The City of Tacoma appears to be moving forward with a new Park Plaza South designed by BLRB.

This is a critical project as it can undo some of damage done to Pacific Avenue years ago when a row of buildings were knocked down for a parking garage. Here’s a place where the city can make a real difference for downtown.

The south garage is between the Wells Fargo Building and Tacoma Financial center, two occupied and thriving builidngs just a few hundred feet apart, yet, the parking garage has managed to suck most of the life out of the area.

The only area which is a bit of concern is whether there is going to be an pedestrian friendly path from the middle of the 1100 block of Broadway down to Pacific Avenue.

Kudos to the city for revamping the parking garage. The north parking garage should be done in short order as well.

No kidding…is 2 floors of office space all they can muster?

fyi: the existing Ugly Parking Garages (UPG) were designed to have a additional floors added – about three floors, as I understand it. So, no- the only way to get more than a few floors on these sites is to tear the things down and start over.

In my mind, the question is: do we want change for change sake, or do we do it right? To do it right may take longer and cost more, but if we don’t do it right we will be stuck with the results for at least another 30 years. You make the call…

Problem is, the locations that such a building could be built are slowly being redeveloped now, which means that there will be no chance of a larger building being built once downtown interests someone who would like to build a high rise.

While I always advocate for higher density, especially on the lot smack dab in the middle of downtown, I would have to say I saw this coming. “Enhancing” an ugly parking garage seems like a very Tacoma thing to do. In my opinion, that has always been and will likely to continue to be Tacoma’s biggest problem: a failure to take chances or think outside the box. Of course there are couple exceptions….

Voelpel’s column quoted someone as saying that building new would cost $25 million more than “upgrading” the parking garage. This is the type of attitude that has been dragging Tacoma down for decades; instead of realizing that a bigger and potentially more risky investment could dramatically change that block, we instead praise someone for one company’s cost savings, without even considering the enormous social costs and costs to the health of the downtown area and the retail community by leaving a useless eyesore in place.

Another floor of parking and two stories of architects’ offices will, unfortunately, do little to improve this block. The area will still not have enough density to support the existing retail, let alone new retail along Pacific. And our transit backbone—Commerce—will still be almost completely devoid of commerce—and people other than those riding the bus.

Tacoma can do much better than this. This is definitely not a “silk handbag” as Voelpel asserts. More like cheap plastic you bought at Walmart.

You make a very good point, snoopy. Downtown has more parking than it knows what to do with. However, we can set a good precedent for the future by redeveloping those opportunities as they arise to a much higher and better use. The Puget Sound region has to absorb over a million new residents in the next 20 years. Chances are, tens of thousands of those immigrants (and hopefully new jobs will follow them) will choose Tacoma. If we are to be able to create space for them, we must do more than just “settle” for whatever proposal comes along. That means building higher than five stories in downtown and/or allowing higher density development elsewhere in the city. While the garage upgrade is an improvement, we could still do much better.

I agree with the majority of the comments here. I work downtown in the financial “district” and the Park Plaza is unbelievable ugly and disects Pacific. George Russell spoke at our annual meeting a few days ago and was asked about a few of the “bet the farm” decisions he made while growing Russell into the world class company it is today. He said his approach was to make decisions based on (paraphrasing) “identifying destinations where the road had not yet been paved and then wait for everyone else to follow”. Tacoma should take a page from one of its most successful products.

Just to show how these people aren’t thinking, in the newspaper story they talk about opening a coffee shop…..HELLO!!!!! have you folks bothered looking across the street at the Starbucks….......good luck there with that coffee shop of yours…...now here we have a classic example of fine Tacoma planning…...next their going to decide it would be more cost effective to tear down the garage and build a parking lot instead…..don’t get me wrong, anything is better I guess then the garage the way it is, but lets try to be smart when deciding how to handle it….........that really is the heart of downtown, you would think you could do something equal to the location rather than fixing the garage into a garage…..hey, folks , a little hint, tear the thing down and dig down and put a garage under a high rise…..kill two birds with one stone…..actually you’ll kill more than that…let me see here….you’ll have parking, class a commercial, some retail and heck you could probably sell the top floor as penthouses…...now thats thinking outside of the box….....PLEASE CAN WE GET SOME IMAGINATION GOING IN DOWNTOWN......DON’T WASTE AWAY DOWNTOWNS POTENTIONAL

Seems like the guys at Prium are the only ones in town with some backbone and vision. I really hope the Wintrop deal pans out.

Amen

As many have heard by now, I don’t think everything has to be bigger/taller/etc, just to be better. As lots fill up and the underutilized land is redeveloped, land values will increase. As land values increase there will be more incentive to build bigger/taller/with less parking. Right now Tacoma’s just not there yet – give it some time and mid-rise development in between.

(I am surprised they are addition a new level of parking in the redevelopment. That is structurally significant and reads “we need more downtown parking.” Is there a district wide study somewhere that says “we need more downtown parking” that I don’t know about?)

As lots fill up and the underutilized land is redeveloped, land values will increase. Right now Tacoma’s just not there yet – give it some time and mid-rise development in between.

There’s a risk to either being too lax to too aggressive in demands for new buildings.

If you undershoot the market, the development brings less density than it could support.

If one demands too much, you can sit for years hoping that the market will one day be able support the dream project that may or may not come.

As land values increase there will be more incentive to build bigger/taller/with less parking.

Yes. As more infilling occurs and more empty buildings begin filling up, the land prices will increase to a point where it makes sense economically to build higher. Hopefully, the size of the projects will continue to increase, although there are going to have to be some intermediate ones.

The reason that the parking garage renovation is critical now is to at least have the block be able to support some street level retail functioning again. The extra parking and office space above is a bonus.

If it succeeds, it can take Pacific Ave to a new level and hopefully the north garage can support something even better.

there is zoning in the city that allows for “tall” buildings. there are even empty sites that are zoned for “tall” buildings.

ca:developers are building small and short because the city is letting them

I’d say developers are building “small” because they are not seeing a justifiable profit/risk ratio with taller buildings. If the developers thought they could make more money on taller buildings, they’d do it. Conversely, if the price of land were higher, developers would be required to build higher in order to spread that cost of land throughout more square feet. The most realistic way to increase the price of land is to reduce it’s availability – through more intermediate term development or downzoning the surrounding areas.

If Tacoma wants to change the type of development it is seeing, it should change its incentive/barrier structure to entice new developers and reward those who are creating the desired downtown.

I wonder how Bellevue deals with this, anybody know anything about Bellevue bulding code? I know I know, there proximity to Seattle helps a lot, but it just seems to easy for them to get tall/taller buildings done in there downtown, and they even have a smaller pop. What could Tacoma learn from Bellevue?

I think the whole point is that this garage is on Pacific Ave, downtowns main street, it is on a large piece of land, and it is owned by the city. Should the city act more as a leader in downtown development or do a quick fix to make the street a bit more appealing.

Also the DCC zoning does not cover all of downtown so there is actually a limited area to get tall buildings.

Maybe Bellevue has a few more visionaries working at the Economic Developement Board than Tacoma. Our EDB is still hot on attracting small biz to downtown with not a mention of larger retail or companies in their 05/06 biz plan.

Might be time for a shake up at the EDB and a plane ticket back to Illinois ?

Yes, retail, remember there are incentives that we could be offering these national chains to take a chance on downtown…...and none of that is going on, they would rather debate pet control….........

Key words: “Tacoma needs to do a new visioning process for the next 20 years of downtown” and the last one was in the 90’s…......like everyone is saying, do we really have the leadership in place to take us foward….??????

I think Tacoma needs to do a new visioning process for the next 20 years

I agree! But should we leave it up to the city? How about we put one together via exit133? I would like to see a vision for not only 20 years, but 50 and 100. We need to think long term!

The Bellevue/Tacoma thread has been interesting – talking about apples and oranges! I’m not sure how far we can go comparing the two though.

As for downtown retail- why focus on recruiting national tenants? Not that they are a bad thing- but where do profits go with out of area companies? Not here!

We need to grow our own companies who will invest in our community. The Seattle-metro area is fortunate to have several large corporations the invest heavily in the community: Safeco, Boeing, Starbucks, Microsoft – they were all small companies at one time. We can’t rely on Russell for everything! We need to diversify and expand the number of home-grown businesses. Go to Blackwater instead of Tullys. Shop in one of our business districts instead of the mall.

To further the thought on downtown retail: the studies I have seen on other secondary market cities experiencing a rebirth of their downtown have concluded that, for the most part, it is up to local individuals/companies/landlords/governments – and not national – to do the dirty work. Then later, once the area has been proved, the national vultures will swoop down.

What can the City of Tacoma do to encourage local entrepreneurs and then protect them once they are established? I heard that the City of New York realizes the importance of ma & pa shops and actually has laws that forbid stores over a certain square footage (like Walmart) and also limits the types of services/products offered under one roof. You know it’s bad when Toys-R-Us is shutting down stores because it can’t compete with Walmart. What are our smaller local stores supposed to do?
We can’t all work at Walmarts or Starbucks!

Here’s another idea. As Tacoma owns its own utilities, how about offering a discount to small businesses? Why should businesses pay more for utilities and services than households? Isn’t it the same electricity?

—————————————
Mark your calendars!
On a related topic, the National Main Streets Conference will be taking place in Washington State next year. The theme is Building A Sustainable Future. If Tacoma had a large historic four star hotel, we might have had a chance to host it, but instead it went Up North.

i am quite surprised how highly people in this thread speak of bellevue. while the city boasts ethnic diversity, i am skeptical of its income diversity.

also, does bellevue have any cultural amnentities? or is it simply a center of retail consumption and commercial office space?

also, what is the argument that taller buildings will lead to a ‘better’ downtown? many European cities use few skyscrapers in their downtowns, but nonetheless thrive with diversity.

i agree that tacomans SHOULD HAVE A VISION FOR FUTURE GROWTH. Just make sure it includes the citizens that live south of I-5.

i am quite surprised how highly people in this thread speak of bellevue. while the city boasts ethnic diversity, i am skeptical of its income diversity.

Bellevue is coming up here because of the height and density question. In other threads, Bellevue, and parts of Belltown, have been cited as an urban wasteland with no character – something we don’t aspire to.

Re: Big Name Retailers

The big box stores aren’t going to consider downtown until the numbers add up. Their analysts won’t see enough freeway access, roadside visibility, and the one/two/three mile demographic isn’t going to fit their models for success. A local company or small shop can look beyond algorithms to decide to move here, but it takes incentives and a vision that includes a comprehensive plan for retail.

I believe the problems for existing ma / pa shops has been a lack of walkable retail centers in downtown. As individual destination shops, they don’t work. If we could cluster them more effectively with the new residents and restaurants, we’d probably see more success. One retail shop in the bottom of each new condo building doesn’t make a walkable shopping experience.

Bellevue is what people in plannerspeak would call an “edge city.” That term was coined by Joel Garreau in his 1990 book of the same name. In the book, edge cities are defined as suburban areas home to high concentrations of commercial office space that are completely automobile-oriented.

The difference between Bellevue and other edge cities is that Bellevue has capitalized on the renewed interest in urban living arrangements. In the late 1990s, the city had a lot of what Tacoma doesn’t: high-paying jobs. Instead of letting all of its workers drive back to Seattle after work every day, it decided to give its workers a real downtown. The result is what you see today.

However, despite the shiny high-rises, plethora of Microsoft millionaires, and low retail vacancy, Bellevue is essentially still a typical wealthy suburb. It has few historic buildings with any character, a largely homegenous population, and a MEDIAN housing price of $1.5 million. Its downtown streets are six-lane speedways filled with expensive cars, its retail core is almost entire chain stores, and outside downtown, it is mostly mansion-filled single family sprawl.

Tacoma should not strive to be like Bellevue. Tacoma should maintain its unique character that places like Bellevue lack. However, Tacoma could use a dose of Bellevue’s money, entrepreneurship, and willingness to facilitate dramatic change. Otherwise, Tacoma will not succeed in redeveloping itself to anywhere near its potential.

i believe that is possible above the rainier pacific building.

i hope something happens to that parking lot between rainier pacific and the Luzon building. same with that budget rentals lot accross the street. i can dream right?

oh yes, something I was curious about…

what is to become of that little park place cafe/restaurant if the garage is ‘redeveloped’?

i hope something happens to that parking lot between rainier pacific and the Luzon building. same with that budget rentals lot accross the street. i can dream right?

That Budget car rental lot is the absolute BIGGEST waste of space in downtown, period.

Actually, we still have a number of places on Pacific where there are surface level parking lots on both sides of the street. More work to do.

jake, about that planned 100k office building adjacent to the luzon building.

do you know what the name of the developer is or the name of the project?

what is to become of that little park place cafe/restaurant if the garage is ‘redeveloped’?

Isn’t the city buying out all the stores under the garages?

For those who might have missed it, there was a post over at the BIA about that vision thing. They like to moderate their posts over there, so I’ll keep my comments here.

Especially productive ones like: Hooray for Feed Tacoma!