We have the historic architecture, but most larger cities still have a concentration of older buildings. Our museums (MoG, TAM, WSHS) and urban design (UWT) have won us mentions and awards in Architectural Record and other architecture zines, but some of our “landmark” buildings as of late have been less than inspiring. What better example than the four-story glass wall of the Convention Center looking out at a pink stucco box that looks like it belongs next to a suburban freeway offramp?

I think the new LeMay Museum will have a similar effect that the Experience Music Project and the Public Library have had for Seattle: tourists actually coming to not only see the contents of the building, but to view the building as a masterpiece in and of itself.

Next we will need a “starchitect” like Renzo Piano or Frank Gehry to really put Tacoma on the architecture world’s map. Most people would probably have never heard of Bilbao if it weren’t for one very famous building designed by one very famous architect. Of course, most Americans seem to know about Tacoma anyway, but it would be really nice to have news coverage about something positive for once.

Architectural identity is a fascinating topic, and currently hot. But are you discussing a regional or cultural identity, or an identity created by spectacular landmark buildings? I’m not an expert, but it is an interest of mine as well. Perhaps some architect lurker-types can help us out, or we can conjure up Frederick Heath. Generally, architects incorporate influences from around the world, and do not pigeon-hole themselves in a particular region. And large projects are open to designs from around the world, so they usually don’t reflect a regional style. On the other hand, countries with longer and more distinct cultural and religious identities do often display that in their architecture. This is evident all the time in Asian countries. But ever since the earliest colonial settlements, architecture in this country has been a mish-mash of styles and influences from the old and new worlds. And trendy revivals and revivals-of-revivals that further water down identity. Are you longing for a Chicago-style type of thing, or a Barcelona uniqueness, or key structures that scream Tacoma? Like the spire. Just kidding. Like Tom says, it sounds like we are all hoping for lasting quality and uniqueness. And heaven forbid a Dryvit identity

I am working with BCRA on the next Marcato building, our aspiration is to create a sense of place that goes beyond number of units and hardi-panel cladding. Any thoughts?

I think the issue of retail presence in the Marcato complex was discussed on an earlier thread.

Will the next phase of buildings in Marcoto have any retail in them?

Having studied the topic of “why ugly buildings exist” in an urban studies class, I learned that the subject is much more involved than meets the eye. More often than not, it is dictated by modern banking.

Banks do not think long term, they want profits and they do not want to wait. Until our banking system is overhauled, we will continue to see worthwhile projects that don’t “pencil out” – while boring, characterless ones do. But the banking overhaul can’t happen without political vision and we all know that is lacking these days.

Stacy: for design principles, please refer to anything written by Christopher Alexander, such as, Timeless Way of Buiilding
or A Pattern Language and pattern language web site.

Stacy,
The one concern I have about the Marcato development is I have heard from your people that the Reverie will be the tallest building in the developement. I know most of your site is DMU and has 100 foot height limits , which I don’t think Reverie even meets, and about 1/3 of the site is DCC with 400 foot height limits. People mention the Marriot looking like it should be next to a suburban freeway offramp, is the Reverie any different?

All of these new building that are going in are not changing our skyline. For the most part when driving by downtown on I-5 Tacoma looks the same as it did 15 years ago. Does that affect out of towners perception of Tacoma? I think so.

I think developers still see Tacoma as a place to make a quick (or not so quick) buck. Lots of Land to build their 6 story building. Keep it under 6 stories = wood. Over 6 stories usually = Steel. Steel is expensive. Wood is a lot cheaper.
Should the city put mininum development standards downtown like it does in some of the other mixed use (rcx and ncx) districts?

Sorry this may be a bit off topic but it all goes along with how our building look.

DMU, DCC, RCX, NCX, ...huh?

While I do support some minimum basic design standards to avoid the lowest common denominator buildings, a good architect or designer will utilize the benifits of a site to their maximum capacity.

I don’t know that buildings should be required to be taller. To me the Museum of Glass, Tacoma Dome, & and Alber’s Mill create a unique identy without crossing that 100ft threshold. On the other hand there is that tower on the hill (Pacific Tower I think) that has plenty of height and drastically changes the skyline, but seems completely out of place. It will be interesting to see the updates to the urban center height limits that the City is undertaking over the next year.

Like the first comment, I was disappointed with the Convention Center, both because of the Marriott and because of the blank wall on the south with arguably the best views. Older Tacoma architecture is associated with some specific time periods (I won’t rehash as there are more knowledgeable preservationists on this board).

Newer architecture seems runs the gamut from gray boxes to NW Contemporary. While I doubt Tacoma will establish a “Tacoma style,” I would love to see more NW architecture that utilizes the benfits of views, water, & topography. I don’t think this requires a local designer, just a little more site analysis. If we want standards, I’d like to just see developers explain their rationale early in the process so that locals can provide input up front.

(The current quasi-judicial public hearing at the end of the process ends up being so combative as the project design has been completed.)

(Note to self: I need to work on shorter posts.)

There have been some comments that I know some background on and would like to fill in the gaps. I am not intended to change your opinion or tell you that you are wrong, just inform of the ‘why’.

The Convention Center south wall is bare because it was planned to be temporary. The current building is Phase I to get it rolling and prove that it can be financially responsible. If the project does well then there is a second phase planned and the south wall of the building will be removed. The new building would be build immediately south and complete the design. This size of building would allow competition directly with Spokane and Seattle for sizes of conventions.

There were other options for that south elevation but it didn’t seem prudent to spend a lot of money on it when it was temporary.

Ben-

Thanks for your additional information on the “blank wall” rationale. (There seem to be a number of posts on walls lately.) I expect that the final facade for the south end of the building likely incorporates additional views and detailing like the rest of the building.

For the short term, it might be nice to see some type of banner or “coming attraction” information along that face. Curently, whenever I’m headed north on Jefferson or through the center of UW Tacoma I cringe. It’s nice to know something more may be coming.

Developers by nature are business-people who only build buildings for one reason… profit.

I’m usually all for sweeping generalizations, but I must speak up on this one. I know several developers and while they would not do what they do if it did not make financial sense, I would not say that profit is the number one reason. Most small to medium sized developers are headed by one or a few people, each with their own vision, motivation, and personality. I think if you talked with them, they would say that they do what they do because it’s fun and challenging. Why do we do anything?

Re Convention Center:
When are they going to put a reader board up so we know what’s going on inside the box? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Stacy,
Best of luck with the hold-out. Any progress? As much as it frustrates you, it could make your project more interesting in the long-run having it there.

The best place for retail in Marcato is along Tacoma Ave, where it already exists.

I agree. I can’t believe the City didn’t have any retail required. I’m equally perplexed by all the new housing being allowed around the City Steps (21st & Yakima) where there is zero retail. Doesn’t sound very walkable to me.

Funny thread- it’s all over the place, but really it’s about the same thing.

Could a conversation like this happen in real-time at a physical location?

Given the rapid acceleration in development around Tacoma, I believe we’re at a turning point. If we’re going to define our identity, now is the time.

The city will build its identity as it grows in its own way, no one person or group is going to be able to define it. All we can do is nurse it along and keep trying to breath life into a post industrial city and hope for the best.

In that vein though, the city needs to work block by block downtown to repair the city “grid” for lack of a better term to make it more functional.

The recommendation was to concentrate retail in one or two major corridors and establish a business district identity

Interesting. However, I would instead re-establish the retail spaces where they were ripped out in the central areas of downtown like replacing broken teeth. The more centrally located, the higher the priority.

I would start with the parking garages on Pacific as well as some street level parking lots and other obstructions that are inhibiting the functionality of the city and hobbling downtown.

Ben-

re: Architectural Identity

I would agree more with your characterization of downtown’s architectural identity than my own. I think you’ve identified a good part of where my own industrial aesthetic leanings come from… brick or masonry work, steel, exposed woodwork, and industrial finishes. Now try and find that in a Tacoma residence that someone with a normal income can afford (something I’ve been working on).

(btw: While I was worried about getting a drink spilled on me, I still love the stairs in the Convention Center.)

_ The 10 year tax abatement is one of those few, critical tools._

So true Morgan.

If it were not for the 10 year tax abatement, there would be a small fraction of the activity downtown we are seeing now.

With that said, I think that design review for new buildings could still be a possibility.

I apologize for bumping this older thread – But this morning I was reading a piece in a trade paper about the new 1933 Dock Street building. In regards to Tacoma’s architectural identity, the article had a nice, succinct assessment from Gail Merth, lead designer of BCRA architects. After going into some of the unique features that will be specific to the building, the article quotes Gail as saying, “Stylistically, the design will reflect Tacoma’s roots as well as its future. The building incorporates masonry and stone cladding similar to those used in early Tacoma buildings. It will also have sections that replicate the tall and narrow style of the city’s earliest buildings.” I work with them often in my line of work, but also when out and about, such as revisiting some of their work at Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, it seems to me that they really do try to hit their mark, as an architectural firm, and as a member of this community.