In The Name Of Progress, Tacoma Said ( 4. February 2007, 10:42 by Derek Young) ~ Gives Me Pause
If you regularly follow our city’s economic development you’ve heard the accusations that our city’s progress in the form of condos, expensive homes, and (hopefully) more commercial development is running over Tacoma’s working class and leaving them behind. An article by L.D. Kirshenbaum in the Seattle Times today, and reprinted here with the writer’s permission, suggests that Tacoma’s working class isn’t simply being left behind, but is sytematically being removed in the name of crime-fighting to make way for some new vision of Tacoma.
Hilltop Blues
by L.D. Kirshenbaum
TACOMA — Mr. Mac’s shop in this city’s Hilltop neighborhood draws style-conscious men from all over the Pacific Northwest. They seek items like the $40 artificial alligator shoes in pink, orange or beige. Special customers get a fluffy, white, faux-fur coat for only $100, though the price tag says $299.
“I’m a destination,” explained the dapper Morris McCollum, 79, known affectionately as “Mr. Mac” after his decades in the Hilltop. That’s his secret to staying in business, even as foot traffic has slowed on what was once the busy main drag, Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
Fewer customers than ever come by, and business in the historically low-income Hilltop is way down, especially since the city forced Browne’s Star Grill to close more than a year ago, just one block from McCollum’s store.
Browne’s counter and neon signs had been fixtures of the neighborhood since 1967. Now it sits empty, stripped of its fittings and gathering dust. “We’d been working hard to close it,” said City Councilman Thomas R. Stenger. “We have no tolerance for crime, prostitution and drug dealing.”
Indeed, the intimidating loiterers outside Browne’s have disappeared. Marieva Riche has worked at the tidy Johnson’s Candy Co. two blocks away for 25 years, and recalled “bad guys” urinating in the bushes and dealing drugs. “I don’t generally believe in closing down a business, but this is a wonderful place again since they closed Browne’s.”
Nobody misses the open drug dealing that once took place on MLK Way. But not everyone feels that next-to-no business is good business. This once-vibrant street, just up the hill from downtown, is all too quiet. Customers who frequented Browne’s, many of them African-American retirees looking for a quick meal, some conversation and maybe a drink and a game of dominos, have disappeared, and nobody is sure where they’ve gone to. Property up and down the street is empty, fenced or locked. A beauty-supply shop advertised human hair for sale at 30 percent off.
Tacoma isn’t the only older city lurching toward economic revitalization by repopulating its downtown and providing business incentives. The issue of which types of people and activities are desirable is a treacherous one anywhere. But Tacoma is using a troubling method to speed gentrification, one with a fair amount of human cost: It shuts down and muscles out businesses altogether.
Tacoma has been arm-wrestling with its own identity since its early days in the mid-19th century. With a population currently near 200,000, it claims to be comfortable with its working-class roots. “Tacoma always has been and always will be a blue-collar town,” said Roxanne Murphy of the city’s Economic Development Department, with a touch of pride.
But it looks like that sentiment isn’t sticking. Eric Anderson, the city manager, noted that Tacoma’s low-income households, as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, now represent only 47 percent of the city’s population, down from 76 percent five years ago. “What that’s doing is changing the demographic,” he said. “The market is driving the development.”
Clearly, the city’s leaders are urging the civic upheaval along. At this pace, it’s more of a city-sized personality transplant. The once-gritty town has sprouted new condominiums and apartments along a still-working but much-sanitized waterway. Visitors outside the gleaming Museum of Glass must look past rows of pleasure boats to see a real barge loaded with genuine gravel. Where downtown meets water, weeds once flourished on rutted turf near rotting pilings. Now, there is a tailored lawn and a graceful esplanade.
The city government encourages this change by deftly leveraging pots of money. “The public sector had to take the lead,” said Martha Anderson, assistant director of the Department of Economic Development, who is not related to Eric Anderson. The waterway was declared a Superfund site, drawing federal aid. With revolving loans and public-private partnerships, Tacoma attracted yet more projects and a branch campus of the University of Washington. “The next development will be all condos,” said Martha Anderson, “and also a boutique hotel.”
It’s easy to dismiss the impact of all this change. “People just want it to happen faster,” said Murphy. The blue-collar citizens she spoke of proudly do not all agree, especially the business and property owners of the Hilltop whose livelihoods were forcibly — if legally — cast out.
The last owner of Browne’s Star Grill, Tyrone Furgeson, 50, has gone so far as to sue the city of Tacoma for illegal search and seizure and discrimination in taking his business away. A military veteran, he felt he knew what he was getting into when he bought the business in 1996. He admitted that Browne’s was a “greasy spoon,” but the many regular customers were his main source of income. Furgeson says he was motivated to stop criminals from entering, or loitering in front. He made sure calls for help to the police from Browne’s went down every year.
Where Furgeson, and eventually Browne’s, had more trouble was in keeping the street itself free of nefarious activities. The police told him the drug dealers and gang members on the block were his to deal with, not theirs. Even with his law-and-order background, Furgeson couldn’t comply, and with that, the city moved to buy the building and shutter the restaurant. As a result, Furgeson says he is still fighting off bankruptcy.
As he spoke in front of his now-closed establishment, a patrol car slowly passed by, the officer inside looking straight ahead. This, Furgeson said, illustrated his argument that police and city authorities deliberately avoided dealing with crime on the sidewalk, that they were focused only on getting him out. The vacant building now awaits a zoning change to allow taller construction.
Officer Greg Hopkins, who patrols the area, flatly denied that police services were withheld, but offered few details to counter so serious an accusation. He noted that the judge in Furgeson’s lawsuit found everything to be legal, and that he himself uses unconventional police methods in his pursuit of “cleaning up places that look like garbage.” Hopkins’ supervisor, Lt. Corey Darlington, refused to consider any notion whatsoever of heavy-handedness, and pointed out the decline in crime statistics.
As coordinator of the Drug House Elimination Task Force, Hopkins uses his ability to draw a team of fire, electrical and building inspectors to a property deemed unworthy, and finds the violations necessary to demand vacation and closure. The effect ruins and even traumatizes struggling business owners, and decimates the community. A few examples:
- Parker Pickens, who ran Ikan Auto Repair, said he was taunted by the police before the task force “came in with the whole gestapo” and searched for the violations to close him down a few years ago. He lists other auto-repair shops on the Hilltop that were also forcibly shut down. Now that new zoning doesn’t allow his kind of business, he isn’t sure what to do with the building.
- Webb Bowie of Bellevue invested $100,000 and renovated the boarded-up Liberty Apartments, seeing promise in the Hilltop’s bright views and con-venient location. He recounted failed attempts to work with the police in dealing with the neighborhood’s criminal element before the task force arrived and demanded immediate departure of the building’s tenants. Bowie recalls watching helplessly as the electrical technician snipped the power line to his building. He remains bitter about the treatment he received, and the loss of the fortune he hoped to make. Bowie’s investment partner went on to sell all of his Tacoma properties.
- Janice Johnson’s family has run the Pegasus restaurant for 30 years. They’re not in the Hilltop, but they have met with the Tacoma police about the crime nearby and the prostitution in the motel next door. The Tacoma police, said Johnson, suggested putting up a fence around the restaurant. She prefers to work with the tribal police from the nearby Puyallup Casino; after what Tacoma did to Browne’s, what if the task force decides to target her business next and shut down the Pegasus, too?
Gentrification is supposed to be a market-driven process, where more and more well-heeled and educated citizens move in to shop or dine after they have acquired renovated real estate. Previous residents are expected to gracefully and gradually move their bad habits and chronic problems out to the less-desirable areas they can afford.
But Tacoma seems to be in such a mad rush to speed up the process that it tramples on its own citizenry and even its own character as it cleans up those “places that look like garbage,” as Hopkins put it.
“Everybody’s on this bandwagon, talking about this ‘revitalization,’ “ said Bowie, the investor. Pickens, the auto-repair expert, said, “Their idea of cleaning things up is to push all the businesses out that were trying to make it.” And Johnson of the Pegasus said, “We’re a little disheartened.”
The city also risks charges of racism, as when police officers in the Drug House Elimination Task Force tell Hilltop businesses not to play rap music. (Ty Furgeson of Browne’s, who is white, said he complied. Laura Malone, who opened the nearby Monsoon Room lounge, is African American, and said she was a diplomat on the subject, as support of the local police is vital.)
What’s happening in the Hilltop and in Tacoma should be a warning for any metropolis that strives for adjectives like “world-class” and “tourist destination.” The danger in moving so fast to improve a city is a lot like overdoing plastic surgery: The wrinkles and problems might have vanished, but the result is unnatural and irreversible, and ultimately, somewhat ghastly. The down-to-Earth appeal of Tacoma and its neighborhoods is greatly in danger when crime can’t be contained without ousting the small businesses that are its lifeblood.
Tacoma now ponders the unsettled futures of the iconic Winthrop Hotel and the recently burned Fawcett House. Ironically, the city’s precious built character has been safe for so long precisely because there wasn’t any big money available to raze and replace its old vaudeville theaters and modest Craftsman houses. Like the brownstones of Harlem or — yes — the buildings of Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market in Seattle, the area’s decline was also its salvation. The communities there hung together because of the absence of outside economic forces, and eventually became something special enough to draw visitors.
How sad it would be if the Hilltop, or Tacoma, or even Seattle or any other city, were to improve and gentrify so drastically they became something else entirely, and hurt their own businesses and citizenry in the process.
L.D. Kirshenbaum is a freelance writer now living in Seattle that has written from the New York Times, San Francisco Chronical, the Fog City Journal, and other publications. This article first appeared in the Seattle Times on February 4th, 2007 and is provided to Exit133 with the permission of the writer.
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.
Shorter L.D. Kirshenbaum:
“Those poor pathetic saps in Tacoma can’t get anything right.”
1 | Posted by rc | Feb 4, 11:16 AM
Hilltop activitsts have been working very hard to clean up the area over many years. The writer misses that it has been longtime Hilltop activits who have demanded action on these properties and are not content with the way things were.
In fact, the residents there have been behind most of the initiatives of late to clean up the area. The only reason that Hilltop is in as good of condition it is today is because of the heroic efforts of residents there working with the police.
The writer has no factual basis to suggest the city electrical inspectors made any errors in any inspections or diagnosed any risk erroneously.
What would have happened if some of the places that were closed burned down instead? The city would have been accused of ignoring these places causing a loss of life and would have been sued (yet once again).
Most people in Hilltop do not want the criminal activity there. Their representative City Councilman Thomas Stenger states in the article “We have no tolerance for crime, prostitution and drug dealing.” Hilltop residents have as much right to ask the city to clean up their neighborhood as any other Tacoman has.
How sad it would be if the Hilltop, or Tacoma, or even Seattle or any other city, were to improve and gentrify so drastically they became something else entirely, and hurt their own businesses and citizenry in the process.
How sad indeed.
Thanks for posting this Derek. Ever since my Seattle PI paper route days in high school when the Times took over, I’ve never been a big fan of the Times. But this article is good. I found it to be well written and quite thoughtful. My first thought while reading it was, “Why is this in a Seattle paper and not the TNT?” Do Seattleites care more about Hilltop than Tacomans?
I think the author brings up several important topics that have gone mostly unacknowledged in our community. Initially, I was very much in favor of the purchase of the Browne’s Star Grill and adjoining properties by the city. Now, after seeing how they’ve mishandled it, I don’t think I would be so supportive. It’s one thing to come down on a business but quite another to demolish what has been historically the heart of the neighborhood in order to morph it into something that it is not. This continuation of the Urban Renewal method of the 60s disturbs me greatly. We are cutting off our nose despite our face.
There are many forces at work on the Hilltop, not all of them selfless – though they would disagree. There are some that would prefer to tear everything down than work with what’s already there. All in the name of legacy. To them I say, “Be careful what you wish for.” Because you just may get it.
4 | Posted by morgan | Feb 4, 12:23 PM
Are you kidding me!!
First of all Kirshenbaum lives in Seattle and is NOT in touch with Tacoma Microeconomics.
#1 Mr. Mac’s Store was NOT been a THRIVING business for years (if ever).
#2. WHY SHOULD IT BE A NEGATIVE NOTE THAT OUR LOW-INCOME HOUSING represents 47% rather than 75%! You can be blue collar and not have 3/4 of your population be in Low income housing. Shouldn’t blue collar workers be able to afford “NORMAL INCOME” Housing!
#3. ALL THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTS ALIKE ARE HAPPY THAT BROWN’S is CLOSED. POOR EXAMPLE OF A CITY WRONGFULLY UTILIZING ITS MUSCLE.
I’d rather hear about someone writing on how a City trying to attract new business to area does so by enforcing B&O Taxes! Yikes!
5 | Posted by Joshua Alexander | Feb 4, 01:51 PM
She’s smokin crack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once again, another fine example at a misguided individual that doesn’t even live in Tacoma…....Come on Dan, write a rebuttle….....the way she makes it sound is the way Tacroma was with all the crime is the way Tacoma should always be…..give me a break…...
6 | Posted by rich | Feb 4, 04:47 PM
Whilst up in Lake Stevens visiting the inlaws… enjoying a lazy Sunday morning reading the latest cory doctorow sci-fi epic I had the happy pleasure of getting this article read out loud to me by the fantastic Ms. Darcy. What a great article! If only the tribnet folks would start writing stuff like that I think more Tacoma folks would wake up and smell the aroma.
That is why I am buying a small craftsman in hilltop which will serve as base of operations for my small, highly skilled army of artist-monks…
THE AFFLICTED WILL FIND COMFORTED
THE COMFORTABLE WILL BE AFFLICTED.
RAP MUSIC WILL BE PLAYED
7 | Posted by RR Anderson | Feb 4, 06:50 PM
Without a doubt, several good points, and while there are some who may take issue with each one, as Morgan said, I think it’s overall theme is one that needed to be said. And for what little this is worth, although I am also definitely pro-Tacoma and pro-hilltop, it does reflect many things I have been wary of. I think the response-counter will be smoking on this one as some nerves get fired-up and feelings get hurt. Even if points are disputed, perception is important. I hope you don’t get criticism for posting this, Derek. Way to go – it’s important discussion. I’m going back to read the article a third time…
8 | Posted by Dave L. | Feb 4, 07:52 PM
It seems odd that the Times would use Tacoma to run a story on this topic, which is a legitimate one. Seattle has used similar strong-armed tactics on the Central Area’s/Capitol Hill’s East Madison Street for years, but I haven’t seen the Times running op-eds criticizing the new Trader Joe’s or massive condo projects in that neighborhood, which has changed far more and far faster than Hilltop has.
9 | Posted by michael g. | Feb 4, 07:56 PM
Is this Seattlite suggesting Tacoma would be better off remaining mostly low income and having more barges than pleasure craft in the Foss waterway??
10 | Posted by ca | Feb 4, 08:36 PM
Is this Seattlite suggesting Tacoma would be better off remaining mostly low income and having more barges than pleasure craft in the Foss waterway??
No. The writer seems to be asking whether the city is actually trying to help or hurt small business owners and residents in areas that may be ripe for redevelopment. One of the questions – Is crime the problem of the business owner or the police? The piece questions rapid gentrification versus a more natural one. The shift from 75% to 47% low income in five years seems quite quick. Did Browne’s have problems? Absolutely. Maybe that’s a bad example. What about the other examples? Nowhere is this article defending crime that I can see – unless you’re reading old school blue collar grittiness as crime. It does seem to be asking questions from the perspective of the effected business owners. For right or for wrong it is still a perspective.
I don’t see this piece as an attack on Tacoma as much a series of questions. To be honest, I’ve heard these accusations before from folks that live here. So there seems to be something to at least the questions. However, questioning the author’s current residence only covers up the real discussion.
You’re right Derek, the questions are valid and cetainly should be discussed. I guess I just get a little upset over the apparent unwritten rule in Seattle media that says you cannot talk about Tacoma unless it involves crime, gangs, drive bys and such.
12 | Posted by ca | Feb 4, 09:26 PM
Hilltop suffers from lack of investment, not too much. Getting crime under control is a prerequsite to getting additional investment in the area to fill up the empty and vacant buildings.
The concerns of Hilltop residents and business owners are shared by the rest of Tacomans according to the recent Citizen Survey (pg 34) which reports that drugs and crime are a major or moderate problem in Tacoma, by far the largest two complaints (95 and 94 percent)
Now that the “open drug dealing,” “‘bad guys’ urinating in the bushes and dealing drugs” and “intimidating loiterers” are gone, perhaps the area can attract some new businesses and customers from the nearby area and other parts of Tacoma.
I guess I just get a little upset over the apparent unwritten rule in Seattle media that says you cannot talk about Tacoma unless it involves crime, gangs, drive bys and such.
There does seem to be part of that in the article. The writer seems to speak nostalgically of Tacoma when the “weeds once flourished on rutted turf near rotting pilings” and mocks the new waterfront as a “much-sanitized waterway” and “tailored lawn and a graceful esplanade.”
In Seattle, all of their waterfront looks good and its considered normal. If Tacoma does the same thing, we are apparently trying to be something we are not.
(Of course, the article can’t pass up a chance to fire off the obligatory “gritty” description of the city)
She had to write this months and months after Browne’s was closed so the people wouldn’t remember all of the facts. Wasn’t the owner a very stubborn man who wasn’t interested in working with the city or police?
I like how the article defends what sounds to be absentee landlords(Liberty Apartments). The neighborhoods criminal element or the buildings criminal element? If they are closing buildings down because of the neighborhoods criminal element, Vin Grotto watch out.
And did the Drug Elimination Task Force close down Ikan Auto Repair? Hmmm sounds fishy. I doubt it was the Drug Task Force. What was the violation? He couldn’t fix it?
Also the author notes that gentrification should be market-driven. It has been. It is harder and hader to find a house in Hilltop under $200k. It is getting harder and harder to find homes that are total dumps, they are disappearing.
14 | Posted by Jake | Feb 4, 11:27 PM
This is the usual condescending hatchet job from a Seattle-based ‘journalist’. “The nerve of those near-do-wells trying to improve themselves!” What Ms. Kirshenbaum seems to want is to preserve Tacoma as some blue-collar, crime-ridden curio. A cautionary tale for parents to pass on to their kids: “If you don’t eat your vegetables and don’t do your homework, you just might end up in . . . TACOMA!!!!! It also appears she wants to turn Tacoma into a cautionary tale about urban renewal. However, she provides little substance to support her case. Yeah it’s real easy to be sympathetic to “poor, down-trodden” businesses when you don’t have to live near them. Isn’t it miraculous that once Browne’s was shut down most of the problems evaporated? She even acknowledges that the shut down of Browne’s was a good thing for the neighborhood, as did the single neighborhood source she used. However, she continued to use this as her primary example of the city’s heavy-handedness. Furthermore, she indicts the city by claiming, “It shuts down and muscles out businesses altogether.” Her examples? Again, Browne’s and one other business, Ikan Auto Repair for which she provided no response from the city and no explanation for its closure. I have junk cars on my block that the city won’t tow, derelict houses the city claims it can’t do anything about, car-eating potholes that aren’t patched but it has the resources to go after innocent, law-abiding businesses? Right.
And could someone please explain ‘natural’ gentrification to me. I’ll admit that’s a new one for me. I can only surmise that it’s the opposite of ‘unnatural’ gentrification, but I’m not sure what the means either. Does the author think that any gentrification takes place without the assistance of government? I’d love to see to some examples.
Finally, she refers to MLK as “This once-vibrant street . . . “ When? 1955? She implies the city has destroyed MLK by shutting down Browne’s. Again, right.
15 | Posted by cck | Feb 4, 11:40 PM
It’s a ways up there now, but I would like to second Morgan: we in Tacoma run a great risk of cutting off our nose to spite our face. The closure of BSG, and how the City went about it, and what it leads to, is worrisome to me in general.
I think it’s important to understand that MLK is primed for one major gentrification job. If the upcoming projects were as solid as the Albert J Canada building, I would feel much better about the direction, but that seems like too much to hope for.
I really do believe that the best thing for the neighborhood is to integrate low income units in with the market rate units as best as we possibly can. I think it’s vitally important to put affordable housing first and foremost in our neighborhoods, where those who don’t have cars can get the services they need (including easy access to transportation).
And I think it is the best thing to prevent run away condo prices that will turn the St. Helens District, downtown, and MLK into playgrounds for the rich.
We have to make low income housing a priority now, before the land value skyrockets so much it would be impossible to build anything else but luxury condos (witness St. Helens).
16 | Posted by Erik Hanberg | Feb 5, 12:07 AM
Yes Erik! I propose low income units in Proctor and Old Town! Lets see how that goes over.
Back to the MLK biz. Don’t businesses need to evlove along with the neighborhood? If Mr. Mac isn’t seeing the business he used to maybe it is because the neighborhood has been changing. He needs to change along with it.
What are the 2 busiest places on Hilltop?
I would have to say they are Tempest and Monsoon Room. These 2 places are catering to the new demographic in the neighborhood. So if these places are doing great maybe some of the other retail location on MLK should look at what they themselves are offering.
$5 says Save-a-Lot doesn’t last 5 years.
17 | Posted by Jake | Feb 5, 09:58 AM
I really do believe that the best thing for the neighborhood is to integrate low income units in with the market rate units as best as we possibly can. I think it’s vitally important to put affordable housing first and foremost in our neighborhoods,...
Erik Hanberg: Why? Not trying to be a jerk; it’s an honest question. I’m wondering about your comment that low income housing should be the priority.
18 | Posted by MG | Feb 5, 10:16 AM
In the life of any city, there is the recurrent theme of something lost (it used to be great, now we’ve lost our way), and the notion that what is new is not “authentic,” a term to be defined however one chooses. Indeed, a perception of authenticity is often proportional to how close to you live to it—the more “authentic” you find something, the further away you live from it and don’t have to deal with the downsides of such “authenticity” (see: tourism, slumming).
Any change will mean something will be lost: some things good, some things bad, many things that combine both at once. The new will, by its very nature, often lack an organic relationship to what is around it, and will be decried as sterile and artificial. But the new will generate change and be in turn be changed and form its own community.
Or as James Brown put it:
Money Won’t Change You
But Time Will Take You On
19 | Posted by UPSPatrick | Feb 5, 12:04 PM
MG—
Two reason.
First for the low-income residents themselves. Putting low income housing in places where the only access is by car and basic services are far away (ie, anywhere but a neighborhood/business district) just increases their burden.
Second, for the new richer condo-dwelling residents. Mixing low income residents in neighborhoods that are being revitalized prevents severe gentrification (Belltown, for example). Condo markets tend to boom to crazy high prices until there are no second or third buyers who can afford the prices and then they bust. Mixing low income in with the neighborhood can keep prices on more of a steady increase without going through that cycle, which can be very difficult for a neighborhood.
And finally, it keeps the neighborhood more usable for everyone because it doesn’t price out merchants. Without outrageous property value, not everything is forced to become an upscale hangout (read: coffee/wine/martini bar) and some basic services can still afford to stay.
To compare on a small level: Proctor is more gentrified than the Stadium District, but (in my humble opinion) Stadium is more livable in that the services in the district are what local residents need to get through the week. Proctor can sometimes feel like a long row of gift shops and restaurants.
I don’t mean to bash Proctor, and I spend a lot of time there, but because Stadium has lower-income housing around it, it’s an easier neighborhood than Proctor to get services in without having to drive.
That’s my reasoning.
must I remind you that if we’re talking about Downtown…...downtown is downtown, not hilltop, not stadium, not proctor, not 6th ave…..DOWNTOWNS NEED TO BE STRONG AND A HIGH RENT DISTRICT..........the town/city is only as strong as it’s downtown…......and until the naysayers in Tacoma come to grips with this, downtown will stagnat and perhaps fall back into the days or crime and drugs…........
21 | Posted by Rich | Feb 5, 03:16 PM
Rich,
I think downtown should have as wide a variety of housing as possible. Spaces for families, empty nesters, young professions, artists and urban hipsters, and low income workers.
I really like David Rusk’s book Cities Without Suburbs that makes a powerful case for as strong of economic integration as possible.
The downtowns I like the most are those that are the most varied. I’m not talking about slums, but vibrant, interesting, exciting neighborhoods with different kinds of people living there.
Look at Fawcett between 7th and 4th. Low income housing, a historic building, and two luxury condo projects surrounded by some modestly priced apartments and condos, plus a bakery, a bar, coffee, etc.
It’s one of the better areas we have downtown. Plus there are always people out, which makes it much safer. If it were all high end luxury condos it would lose a lot of its safety and street appeal.
UPSPatrick, this is an interesting point about change and authenticity. I’d add that to me, in Tacoma everything blue collar is perceived as “authentic.” White collar is not authentic (perhaps hence, the endless putdowns of the North End).
23 | Posted by honey123 | Feb 5, 05:21 PM
“The neighborhoods criminal element or the buildings criminal element? If they are closing buildings down because of the neighborhoods criminal element, Vin Grotto watch out”......
I think Derek has a good point about the underlying questions that this article addresses. I think that many small businesses have paved the way for the larger, more deep pocket investors that can weather harder times while neighborhoods are turning around.
As a “pioneer” in my nieghborhood (I own the buildng that houses Vin Grotto), I have been very frustrated with the police and city’s response to my and other business owners’ concerns and struggles with crime, parking, the timing and methods for improving infrastructure … and how some questionable businesses are allowed to operate in ways that have had a direct negative financial impact on us.
I have seen many small businesses fail in my neighborhood, frustrated from unaddressed problems. I have also seen good, successful small businesses leave because of unaddressed problems – (Sonja moved).
I have felt more times than not that the city and police department’s attitude has been that they will do things their way until the big monied businesses move in and take them to task – it is a calculated risk that they have chosen to make I’m sure partially because of limited resources. However it has been at the expense of some hard working businesses who have given their blood, sweat, and tears.
All businesses large and small have the right to expect support from local government and city services. But it seems that other metropolitan cities do far more to support local businesses.
The subtle message has been – if you don’t like it, leave….... and by the way (salivating), now that you’ve fixed up that building….. is it for sale?
24 | Posted by Laura | Feb 5, 05:37 PM
I just wanted to weigh in on the low-income housing question.
I have been working on a study that includes Hilltop – it’s an overview of property values in our historic business districts. It’s been pretty interesting taking such a close look at ownership and uses in our districts. One thing I noticed on Hilltop was a large amount of services, including Tacoma Housing Authority. As part of their services they have quite a bit of housing up there. The New Look is also low-income though geared towards senior citizens.
Based on my research, I would have to say there is not a lack of low-income housing on Hilltop.
I think it is important to make the distinction between low income housing (mostly subsidized—either through public housing or the Section 8 voucher program) and affordable housing. They are two very different things.
Also, as far as I am aware the waiting list for the Section 8 program is in excess of two years. The Tacoma Housing Authority is not even taking applications at this time. Even with all of the low income housing in the city there is still a massive gap between units available and need. There is no plan to add additional units in the near future.
Again, I would like to see a downtown (and for that matter, a city) where people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds can co-exist. In peace.
My fear is that downtown is becoming an upper class enclave. Elitism is a scary thing…
27 | Posted by Mary Grant | Feb 5, 09:57 PM
I think downtown should have as wide a variety of housing as possible. Spaces for families, empty nesters, young professions, artists and urban hipsters, and low income workers.
I agree.
Right now, the downtown has basically been abandoned by the middle class who have moved out to the suburbs. Consequently, the city demographics show that the area is one of the poorest in Tacoma.
The area around the theater district has something like 85 percent low income. It is also largely empty.
The sprinkling of new condos downtown are not going to change it that much in the near future. It will probably take 10 years of the modest development we have at this pace to have the downtown even equal out to the average of the rest of the city.
Tacoma has shown it can build large low income housing units and a few high end condos. We need to work on an integrative model which has many buildings of 80 percent market rate and 20 percent “work force” or affordable housing that is relatively “seamless” so that it adds to the community rather than being dysfunctional.
The print article has a big picture of the MLK Housing Authority building on 11th and MLK, kitty corner from the Canada building. That sign advertising the new building there has been in place for months. Anybody know the status of that project?
I think it would be relatively easy to maintain a balance between Tacoma’s blue collar past and the gentrifying future. I believe the key is having a little imagination. More than anything, I would love to see a development similar to Moda that is located up in Belltown. The units there start at 296 square feet and are (were) priced at under $149,000. And of course parking is optional. This way, we’d preserve the low-income nature of Hilltop while providing housing for the gentrifying younger generation.
I would gladly make 120-mile daily roundtrip commute to Chehalis for the opportunity to live in a gentrified Hilltop 300 square foot condo.
29 | Posted by drizell | Feb 6, 12:53 AM
The MLK HDA building project has had a number of set backs and delays. I had heard that the whole thing might be on hold until the height restriction comp plan amendment was adopted. I don’t know if that is still the case or not. That was also a reason the Prium was holding off on the 1100 block of MLK.
30 | Posted by M.W. | Feb 6, 06:55 AM
Erik said:
Tacoma has shown it can build large low income housing units and a few high end condos. We need to work on an integrative model which has many buildings of 80 percent market rate and 20 percent “work force” or affordable housing that is relatively “seamless” so that it adds to the community rather than being dysfunctional.
I agree. Unfortunately, requiring for-profit developers to construct affordable units would be unpopular, to say the least. And if such a requirement were grudgingly accepted, it would have to be carefully designed (stating a percentage of units is not adequate) or the affordable units constructed would almost certainly be very small studios. Such units may be affordable to lower- or moderate-income households but affordable does not mean adequate.
I’m also afraid that development Tacoma isn’t yet at the point that the city can place a lot of extra demands on developers without putting projects at risk of cancellation. I believe that an incentive based system would hold more promise (and less legal risk) however with city already giving away the property taxes and most projects coming in under the height restrictions, I’m not sure what is left for the city to offer. We may need to wait for the changes downtown to progress further before pushing for mixed-affordability projects.
Now we just need to hope that if/when the housing bubble pops it doesn’t totally derail redevelopment activity. It would/will improve affordability, though. Hmmm…perhaps a should save this topic for another discussion.
31 | Posted by Erik S | Feb 6, 09:14 AM
...and most projects coming in under the height restrictions, I’m not sure what is left for the city to offer.
How about removing the off-street parking requirement? This would drop the price of the average unit $20,000-$50,000.
32 | Posted by morgan | Feb 6, 10:36 AM
Good point, Morgan. I think that might be a useful approach, especially for the affordable units. If part of the theory of the desirability of downtown for lower- or middle-income households is the improved access to transit, then they might be able to benefit from less expensive rentals (I don’t I think the condo option is very realistic for these groups) downtown.
33 | Posted by Erik S | Feb 6, 11:14 AM
How about removing the off-street parking requirement?
This sounds like a recommendation/question for the Downtown Parking Discussions. Just drop an e-mail to Rob McNair-Huff.
(As a side note, streetcars came up in this question period last night.)
34 | Posted by DavidS | Feb 6, 12:56 PM
Does anyone have any idea of the price range for the Mecca condos? Just curious.
35 | Posted by Mary | Feb 7, 05:01 PM
(As a side note, streetcars came up in this question period last night.)
Great! I wish I could have made it.
36 | Posted by morgan | Feb 7, 05:26 PM
How about removing the off-street parking requirement?
How about removing the off-street parking requirement? This would drop the price of the average unit $20,000-$50,000.
Good idea. Tacoma stands alone in model west coast cities which still have an off-street parking requirement.
Seattle, Bellingham, Portland and San Francisco have now eliminated their off-street parking requirement. See NYT article.
These cities now permit people to buy the parking they are willing to pay for rather than mandate it as a (pricey) condition to live downtown. It is going to be nearly impossible to get a street car system going if everyone is forced to have a parking space.
The antiquated off-street is detrimental in a number of ways:
1) Results in an unnecessary barrier for people and businesses to locate downtown;
2) Reduces the density of downtown, the primary attraction a downtown has to offer;
3) Makes the downtown less attractive and usable by pedestrians by creating and retaining surface level parking lots and excessive number of small parking garages downtown;
4) Creates an unnecessary barrier for retail to move downtown;
5) Creates a significant barrier for the construction of low-income housing by increasing prices by up to 20 percent, and by discouraging developers from building smaller units;
6) Essentially mandates car use in downtown Tacoma reducing the ability for mass transit to be successful and causes unnecessary traffic congestion and pollution;
7) Causes architecturally poorer buildings to be built in downtown Tacoma as they would all have to have parking garages.
The Grandview Condos (conversion) on 21st and I Street don’t have parking spaces, only street parking and they are $15-20k below market value of similar units with designated parking spots.
38 | Posted by Jake | Feb 7, 10:28 PM
Erik, good points – generally. I have to disagree a bit on #6:
6) Essentially mandates car use in downtown Tacoma reducing the ability for mass transit to be successful and causes unnecessary traffic congestion and pollution;
Owning a garage does not force one to drive. Nor does not prevent street car use. Again, I generally agree with you and would prefer to see developers build garage spots as demand dictates rather than forcing them to build parking capacity. I just think that it’s a little easy to slip into Planning mode and start looking at the people as an obstacle that must be managed/tricked into doing what we know is right.
I say this partly because I know that the cynic in me is vulnerable to this mode of thought and so I must constantly be on guard against it.
39 | Posted by Erik S | Feb 8, 08:56 AM
The story recalls the glory days of do-no-wrong Cornerstone Development Company and its brain trust of Paul Schell and Virginia Anderson in the late 1980’s They figured out that clearcutting the entire Pacific Avenue Historic District was a sure step to a tidy tony downtown. The two blocks of two to four story brick buildings (including the areas oldest from the 1880’s) had become home to Tacoma’s best bars to get knifed in, tattoo parlors and pawn shops. The concept was that the buildings would be collateral damage in the nuking of the downtown’s major pocket of sin. Blow away the buildings and the bad things inside will go away. After the rubble filled property sat along Pacific Avenue for almost twenty years (referred to often as the hole in the donut), it seemed like we had learned a lesson.
So here we are so blinded by our frenzy to get rid of the things going on inside buildings, that we are ready to use the blunt instrument of demolition all over again. Holy crap isn’t the lesson clear. We need to somehow formally place value on the reuse of reusable buildings-an urban conservation ethic that penalizes developers who crash thru the built environment in their rush to architectural mediocrity.
And in our pursuit of that ethic a big step would be Erik’s point on getting rid of parking requirements, particularly for rehab and adaptive reuse projects.
40 | Posted by Artifacts | Feb 8, 10:51 AM
Owning a garage does not force one to drive. Nor does not prevent street car use.
True it doesn’t. Your literally right.
Here’s what it does do:
If the city requires you to purchase a parking spot costing $25,000 with your unit, a car might only cost $5,000.
Thus, by mandating the purchase of a parking space to even acquire housing, the city has already forced you to pay 83 percent of the cost to drive everywhere.
On the other hand, if allowed, one could choose to use the $25,000 on other modes of transportation.
This is like getting some “free” champagne included when you rent out a hotel room. Now that you have paid for it, you might as well drink it even if you would have never purchased the product in the first place.
There’s another bad dynamic that is created by the off-street parking requirement. It skews each new project toward larger more expensive units creating yet an additional barrier to affordable units being built.
The current code requires builders to build 1 parking space downtown for every unit. The cost of complying with this requirement gives builders an incentive to build larger units which lowers the cost per sq ft.
Here’s what Seattle, Bellingham, and Portland have done: de-couple parking and housing. Let people buy one or both depending on how much they have to spend and their priorities. Parking is still going to be built but more people will at least be able to make a choice.
The antiquated off-street is detrimental in a number of ways
Let me count the ways…
Additionally, the off-street parking requirement encourages the destruction of our neighborhoods. Imagine homes along 6th Ave replaced by surface parking lots simply to resolve the parking “problem.”
Ironic, since the city requires off-street parking in order to NOT impact surrounding neighborhoods.
By the way: well put, Artifacts. I hope our city council reads this!
42 | Posted by morgan | Feb 8, 11:03 AM
Here’s a study on San Francisco in 1996 that examined the connection between off-street parking and affordability of housing.
Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco.
The analysis revealed that single family houses and condominiums were more than 10 percent more costly if they included off-stree parking than if they did not…it was estimated that tens of thousands of additional households could qualify for home mortgages for units without off-street parking if those units could legally be provided under zoning and subdivision ordinances.
A few years later, San Francisco eliminated the off-street parking requirement and other west coast cities followed.
Re: parking requirement
Another consideration is that if parking is going to be added downtown, it is probably best that it is general use (i.e., can be purchased by residents, workers, visitors, etc.) as opposed to tied to someone who may leave it vacant all day after driving to Seattle for their job.
I’m a big proponent of finding ways to make people think twice about whether or not they need a car (or a second car, or third car, etc.). If making them pay for parking near their home can encourage just a few to try to cut back, then we’re doing the right thing.
44 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Feb 8, 11:40 AM
Here’s what Seattle, Bellingham, and Portland have done: de-couple parking and housing. Let people buy one or both depending on how much they have to spend and their priorities. Parking is still going to be built but more people will at least be able to make a choice.
Agreed: this is absolutely the best approach. I’m with you.
45 | Posted by Erik S | Feb 8, 12:08 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
