A Letter About Parking - By Andre Stone (14. March 2007, 10:34 by Derek) ~ Make Yourself Heard

This open letter to a number of city officials and columnists appeared in our Luzon thread. It deserves its own place for discussion. It’s long, but worth the read.

March 14, 2007

Dear ________,

I am writing to express concern about the detrimental effects of parking regulations in downtown Tacoma. There has been much publicity in recent weeks about the lack of new commercial office space in the downtown area, and I feel the existing minimum off-street parking requirement is largely responsible for this dilemma. Mandating off-street parking greatly increases project costs, which in turn makes it more difficult for developers to realize a profit. As a result, developers choose to build elsewhere, and Tacoma is stuck without new office space that could have been used to lure new companies and jobs to the city.

Minimum parking requirements are remnants of misguided urban planning theory from decades past. Hoping combat the flight of jobs and people to the suburbs, urban planners decided that the solution was to make downtowns as much like the suburbs as possible. This usually meant tearing down historic building for parking lots and enormous parking garages to create space for the same number of cars as suburban shopping malls. While well-intentioned, such policies have failed to revitalize downtowns in almost every place they have been implemented, often leading to even greater urban decay than before.

In the present, many people now choose to live and work in downtown areas because they are the antithesis of the suburbs. Downtowns are designed to facilitate walking and public transportation, with a decreased emphasis on automobile transportation. Recognizing this trend, cities all over America have reduced or eliminated their minimum parking standards in hopes of attracting more dense downtown development. But not Tacoma.

Of the six cities in Washington with more than 100,000 residents, Tacoma’s downtown parking regulations are the most stringent, requiring more parking spaces per square foot than any of the other five cities. Meanwhile, Seattle and Spokane have both eliminated their minimum parking standards, and Vancouver, Bellevue and Everett mandate far fewer spaces. Ironically, while having the most development-unfriendly off-street downtown parking standards in Washington, Tacoma also has the only downtown light rail system in the state and a heavily used bus system.

A minor study was recently completed for the property located immediately south of to-be-renovated Luzon Building at 13th and Pacific. The property is 27,000 square feet and sits less than 100 yards from a Link light rail stop. For the property to be fully developed as allowed in the Downtown Commercial Core zoning district—a 40 story, 800,000 square foot office and residential building, it was determined that about 960 parking spaces would be required, assuming that 1.2 spaces per 1,000 rentable square feet of space were required, per zoning regulations. If each parking space takes up 400 square feet and costs $25,000 (typical per-space cost for a multi-level garage constructed in a seismic zone), then a 14-story parking garage costing approximately $24 million would be necessary just to meet the minimum requirements. If given the choice between building an office building in Tacoma, with its onerous parking requirements, or building in Seattle, with no parking requirements and for millions of dollars less, I think developers would pick Seattle every time.

The lack of office space was well chronicled in a January 28th Dan Voelpel column in the News Tribune. Voelpel quotes commercial real estate broker Eric Cedarstrand as stating that Tacoma “has lost out on an estimated 900 jobs and enough eager employers to fill a building nearly as large as the 25-story Wells Fargo Plaza.” Another part of the article mentioned a Fortune 500 company being turned away due to its inability to find a mere 17,000 square feet of office space downtown. A downtown cannot survive with new condominium and museum construction alone. We have to balance growth in those sectors with commercial growth. Eventually, they will come to complement each other, as workers will choose to live downtown as well as work there.

I wonder about the future of this great city if it cannot provide decent jobs for its citizens. Back in the day, Tacoma high school graduates could easily find well-paying work at Asarco or at one of the lumber mills. Today, Asarco and the mills are gone, and longshoreman jobs at the Port are hard to come by. What kind of city will Tacoma be if all its high school graduates wishing to remain here can aspire to is a minimum wage job at Tacoma Mall? UPS, PLU and UWT will continue to churn out talented graduates, but what good jobs are available for them here? If Tacoma continues on its current path, these potential contributors to economic growth will more than likely have to relocate elsewhere to find decent work. As a member of the younger generation that will assume leadership roles during the next few decades, these trends are especially alarming to me. Is Tacoma going to be self-sufficient in the future or will it become just another suburb of Seattle?

If downtown Tacoma wishes to the continue its “Renaissance,” then it must find a way to accompany more commercial development. The demand is there, and as some of Tacoma’s most respected real estate brokers have confirmed, companies want to be in Tacoma. I feel that unless barricades to development such as the onerous parking standards are removed, the City of Destiny will stagnate and its vision to become a true urban center will remain just out of reach. Let us make Tacoma great. Let us put a big “welcome” sign out for downtown developers and future employers, and make it possible for future generations of Tacomans to thrive here. Let us adopt tried and true 21st century attitudes and get rid of these cumbersome minimum off-street parking regulations.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Andre Stone

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.

#

Well said and argued, Andre.

1 | Posted by erikemery | Mar 14, 11:39 AM

Great letter Andre.

We keep hearing again about how supposedly difficult it is to have someone come to Tacoma to build a significant commercial or residential building downtown and it turns out Tacoma’s antiquated off-street parking requirement makes it practically impossible.

The council members and many community members keep expressing their desire to increase the density of projects (housing and commercial). Yet, I don’t think they realize that Tacoma’s off-street parking requirement thwarts this effort.

Removing the off-street parking requirement certainly isn’t state of the art planning in 2007. Tacoma is the last hold out for model west coast cities.

All Tacoma has to do is to implement the “best practices” on parking is to read one of the many dozens and dozens of articles and studies on the matter published in the last 10 years. They can read the latest compresensive text “High Cost of Free Parking” published by the American Planning Association. They can look at the material published online by the Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington (MRSC) which is a state resource that assists cities on policy matters.

[They can also attend the upcoming National Mainstreet Conference or just read the material online offered by the presentor who recommends eliminating off-street parking requirements]

Alternatively, Tacoma can simply implement the same policies as Seattle, Bellingham, Olympia, San Francisco or Portland and remove the requirement in their downtown.

Speaking of Portland, we just had a city contingent travel to Portland where they reported Portland had no off-street parking requirements. But somehow the connection between the off-street parking policy and the desireable urban design was never made.

From what I can gather, the policy debate on the issue ended years ago for cities seeking desireable, walkable and active downtowns.

Its also important that Tacoma remove the off-street parking requirement soon as the land available downtown is limited.

2 | Posted by Erik | Mar 14, 11:53 AM

Great letter, and way to back your arguments. Loved it as I’m not someone who works in an industry even remotely related so I like to hear how other cities handle their growth.

3 | Posted by nitsuj | Mar 14, 12:03 PM

Brilliant. Very well done. Thank you.

4 | Posted by Erik S | Mar 14, 02:18 PM

Very well put!

I would also like to pipe in for changes in all the city’s off-street requirements – not just for downtown. I think I speak for many when I say we would like to see more restaurants and neighborhood retail. But zoning for existing structures – many of which pre-date our current zoning code – effectively prevents that from happening.

One example: In researching locations for a coffee shop, I found a great 1920s building on a lot with zero off-street parking in a C1 zone. C1 is the lowest level of commercial zones and they are all over Tacoma thanks to the former streetcar lines. The building had been vacant for decades and so in the city’s eyes was no longer able to be grandfathered in. Not sure why. Any attempt to occupy the building would require the landlord or tenant to go through a lengthy variance process.

If I’m starting a small business, why would I want to spend all that time and money to prove that off-street parking does not exist and there is no way of creating any more?

Further, this brings up the point that while Tacoma’s zoning code was created to separate and protect commercial and residential uses, it actually puts the character of our neighborhoods at risk! In many C1 zoned areas, the only way to create more parking is by tearing down homes. Is that sustainable? This is a major policy issue that at some point will need to be addressed.

5 | Posted by morgan | Mar 14, 04:23 PM

I understand your view on the project costs associated with off-street parking but that is NOT the real cause for lack of new office developments.

The real cause is a lack of larger Tenants in Tacoma willing to commit to large blocks of space in a new downtown Tacoma building. If you have Tenants you can build it, but the “IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME” Mentality does NOT work in Tacoma…

Sorry…

6 | Posted by Joshua Alexander | Mar 14, 05:49 PM

Even when class A office space in downtown Tacoma is nearly 100% full (so says my sources).

7 | Posted by Erik Hanberg | Mar 14, 05:54 PM

Great letter!! It’s a start…..

8 | Posted by Lets think outside of the box | Mar 14, 06:04 PM

The first thing the city will tell you when you inquire about starting any business at a particular location is the off-street parking requirement. (At least, that was our experience) It’s not unreasonable at all to think this drives potential tenants away.

9 | Posted by jenyum | Mar 14, 06:25 PM

Before you decide that off-street parking requirements are EVIL!! take a look at the questions at www.cityoftacoma.org/downtownparking.

We have people living in apartments already downtown, with children, who can’t park closer than 4 or 5 blocks from their low-income housing. Business owners’ comments vacillate through “3-hr parking so my customers can eat, shop, pay bills,” “30 minute parking to encourage turnover,” “Can we reserve parking in the Sound Transit Garage for My employees/customers?” Oh, and don’t forget the “There’s no parking for my clients/employees/MEMEME!” There is only so much street parking available. Why shouldn’t the people that cause the increase in need pay for the increased space needed?

10 | Posted by Bob | Mar 14, 06:46 PM

I think we should remove off street parking requirements in the DCC. However, I find it hard to swallow that our development will increase substantially based on the removal of off street parking requirements. Many developers will want to provide parking for their projects if they are to remain attractive to prospective tenants. Tacoma suffers from a variety of conditions that have constrained its ability to capture the commercial office space that Bellevue/Seattle have.

Can someone tell me how come there are so many Retail/Commercial vacancies in the downtown?

Oh, and there will be a huge parking garage next to the old “FUTON” building on Pacific right next to Bryman coming up in the next year.

existing buildings in all of downtown are exempt from parking req.

11 | Posted by snoopy | Mar 14, 09:22 PM

If each parking space takes up 400 square feet and costs $25,000 (typical per-space cost for a multi-level garage constructed in a seismic zone), then a 14-story parking garage costing approximately $24 million would be necessary just to meet the minimum requirements.

There’s alot of articles and studies that address the negative effects of on-onstreet parking and the ability for cities to increase their density.

One great one Morgan sent me is Onsite Parking: The Scourge of Americas Commercial Districts by Mott Smith which graphically shows step by step how off-street parking requirements thwart efforts to density downtowns:

Here’s a great line from the article:

Onsite parking requirements, which have crept into many cities’ laws over the past 50 to 70 years, have sucked the potential out of commercial properties on main streets and in downtowns everywhere. Perhaps more than anything else, rules requiring onsite parking — to be distinguished from “on street” or “offsite” parking — have created the blighted conditions that characterize many older North American commercial districts and boulevards.

Sound familiar?

Many developers will want to provide parking for their projects if they are to remain attractive to prospective tenants.

Yes, parking is still going to be built.

However, it will be built according to the needs and priorities of their residents and tenants, not dictated by the city regardless of the need.

Also, there are some lots downtown, such as the parking lot between Spark Park and the Drake which which need to be infilled.

The building that should be built here is a three or four story building with a continuous retail front right on Pacific Avenue as are the other buildings in the area.

Yet, the current building code would require the first story to be parking requiring two driveways to spill over the sidwalk to satisfy the onerous off-street parking requirement.

12 | Posted by Erik | Mar 14, 10:13 PM

Looks like you convinced Peter Callaghan, at least. Keep up the good work.

13 | Posted by Erik S | Mar 15, 08:15 AM

Does anyone know where in the municipal code I can find the off-street parking requirement and exceptions?

I HATE PDFs for this. Please, Tacoma, if you like, I will put the code online for you. Don’t make me look through a PDF.

14 | Posted by jenyum | Mar 15, 01:37 PM

govme.org

go to document information

go to land use regulatory code

TMC 13.06.510

15 | Posted by snoopy | Mar 15, 05:56 PM

Does anyone know where in the municipal code I can find the off-street parking requirement and exceptions?

Its in a number of places and varies depending on the area.

There are also special requirements for mixed use area as well.

For downtown, see Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 13.06A.

16 | Posted by Erik | Mar 15, 09:26 PM

Looks like you convinced Peter Callaghan, at least. Keep up the good work.

Yes, it was nice to see Callaghan via the TNT make the connection made between the off-street parking requirement and distorted urban design

Perhaps there is an American city that has been damaged more by the blind pursuit of convenient parking than Tacoma. If there is, I certainly do not want to go there. Surface parking lots, parking garages – and their evil cousin, the skybridge – all conspire to suck life from the streets

He even read some of professor Shoup’s material.

There are even those who think – as blasphemous as it sounds – that downtowns might be better off with less parking. Donald Shoup, an economics professor at UCLA who has studied the effects of parking requirements and free parking on downtowns, says it is not an accident that vibrant downtowns have scarce parking.

Hopefully, the 2007 National Main Streets Conference will inspire more people at the city to examine the studies, articles and methods concerning off-street parking and catch up with other cities.

17 | Posted by Erik | Mar 17, 01:15 AM

How is it that the coffee shop Morgan mentioned would require off street parking when Chopstix on 6th Ave went in with maybe 4 spaces and a capacity of 175? There is no car large enought for that car pool!!

18 | Posted by M.W. | Mar 19, 07:21 AM

Let us adopt tried and true 21st century attitudes and get rid of these cumbersome minimum off-street parking regulations.

Nice work Andre, looks like some of Tacoma’s institutions are slowly and surely coming up to speed on the issue including the Chamber today

“Let’s consider elimination of downtown parking requirements only as part of an overall strategy.”

There are certainly other issues that needs to be addressed on parking issues. However, none of them justify delaying removing the off-street parking requirement. No is suggesting at this point limiting the amount of parking being built, only to remove the car centric mandate.

As different tranportation systems are put in Tacoma such as street cars, developers will track the demand for on-street parking and build the appropriate amount of parking based on demand rather than an antiquated mandate that other cities have rejected.

Plus, the downtown building space is very limited and the available space to place substantial buildings is being used up.

19 | Posted by Erik | Mar 25, 01:48 PM

Commenting is closed for this article.

#

#

#