Port of Tacoma On Buying Spree (13. December 2006, 08:23 by Derek Young) ~ Would I Live on the Foss? Hmm...
According to The News Tribune, The Port of Tacoma has entered into the long term land use planning game. The goal of the game – to prevent any future residential development on the east side of the Foss. The port seems interested in tourist destinations like museums, gift shops, or even restaurants. It’s even talking to companies to lure them to the east side of the Foss. Sure, Crosswater got through the cracks, but that would appear to be the last residential project if the port has its way. Who’s in charge of land use for the city? Is it the city? Or is it the port? What’s our overall vision for the Foss again?
Link to The News Tribune
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
This may not be a popular opinion, but I agree that there shouldn’t be residential development on the East side of the waterway. A few reasons:
1. The certainty of conflict between residents and businesses over noise, traffic and parking.
2. There is a huge amount of dangerous and deadly product created at and shipped through the port every day, 24 hours a day. I worked on the tideflats for several years and knowing the potential dangers, I would not choose to sleep there. I wouldn’t like anyone I cared for to live there either. The waterway makes a bit of a buffer.
3. The port businesses provide a huge amount of Tacoma’s decent-wage jobs. I don’t think any of these businesses would just pack up and leave if there were housing, but down the road, with complaints and potential lawsuits, up to King county (or elsewhere) they go.
4. My final, emotionally driven reason; There was a time when the city tried to day anything it could to deny the existence of the flats. Now there is a drive to integrate housing into the area. I just don’t trust it. It’s not a quaint, industrial area like SoDo in Seattle, which has more warehouses and day-time only businesses. It is a noisy, stinky manufacturing and shipping facility.
Build in the dome area more instead, it would far better support residential/business integration. East 26th and D would take one straight down to the future museums and businesses on East D street that one would like to visit. I would like to see an overall vision for that area, but a problem may be that we again are doing it piecemeal. “Plan” in haste, regret in leisure. (?)
1 | Posted by Christine | Dec 13, 09:30 AM
I do have to say, I sorta agree with Christine, but I would like to see commercial or retail just on the east side of the Foss, not more industrial, though, some of the tourist places mentioned would be beneficial. My only thing is, sure keep the residential out, but you could still integrate the east side into the concept of the waterway and I don’t know if the Port truly wants to do this…..and we all know my opinion of the council which pretty much does what is not in the interest of the future of Tacoma….so who knows…..The port is important to the city, but….........you need to make the east side of the Foss attractive to look at for all those condos going in on the west side…...I still feel that if people actually want to take a creative approach to the situation they could do a great job…...but I don’t think “creative” is synonymous with the city council…..
2 | Posted by Rich | Dec 13, 09:59 AM
To have half the Thea Foss commercial with residential and the other half industrial doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. Why the port would get involved with zoning issues that are contrary to the wishes of the City of Tacoma also doesn’t make sense. And why the council would let the port back them down is beyond me. Someone at City Hall needs to reel them in.
As far as all those decent wage jobs- I would be curious to see how many are employed by port activities on the eastern side of Thea Foss, where they live and what the salaries are.
Something tells me this has more to do with the egos of a few corporations and the port and selfishly protecting “their” turf… at our expense.
I just dont understand some of my fellow Tacomas. We all sit around bitching and moaning about how we want Tacoma to be recognized as a true urban center, but then many of us wont support the necessary steps to actually get there! Listen friends, we have only ONE waterway attached to our downtown, only one, only one chance to use it to its fullest capacity. Why the hell would you limit that use in anyway shape or form?? Wasnt the Pearl District in Portland at one time similarly described as “dirty, stinky, etc?)I just dont get it. The city shouldnt be pushed around by the port, I really hope someone stands up to this nonsense.
5 | Posted by craigA | Dec 13, 03:33 PM
come on now, we’re talking about the government in town and the city council….good luck getting them to do anything…their more worried about animals taking over the city…
6 | Posted by Rich | Dec 13, 05:24 PM
The Port is the longtime big dog in town, along with the military. They pretty much have carte blanche to do whatever they want. If anyone tries to stop them…..well, they’d be going out on a limb. The current City Council comprises of well-connected long-time Tacomans who don’t want to see anyone else ever able to be successful in this city. That’s why they make it difficult for new businesses to come here and sit idly as the Port aggressively takes over the Foss.
7 | Posted by drizell | Dec 13, 08:32 PM
I kind of like the idea of a couple of condo units on east side of the Foss as the residents could function as a sort of canary for the rest of the city. Not that they would literally sacrifice themselves like the canaries in the coal mine of old but they they could keep an eye on and monitor the pollution there a bit.
In Washington, port authorities have alot of power and operate much like independent cities with their own taxing authority. The Port of Tacoma has made some strides to operate more environmentally but there is more to do.
i like the idea of the port trying to get some attractions. i hate the idea of more unaffordable condos. i would prefer more development in the downtown core. we are lucky to have the port. i agree with the guy who said the puyallup ave area should see more development. i think more effort should be done to tear down 705. cheers!
9 | Posted by snoopy | Dec 13, 10:14 PM
ok, I woke up thinking, it is really important to develope the east side. As the previous poster said, it’s our only waterfront that can have development on it we need to do a good job with it. What’s really wrong with allowing the first 200ft of the shore to develope into commercial/retail/ and maybe a condo or two….to have a whole waterway that you can walk around on a blvd sounds good to me…..just think you could rollerblade around it, walk around it in the morning, stopping at one of the coffee shops surrounding it…..its a great vision…...once again, I feel that the leaders don’t have a vision for the future and they are just trying to appease…...you know if you go to the Thea Foss development board web site, the info is 2 years old…..and this is exactly what the board has been doing for the last 2 years…nothing, all the developments are behind schedule on the waterway…......I don’t know what else to say…...but it’s just sad….
10 | Posted by Rich | Dec 14, 09:20 AM
I’m not really set against residential, commercial, or industrial on the east side of the Foss, but all of those are options and all of them can be water-dependent or water-related to a certain extent.
As we talk about what might be nice to see, please keep in mind there are specific uses that must be on the water. Martinac cannot relocate their ship building operation from the Foss to a Fife industrial park. The same goes for many of the Port’s clients.
Should the Port be using it’s taxing and condemnation authority to take land off the market? Probably not, but it will limit supply and focus development elsewhere. Should water-dependent uses get priority along our waterfront? Absolutely.
11 | Posted by DavidS | Dec 14, 10:08 AM
the interest of not having residential east of the foss is largely to prevent higher and better uses being possible, which would raise land values and make some of the low density uses (scrap yards) infeasible. the S-8 zoning debacle was as much about “holding back” the future development of the city as anything. it is a huge area of land that is under utilized. the city should claim not only both sides of the foss but the adjacent peninsula as well for high density urban waterfront development, which would feed into the Dome District and bookend the historic downtown. this is the vision from the 1990s that was recently turned back. where is our leadership?
12 | Posted by tom waits | Dec 14, 05:39 PM
I agree with DavidS that specific uses require water access so Im also not so keen about the idea of mixing residential and industrial uses for several reasons:
1) Traffic and access. Heavy industrial trucks and freight need access of industrial scale, adding residential parking/ingress-egress/pedestrian flow to the mix would be like trying to fly a kite on a runway – just doesn’t mix.
2)I’m not convinced that Residential land use is the highest and best use of the land. I do think that the Foss’s east side could be commercially developed, but residential use is a waste of civic investment (yes, I used the “W” word) – Rather than focus on creating new neighborhoods, the city would and should benefit more from revitalizing its existing ones.
3) The environmental engineering costs just to develop residential land down there would be huge. How do you separate residential drinking ground water wells from already existing contaminated groundwater?! Upscale residential development on a superfund site is real sexy.
4) Living near/at/on the port is not luxurious by any means. I live close enough to hear the constant beeps, trucks, bangs, foghorns, train whistles, etc, in addition to the glare and lights. Sure, I’ll gladly shell out $295K for the luxury of a loud ass barge in my backyard, where do I sign up!
In any case, the Foss’s east should benefit from some commercial/retail investment, but I’m still a fan of investing in existing neighborhoods.
13 | Posted by Broadweezy | Dec 15, 12:04 AM
Anyone see the many industrial trucks that come up A street and turn down the 11th street bridge…...they are already taking over downtown, so what’s wrong with some of the commercial and retail taking over the east side of the Foss…..They’ve already decided to start mixing the issue, rather than staying out of downtown and using the industrial routes…..
14 | Posted by Rich | Dec 15, 09:32 AM
I say if they want to get picky, we should outlaw the vehicles from downtown. Where’s our council now when it comes to protecting the noise and environmental pollution that occurs in downtown due to these industrial vehicles taking a quicker route rather than sticking with the industrial routes….?????????
15 | Posted by Rich | Dec 15, 09:34 AM
Regarding super sexy redevelopment on Superfund sites, this has happened all over the US in the rust belt. Anyway, most folks think the ASARCO site is sexy enough.
I agree that residential is not necessarily a highest best use, but the point is the required mix to achieve what you want. Let’s keep in mind that residential is only one of the allowed uses that could (should) be included in the zoning definition.
Lastly, some segregation of uses is, of course, necessary. I hear the trains are the delight of Albers Mill residents. Nonetheless, I think the point is where the line gets drawn. I don’t think the Foss Waterway is the best line personally. Surely there are water dependent uses that should be protected. Some folks might include true mixed use development on that list. My thinking is that the industrial uses are of such low density, low efficiency that there are truly better ways to use the space adjacent to downtown than tank farms, etc.
Lastly, urban areas by definition are close-in, dynamic and noisy places. Otherwise, people can move to Fircrest or the West side.
16 | Posted by tom waits | Dec 15, 10:32 AM
Where is our leadership?
This is a very good question. They seem to be focused on protecting their turf and maintaining alliances instead of focusing on the bigger picture… in my opinion.
There does seem to be a long standing power tug of war between the city. I think the port will continue to win since the city council has more turnover and lack of long term focus or vision.
I do feel that the decision to exclude residential from the eastern side of Thea Foss was from heavy pressure by a few heavyweight companies. I believe one of those companies, Simpson, has in the past been a firm supporter of downtown revitalization, so it was ironic that when that same revitalization was approaching its doorstep, it fought to keep it away.
The port likes to sell itself as a job powerhouse and to a certain extent it is. However, I would suggest that on a per acre basis, the port can’t compete with downtown. Is residential the highest use? I doubt it. Is industrial the highest and best use. I doubt it.
It seems to me that by allowing a mix of uses and letting the market decide is the prudent way to go in this case.
How do you separate residential drinking ground water wells from already existing contaminated groundwater?!
Some of the largest users of our city owned public utilities (water and electricity) are port users. They drink a LOT of water. This is partly why Tacoma recently doubled its water supply by adding a new pipe from the Green River (mmmmmm, Green River water).
Hopefully, this somewhat removes any fear of possibly drinking Superfund water.
ps to Derek: the Textile Help link needs updating.
17 | Posted by morgan | Dec 15, 04:48 PM
The Port is doing the right thing with long-term vision. In cities all over the world, ports have been pushed out by expanding urban centers. In a busy industrial transition zone, there are 24-hour lights and noise — that’s what comes with family-wage, industrial jobs. Put housing into the mix, and soon enough people complain and petition against that industrial activity (you all know about the people who buy houses next to the airport, then sue over airplane noise). Container cranes don’t vote; the port is taking a long-term view to protect and build upon a vital part of our economy that is responsible for over 40,000 jobs in Pierce County.
18 | Posted by JB | Dec 23, 01:24 AM
Of course everything is going to hit the fan if China hiccups. So, I’m looking forward to seeing some Class A offices open on the eastern side of the Foss. This will go a long ways towards diversifying activities on the port.
19 | Posted by morgan | Dec 23, 07:28 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
- Posted:13. December 2006, 08:23
- Author: Derek Young
- Category:The-Politics-of-Development
- Comment Status:Closed
