$278k for waterfront property isn’t bad considering a 680 sqft pad at the Roberson starts at $241k.

The thing about some of these new buildings is yeah you get a huge tax break with the exemption but the HOA dues are killer! $300 + a month. The units at Hawthorne Hill, the HOA dues are only in the $100s a month.

Well I live (and work) from a 550 sqft condo and I think for 1 person 550-650 is very doable. I have a good size living room, dining area, decent size kitchen with breakfast bar, laundry in the hall closet, standard bathroom and bedroom.

If you think about it a standard bedroom (fits a queen size bed) is around 10’x11’ whick is 110 sqft.
So having a living room, dining area, kitchen and bathroom 6 times the size of the bedroom would work for most.

There are a lot of condos and apartments that are 2 bedroom units and only 850 sqft.
It also depend on the floorplan. Some places have the entry and a long hallway to the living area. That hallway is pretty much wasted square footage. Some units like mine are are all good living space, there are no big hallways.

But get 2 people living in that small space and forget about it! And long term with 550sqft probably not. 795 sqft I think I could live with for a long time.

Of course, you might have to get specialized furniture such as a Murphy Bed.

Totally random question:

I was reading some history on the Rembrandt Apartments (on St. Helens) recently when an item caught my eye. There was mention of beds stored in the floor (as opposed to wall) to save on space. I guess the units are small. Has anyone seen these or anything like it?

The idea really has me intrigued. I’m not sure why.

There’s no way those condos are going to go for $278,000 to $767,000 – (too low)

I lived in 712 sf for a year. It was a good layout and perfect for one person. Could’ve been good for two as well. Just not anyone who needs a lot of junk.

I currently live in about 400 square feet and it works fine for one person with not a lot of stuff.

I was reading the Seattle Times classifieds today and noticed that several of the new condo projects under construction in the Downtown, Belltown, Capital Hill and Ballard areas have units listed at around $200,000. I haven’t seen the floorplans, but it is possible that condo living in Seattle is actually cheaper than condo living in Tacoma?

There is obviously still widespread disparity in general home prices, as you can still buy a pretty nice Craftsman bungalow in a pretty nice neighborhood for less than $250K, which is next to impossible up north. But given that Tacoma’s real estate agents use an affordability argument to lure condo-buyers to the City of Destiny, is there any truth left in those statements?

Okay, I’ll bite. Tacoma condos are cheaper than in Seattle, but the difference isn’t as noticeable as it is with houses, except near the very top end.

The hypothetical $250,000 bungalow that Drizell mentions could be in a nice close in neighborhood with some good restaurants/bars/etc. Maybe the Hilltop or south of 6th. Proctor or Stadium would be more expensive nowadays. Lincoln would be less expensive. In Seattle, that bungalow would be a lot more expensive even in a distant neighborhood like White Center or Rainier Beach. In a first ring neighborhood like Queen Anne or Capitol Hill, just forget it.

The condos in downtown Tacoma seem to start around $250,000 for a 1BR unit. A good 1BR condo in downtown Seattle or in Belltown probably starts around $315,000 these days. That’s certainly sizeable difference.

But let’s be honest about what the purchasers of these two units would be getting. Being in downtown Seattle provides walking distance access to hundreds of restaurants and bars plus a number of music venues (Showbox, Crocodile, Paramount, Benaroya Hall, El Corazon, Rendezvous) with daily bookings, SAM, the Pike Place Market, a couple of multiplex cinemas, Cinerama, and so forth. Everyday shopping can be dealt with as there are many clothing stores, several Bartell’s Drugs, a couple of grocers in addition to PPM, and even a Bed Bath and Beyond if you happen to need towels. There are also crappy discotheques like the Down Under (or whatever) but some people like those. Oh, and there are single people in Seattle. That’s a nice bonus for some folks.

Downtown Tacoma has some fine offerings as well, don’t get me wrong. There are a couple of good Japanese restaurants, some steak places, a few new bars, the disco places down south of the Harmon, the Swiss for your bar band needs, and City Lights (which is pretty awesome). Add on TAG and the Grand Cinema and you’re not doing to shabby. There are also some grand old theater buildings that have been well maintained, but they see relatively little action. So there’s something in most every entertainment category (the music that I enjoy excepted) downtown. But in many of those categories have one or two offerings. And in some other areas (such as the much-discussed matter of groceries) there is basically nothing on offer. The bus service is pretty good, but not as good as up north.

Am I just hating on Tacoma here? No, I’m merely trying to suggest (in a very long winded way) that the discount in condos seems low to me. In spite of the hype, I don’t think that downtown is delivering the “urban living” experience that developers are pitching. I can only surmise that the people who are buying these condos are to some extent making a bet on future developments downtown. I like to see the optimism, and I’m hoping that it pays off for them, but I wouldn’t let optimism get in the way of my judgment if I were betting with my own money.

Two other factors that I think enter in the pricing picture in downtown Tacoma are the relative scarcity of condos as compared to houses in the city and the tax abatement program. Both of those are temporary, however. The stock of condo units downtown is going to increase dramatically over the next year or two while the stock of houses remains pretty much level. And while the property tax abatement is a nice bonus for buyers, it is temporary, and (unlike the premium charged by developers for the abatement) it will diminish in value each year (not the annual tax savings but the remaining lifetime value of the credits). Neither is going to help the value of the unit in the longer term. This should be offset by future changes in the downtown area, but that’s prediciton, not a guarantee.

I’ve run on for far too long here. In summary, I’m worried that the units are overpriced, that speculation continues, and that there may be a dangerous bubble in the downtown market. If there isn’t, I’m worried about who is going be able to afford to move into those condos, which is admittedly more of a personal matter. Shoot, I don’t even live in Tacoma anymore/yet. Somebody, please prove me wrong. Please.

“No, I’m merely trying to suggest (in a very long winded way) that the discount in condos seems low to me. In spite of the hype, I don’t think that downtown is delivering the “urban living” experience that developers are pitching.”

I’m with Erik S. on this one. I’d gladly pay any Seattle premium to have what I need nearby from day one rather than betting on the city’s vision that may or may not pan out. I’d really like to see the city give some incentives/tax breaks for small biz owners (and potential owners) who are willing to risk their money on the city’s vision.

stay v. move to is probably an important distinction to make. you hear about people moving to portland, seattle, SF, etc., but can’t recall the last time heard someone say they moved to tacoma.

i do agree that current downtown residents are pioneers, and i do believe that as portland and seattle become cascadia (not to be confused w/ large development in orting) that it will happen.

if it were my money i’d move to one of the ‘hoods just outside of downtown and get a nice house for the same/less than the condos, tax abatement be damned!