I think generally some of the feelings about losing the building, at least with myself, has to with the recent loss of the United Methodist Church

Here’s how I thought of the different issues, which made me support the new project:

1) The Mueller-Harkins isn’t on the historic registry for good reason. It is basically a cheaply built concrete poured (1949) building made to sell cars with no unique mason or detail work I can see.
(Yes, perhaps there are buildings from the modern era that should be saved, this isn’t one of them)

Much of the attractiveness seems to lie in the cars that are in the building, not the poured concrete structure.

2) The building, even when originally built, was not a good one for a downtown as it is a surface level and large parking garage.

This differentiates it from other historical downtown buildings.

Livable, walkable cities usually work hard to fill in their surface level parking lots and short parking garages. If we can’t fill in parking lots and garages, we are going to have a hard time restoring Tacoma with enough intensity of use to make it attractive.

Much of Broadway and Commerce is filled with parking garages making it difficult to reuse the buildings and transform the area.

3) The building isn’t one that is designed for a reuse that is very beneficial for downtown such as having any significant height.

4) The proposed building is better designed, in my opinion that 95 percent of the projects built in the last 75 years in Tacoma.

The proposal is a multistory mixed use building with retail on the first floor and commercial and/or housing above with a number of stories. This is a tried and true formula which has worked to add life to downtowns in other cities like Vancouver (Canada), Seattle, Portland, and Bellingham.

Most of the buildings built in Tacoma are single story buildings in strip malls surrounded by huge parking lots which people downtown are required to drive to.

The buildings built downtown are getting better. Yet, we still have many condos being built downtown that don’t have any retail on the first floor which makes the area “sleepy.”

Other condos being built are only two or three stories tall.

There are only a handful of projects that are designed as well as the present one as far as functionality to benefit the area.

Finally, it gives this area of downtown a grocery store which many people downtown will be able to walk to, reducing their reliance on cars as much. It will be the closest grocery store to the center of the center of downtown. (And yes, 4 blocks makes a big difference).

The new grocery store will make much of downtown a “livable” community rather than living in an isolated apartment, house or condo.

Erik Emery (? or “Erik E. Mery”?) I like your idea to incorporate the showroom into the new development and have been thinking about it myself. I’m not an architect and I’m sure that there are technical challenges to such a proposal but that would be a wonderful middle ground and I think that the grocery would fit well into the showroom area while still allowing plenty of space for new construction.

Erik (“Just Erik”?) I do hear your arguments about density and am in fact a big fan of mixed-use buildings. I must respectfully disagree with you on the matter of the proposed design, however that’s a very subjective thing. Along similar lines, I do not agree that a building has to have pre-war masonry features to be a classic. I like the early 19th century brick jobs as much as the next guy, however I see the Mueller-Harkins as a different kind of classic from a different period. Some classics are wooden, some are concrete, others are glass and steel. Again, that’s just my take on things.

Here’s to hoping (probably in vain) that the developers will change direction and try for something in line with Erik Emery’s suggestion.

Sidebar: should we start a Forum topic on Eriks/Erics so that we can sort out some preferred forms of address/reference?

I’ve got to stick with Callaghan on this one. A grocery is a must but this is not the place for it, and I’d still prefer to see some creativity/historical sensitivity in the design of the project. Ah well.

Also, I still don’t think that this site is actually downtown. Then again, perhaps downtown is creeping slowly north, running (slowly) away from the blighted brewery district.

Aw, DomeTopper, you had to go and screw up the “all Erik, all the time” vibe of the comments…

Are we talking about that 50’s building that looks like a giant cock with glass testicles? I agree with the Eriks. We gotta save that thing!

Brett works in the architectural field. I would love to see what could be done with the building and not loose any rooms/condos/retail space.

Oh and I have heard a few mentions about the Temple Church being demolished for the Metropolitan Apartments Phase II. They actually used the foundation of the building (which is about 3 stories) for the new building going up. Technically you could say they saved half the building. It was probably less about saving the church and more about cement costs.

You must be privy to information I don’t have, because I’ve seen the renderings and descriptions released to the public and don’t think there is any way you can draw these conclusions based on that information.

Concepts and schematics are a long way from final programs, finish materials and construction documents.

My obervations on the project was not on how aesthetically pleasing it was or what finish materials might be used but rather the overall mixed use design of the project, and the location of different components that were described in their press release and on their web site.

That doesn’t mean they can’t improve how the building looks, they probably can.

Even if it were to go, I do believe that the building needs something.

I agree. Tacoma needs to build with less stucco. The city is moving toward design review for downtown which would likely be a good move.

I think the Mueller-Harkins building is interesting and adds texture to the street that it is on. I don’t think how cheap the materials used to build it matter, it sems representative of the time that it was built, early fifties, a time that America’s love affair with muscle cars was about to begin which makes it interesting and relevant now that the car museum is being built.

“........It is basically a cheaply built concrete poured (1949) building made to sell cars with no unique mason or detail work I can see….....”

The introduction of concrete as a material that could be used in construction was a significant thing – wasn’t Frank Lloyd Wright one of the first architects to include it for strength in his designs around this time period? Someone gave a demonstration during I think the 40s – 50s Bauhaus movement with columns made to show the strength and potential of concrete.

Regarding all other parking lot, height, design, and condo saturation issues – I do think that there is an over-saturation of condos in Tacoma. I think the other issues would be better discussed by experienced architects – I’m not particularly impressed with the outside design of Beaver’s condo building, however the inside is impressive in its more than 4,000 square feet of luxury amenities. However in my opinion, good design doesn’t have to be extravagant or large but it should incorporate the community, its local history, and especially its interesting architectural ties to the past and present (car museum and community interest). Unfortunately you can’t legislate these things and moralizing gets tedious and snippy.

“Regarding all other parking lot, height, design, and condo saturation issues – I do think that there is an over-saturation of condos in Tacoma.”

I hate to pick a fight, but I just don’t know how a rational person could state that there is an “oversaturation” of condominiums in Tacoma. Condos make up maybe 2 percent of the housing stock here. If anything, there is an oversaturation of SINGLE FAMILY HOMES in Tacoma. The plethora of single family streets is the largest obstacle to becoming a real city. If anything, we need to start tearing down all those ugly Craftsman houses and replacing them with something a little more aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise we will never be anything but suburban.

Wow. I certainly understand the point you’re driving towards, but I wouldn’t describe those houses as ugly. I’d also suggest that the biggest issue facing Tacoma in it’s bid to become a “real city” isn’t lack of multi-family housing (which I do agree will be needed in the future) but rather lack of employment opportunities. (Well, that and lack of good concerts for me to go to, but that’s just me.)

If I hated single family residences, I don’t think that I’d move to Tacoma. There are plenty of megacities out there if you can’t stand the idea of a patch of green. For what it’s worth, I’m still glad to have you. I’d like to find a balance between your high rise vision and the Tacoma of today. But then as a child of Seattle, I look back on the city of my childhood as a sort of nostalgic golden mean. I have my biases.

No Erik, the problem isn’t that drizell goes to far, it’s that he doesn’t go far enough.
Think about it – even if we tilt the balance much further towards condos, who’s buying them? At the moment, there are an awful lot of empty nesters who like tacoma as it’s an affordable place to look out the window and see something pretty while you slowly die. Are these folks the creative class? Hardly.
That’s why we can’t ignore the elephant in the room – or on the horizon, more accurately. If we’re ever going to be a real city, we’re going to need to erect a gigantic screen somewhere in the tideflats to block Mt. Rainier. After we bulldoze the craftsman houses, natch. Seriously, does New York City look out on a mountain? Does San Francisco? How about Chicago? You getting the picture?
Mountain views make people think of summer houses, family vacations and grizzly bears. Outside of the last, what the hell is edgy about that? Are we urban or are we Leavenworth West? It’s time for hard choices, people.
On the plus side, local artists could paint the giant screen.

In response to CRI – the Walker building is supposedly being “historically renovated”. In fact, only the outside is. The inside is going to be gutted and redone in cheap condos, something that MRED quickly glazes over in their PR release.

“but rather lack of employment opportunities”

That’s something I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately, too, but in my head I’ve defined it as lack of employment opportunities to bring you above the median income level to allow you the opportunity to get into one of the downtown condos without leveraging the piss out of yourself. Granted the data in the link below is a few years old, but even if you assume a reasonable growth rate the affordability of ‘New Tacoma’ isn’t there. http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/Econdev/3Data/Demographics.htm

And yeah, there’s a whole debate of do jobs bolster housing markets, I won’t get into that but instead will assume that a human will make some tradeoff on commute time/affordability/area you live, and depending on the choice you make you’ll fall into that matrix somewhere.

If I assume that I am your average, reasonable human (a large stretch, believe me, I know) I just don’t see the average tech worker (using that as a generic term for someone making an above average salary in a large field, but feel free to substitute career) saying hey my job is in Redmond but I’ll live in Tacoma for the affordability, commute be damned.

OK, commenting here is much more fun that working, I overuse the “(” and “)” key, and if Tacoma becomes a town of empty nesters/retirees will we once again have the “Aroma of Tacoma”? Depends…

Granted the data in the link below is a few years old, but even if you assume a reasonable growth rate the affordability of ‘New Tacoma’ isn’t there.

The middle class abandoned downtown decades ago and is going to take years to bring them back in significant numbers.

The average income of Tacomans downtown was of some debate last year. The city of Tacoma demographics assembled showed an everwhelming concentration of poverty downtown.

The demographics get better if you look all of the 98402 zip code. If you only look within a couple blocks of 9th and Commerce, around 85 percent of residents are low income.

There are a few housing projects downtown that may help bring up the average. However, many of the condos have relatively few units and there are only a few going up in the downtown core. Most new buildings are going up on Broadway or on the Foss.

If the middle class doesn’t want to live there why would the upper middle class and upper class?

I don’t see overbuilding/condo saturation in downtown – and this includes St Helen’s area to me.

I believe this is a natural process for Tacoma. Take North Tacoma/Stadium, 6th ave, etc, leading into downtown. There are very few empty lots to build on. I see the growth in the area as naturally progressing into the downtown core, and Hill Top, etc. I also believe that both local and outside developers see this and are bellying up to the bar to get in while the getting is good. It seems clear to me the more people we have in Tacoma, that more housing is necessary. And yes, the community is growing, not diminishing. The only way I can see downtown not continuing to thrive is if it were to fall into the waterway.

The St. Helen’s area is set for growth and the residential community will be much heavier within the next 2 – 5 years and this progress is happening and developers see that the residents will need more amenities within the immediate area. The concentration will be much denser residential-wise than anywhere else in the downtown core. Thus, more retail is just another natural process.

Also, “Ledger Square” – historic name, is set to be redone thru the LID project which centers on 7th & St. Helens/Market St. I’ve seen the artist’s rendering and they are hoping for a park-like, public setting. Looks beautiful and I am hoping that comes to fruition.

As far as housing costs in downtown. I feel is it already incredibly expensive and will just continue to be so. Just like in the north end, stadium district, etc., land, home-ownership, renting…things cost money everywhere. I wish is just wasn’t so. However, the fact remains that a lot of people cannot afford to live in the North end, the Stadium district, or downtown. Nor can they afford to live in the Harbor, Seattle…the list goes on. I myself would personally love for someone to pay for my housing, or give me cheap rent just because they like me, or whatever. I’ve not met anyone willing to just give me things, I’ve always had to figure it out myself and spend my money accordingly.

dni,

I guess the problem I’ve having is putting your statement to the effect of ‘yes, downtown’s expensive, but so is the North End, Seattle, Gig Harbor, etc.’ together with Erik’s that downtown is dotted with empty lots.
At the moment, downtown appears to be expensive because there are a lot of high-end condos there banking on big-time growth in the retail sector along Pacific (and nearby). But I don’t think it’s crazy to point out that this hasn’t happened yet – there are some encouraging signs, like the new restaurants, but then there are the conflicting signs: lots of vacancies, lots of vacant lots.

The point is, it’s totally reasonable that places like the North End/Gig Harbor/Seattle are expensive. People choose to live there for a variety of reasons (that none of us need necessarily share), but the important thing is that those factors are already present. In the north end, you can get a beautiful (well, to most people – avert your eyes, drizell!) craftsman house, possibly with a view, in a very low crime area. In seattle, you get the vitality of a major city, which Erik S has described. In Downtown Tacoma, you get a slight discount, but seriously – WHY is it so expensive given that the turnaround is nowhere near complete?

I guess the big issue is this: developers in the high-end condos downtown (yes Erik, there are cheaper condos elsewhere, like in Stadium or further east) have successfully transferred a ton of risk from themselves to buyers. Hey, I’m a free market guy, I don’t see a problem with that, but I think it’s worth pointing out. The developers have done fine; it’s the condo owners who might get stuck if the vacant lots are still there once the property tax exemption goes away.
Maybe you’re right, and maybe retail really is just a natural next step. But I think a lot of people here have been saying the same thing – it may come first to places that ring the downtown core – st. helens, stadium, hilltop, etc. It makes some sense, given some of the thorny issues with downtown. Is it then natural that development just fills in downtown, just out of inertia? Maybe, and most people know a lot more about this – I’m just being a bit of a devil’s advocate here. There’s certainly the possibility that downtown is getting overbuilt relative to some of the other regions nearby.

Yeah, erik s – that’s the issue. But on the other side of things, if I was to have made some predictions on the vacancy rates of all of these new condo places, I would have been wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’m just stunned at how many of these places sell out, and sell out damn quickly. That’s the kind of data that tells me dni may be on the right track. We’ll see; I’d be nervous as hell to buy there, but it’s sort of a moot point as I would never, ever live in a condo. As drizell was imprinted on dense, urban living in Boston, I was imprinted on spread out craftsman houses in Tacoma. I have simply never understood the appeal of a condo; it sort of makes me nervous just being in other people’s condos. So obviously, my analysis of the ‘condo glut/deficit’ may be suspect.

I actually meant to ask if there’s a good place to look to tell how the sales of new units are proceeding. The Exit 133 condo map is very interesting, however I don’t have a good sense of how many of the sold out complexes were completed in the past, say 12 months. Do we actually know how well these things are selling?

For what it’s worth, I don’t feel the same deep aversion to condos that Marc and Dave describe. I just happen to think that if a 750sf 1BR apartment with HODs is going to cost me the same up front as a 1500sf 3BR house (I don’t need 3BRs but like to think that someday I might need 2) with land then the location of the condo had better bring more than a little added convenience.

In fact, the location would have to be pants-crappingly awesome. I’d pretty much need a soccer pub 30 seconds away, a train to Seattle (for the concerts) at my doorstep and go-go dancers to be lowered in cages down the side of the building to clean my windows every month (or week). I like to think that Tacoma is going to get there (sans dancers and probably with more useful bus service rather than a choo-choo) but it’s going to take a while.

Anecdotes aren’t very empirical but from what Ive heard the condos downtown are selling quite well.

I agree, its hard to tell.

The Pierce County Assessor can give you some information although it is delayed by at least a month and doesn’t show pending deals.

One project to watch is Pacific Towers at 3201 Pacific as they had a ton they were trying to move in the last year. There are stills ones left to sell according to the auditor, but alot of them sold in 2006.

Two other interesting ones to watch is 1 Broadway and 25 Broadway as well as the Bridge at 744 Market. Around 3/4 or more of these appear to have been sold. There appear to be three or 4 Triagle Townhomes still for sale.

“The Apex apartments overlooking Tacoma Mall have rents STARTING at about $1200”

no offense if anybody lives in those, but i just laughed beer out my nose reading that.