting anywhere to go to grab a bite, walk to class together, etc. It’s also a free shuttle bus hub, so pretty much everyone, including people from the community (non students) goes there to board/get off. It has a bike lock up/hub as AND EV charging that the community can access. I included this info in the original nomination AND the appeal.
My appeal was rejected because “a parking structure and has no notable significance”.
How can I appeal this? I get that a random parking structure by like Green P Parking is not significant but this is clearly a significant structure on campus.
That would be up to you, as it is difficult for me to imagine. Any newsletters announcing a meetup in the parking lot? Any articles on the dedication of the parking lot as a meetup space?
Remember that you will have to convince reviewers that this is a designated place for being social and not just a parking lot. Just because people do meet there does not make it a great space for meeting up.
You have already appealed this! The review community rejected it and the appeal reviewer rejected it.
Maybe it is eligible and a great spot to be social, but you didn’t provide any evidence of this - evidence would be essential to overcome the problems of this being a piece of infrastructure; merely stating that it is used socially is definitely not sufficient.
They meet up there and then leave. That doesn’t make this a great place for socializing. People aren’t hanging out at the parking garage. The people who might chat with each other while waiting for a bus, aren’t really there for the purpose of socializing. They are there to be transported and subsequently might strike up a conversation with others who are also stuck waiting to be transported.
You’ve fallen into the thinking that many new wayfinders do - “lots of people use this spot, so it must be a good wayspot.” That’s not how it works. The amount of people who happen to use a piece of infrastructure doesn’t make something eligible.
So being a local landmark that everyone on campus knows literally as the easiest go-to meeting spot is not enough ? But the little plaque on a bench or on the side of a building is?
People go to a memorial bench to socialize? People go to mural on the side of a building to socialize?
Make it make sense. Why would you apply “socializing” criteria to infrastructure but not to a graffiti mural on the side of a building? Clearly the infrastructure is “PERMANENT AND UNIQUE” which is a common criteria for waystops
Being social is not the only way a nomination can meet criteria, and it only has to meet one of the three to be eligible. The examples you gave are most likely under “exploration.” You had framed this as a great place to be social, so we addressed that aspect.
Those 2 things probably meet the explore criterion. The memorial bench may not be something that would pass if nominated today - we don’t know how long it has been a wayspot. Criteria has changed over the years. But a mural is a great place people would explore.
So why are Little Free Libraries considered a good socializing infrastructure? You go there, grab a book and leave. You don’t stay there and chat with friends, you don’t GO SPECIFICALLY to a little free library to hang out and drink coffee and chat, you go there for one purpose and that is to grab or leave a book. Yet LFL are touted as one of the best ways for people to add a wayspot to their community.
That’s an absurd claim that leaving a book for someone who will pick it up tomorrow when you’re not there is “socializing” but chatting with friends before heading off to a restaurant or chatting with your colleagues while waiting for the bus is NOT.
